Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403537' date='Oct 16 2007, 08:05 AM']I do argue that an age limit on alcohol falls short of right reason, because it causes really bad attitudes about alcohol which lead to excessive drinking et cetera. Puritanism breeds paganism; and what the state is asking our children to do is grow up puritanically up until the age of 21, and then have alcohol. To live in a puritanical attitude towards alcohol technically, which makes them want to sneak away and have a pagan experience of drinking in secret.

Having authority over our diet? The FDA acceptably may have acceptable authority to make sure all food offered to the market is safe (though, I do have problems with the extent of the FDA's authority, that is irrelevant to the discussion right now...). But that's it, they cannot make laws that regulate anyone's diet, and if they attempted to, I would not follow that law. If they tried to enforce the food pyramid, for example, as something that children had to follow in their diet, I would disregard that law as outside of their proper authority.

Drinking alcohol from childhood to adulthood is a part of Mediteranean cultures, Irish cultures, basically Catholic culture. In fact, disregarding laws of government regulation of alcohol is pretty much a staple of American Catholic culture[/quote]

It's "Puritanism" to have regulations on drugs and alcohol? You realize you're using the EXACT argument that C.S. Lewis refutes in the [i]Screwtape Letters[/i], about how modern culture mockingly labels morality as "puritanical" to justify their behavior. And once again you try to insist that your "Mediteranean" or "Irish" culture or whatever is getting squashed? Did any of those "basically Catholic" cultures have automobiles? Did Aquinas grow up with speeding cars and immature drivers? Nope. You live in a different culture now, with different needs, particularly when it comes to safety.

PLUS, you can drink when you're 21. It's a regulation [u]not a ban[/u]. There is no oppression here. You can't vote till you're 18. You can't drive till you're 16 or 18 (depending on the state). You can't rent a car until you're 21-25. You can't buy a firearm when you're underage. [b]Regulation. Regulation. Regulation.[/b]

[quote]Again, Jesus is NOT making a point about obedience to the law, but about non-resistance. The context of the statement includes those Roman soldiers in the same breath as thieves. Unless you are saying that he is making a point about obeying thieves, this is not about obedience but about non-resistance to those who would do immoral things to you.[/quote]

Since you are normally very eloquent with your posts, I will assume you didn't have much time to reply, because you've offered nothing new here. The burden of proof is on YOU, as someone who wants to disobey the law and the authority of our government. You've shown no evidence from the text to support your theories, which is quite necessary when the historical context renders a literal meaning to be plain.

As I've shown from dissecting Matthew 5, Jesus's audience would have taken his message of submission as a very hard, [u]literal[/u] stance because he used a very [u]literal[/u] example with a situation they were very familiar with. And as we've shown from Corinthians, Paul took even Jesus's message about suing over cloaks to be literal, as well.

NOTE: I've never said anything against the presence of alcohol in our culture. This is not a discussion of prohibition, as others have pointed out. This is a debate about safety [u]regulations[/u].

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403112' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:27 PM']I've heard this implied as well, and I'm all ears to someone documenting such a law. Perhaps it is true, but I've yet to hear anyone prove it, so until then, back to the original discussion... [/quote]

Don't know if this has been listed yet, but [url="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/StateAndLocalLaws/20070914111947.html"]this link[/url] shows a list of states that do allow underage drinking in certain circumstances (ie: under parental supervision) Even so, there are stipulations that said parents cannot give alcohol to underage friends of their children, even with those parents' permission (at least in KY, don't know about in all states).

[Aloysius]

It's a ban on people under 21 drinking, to those people, it is effective puritanism. As I said, we are asking our children to grow up following a puritanical view of alcohol, which breeds the paganism that they so often fall into in secret.

The fact that we have cars only means that we should have regulations to prevent drunk driving, not all out bans on children drinking alcohol. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater based upon sociological statistics is simply contrary to right reason, we should have policies which deal specifically with bad behaviors, we should not ban overarching behaviors; why? because the more we make them taboo in a puritanical fashion (rather than a dynamic fashion based on the possibility of moderation or abstinence based upon what is best for the individual) the more we cause the opposite extreme.

C.S. Lewis did not have alcohol in mind when talking about people who dismiss morality as being puritanical, because he clearly did not consider alcohol drunk in moderation a moral evil. I am not dismissing morality as being puritanical, I am dismissing arbitrary bans for certain ages of people as being puritanical.

I am simply following that passage in its context; Jesus is there asking for non-resistance and generosity in the form of hyperbole, the soldier in that example is no different, necessarily, than the thief. It's a matter of when someone comes up to you and wants to do something unjust to you, the perfect response is one of generosity and submission, turning the other cheek to those who would strike you. The case of the modern state making overarching laws into your private lives has no relevance to that. I would obey a police officer who was in my presence so long as he did not require me to do something immoral; but when it comes to the far-away state, I have more leeway, I am only obliged to follow, in my private life, those things which the state justly exercises its authority over. It does not have authority over my drinking habits. It certainly would have authority to tell me not to drive drunk, that is within right reason; it certainly would have the authority to tell me to drive safely on its roads, I have no problem obeying those laws.

this is not regulations, this is a ban on people under 21 consuming or possessing alcohol. on legal regulations on the sale of alcohol, I may be more willing to acquiesce, but on outright bans on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol by minors, that is outside of the state's authority.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403344' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:54 PM']And what's more, He didn't even say [i]just[/i] to obey the law, He told them to go [u]beyond[/u] what the authority told them to so that, by our example of obedience, we may be an example of Christ.[/quote]
would "going the extra mile" mean paying extra taxes? Because I don't like the idea of New Jersey getting more than the usual 30% of my salary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i second Al's view. but, i note that just regulating drunk dodriving instead of drinking may not solve th eproblem. kids might defy the laws, and if they can drink, they are more likely to.
surely, some would die by allowing consumption but not drunk driving, when those kids who consume decide to drive. if the amount is great, obviously in my mind, we should ban consumption too. but if the amount is small to nill, we dont ban consumption.
if it's in the middle, which is probably the reality of the situation, we have to weigh the freedom to drink v. the fact people will die because our laws allow consumption. it's a gray area.
but, i may be wrong as to how mnay would die, and an empiracle study would be beneficial.

[ardillacid]

I support drinking age laws. The stupid kids get caught and punished. The smart ones don't. Its nature's way of weeding out the weak.

edit for grammar.

Edited October 16, 2007 by notardillacid

[RandomProddy]

Yes. At least in the UK under certain circumstances (legally, that is. In reality.... erm.... it's a little different)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403554' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:07 AM']It's a ban on people under 21 drinking, to those people, it is effective puritanism. As I said, we are asking our children to grow up following a puritanical view of alcohol, which breeds the paganism that they so often fall into in secret.

The fact that we have cars only means that we should have regulations to prevent drunk driving, not all out bans on children drinking alcohol. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater based upon sociological statistics is simply contrary to right reason, we should have policies which deal specifically with bad behaviors, we should not ban overarching behaviors; why? because the more we make them taboo in a puritanical fashion (rather than a dynamic fashion based on the possibility of moderation or abstinence based upon what is best for the individual) the more we cause the opposite extreme.

C.S. Lewis did not have alcohol in mind when talking about people who dismiss morality as being puritanical, because he clearly did not consider alcohol drunk in moderation a moral evil. I am not dismissing morality as being puritanical, I am dismissing arbitrary bans for certain ages of people as being puritanical.

I am simply following that passage in its context; Jesus is there asking for non-resistance and generosity in the form of hyperbole, the soldier in that example is no different, necessarily, than the thief. It's a matter of when someone comes up to you and wants to do something unjust to you, the perfect response is one of generosity and submission, turning the other cheek to those who would strike you. The case of the modern state making overarching laws into your private lives has no relevance to that. I would obey a police officer who was in my presence so long as he did not require me to do something immoral; but when it comes to the far-away state, I have more leeway, I am only obliged to follow, in my private life, those things which the state justly exercises its authority over. It does not have authority over my drinking habits. It certainly would have authority to tell me not to drive drunk, that is within right reason; it certainly would have the authority to tell me to drive safely on its roads, I have no problem obeying those laws.

this is not regulations, this is a ban on people under 21 consuming or possessing alcohol. on legal regulations on the sale of alcohol, I may be more willing to acquiesce, but on outright bans on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol by minors, that is outside of the state's authority.[/quote]
I think the problem comes in with things like a party where a bunch of young, underaged kids are served alcohol, get drunk and engage in destructive behaviors, maybe even resulting in death. Who is to be held responsible?
It's not such a cut-and-dry case of "good Catholic culture" vs. "Evil Puritanism."
And again, alchohol being responsibly served to minors at a family meal will generally not be affected by such laws. It's not like cops regularly stake out to monitor the family dinner table (presuming nothing else illegal is going on).

[XIX]

You could claim that alcohol in family cases is theoretically legal, as an unwritten law so to speak. We have basically rendered it legal for a kid to have a bit of alcohol with the family by never really nailing anyone for doing so.

I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='XIX' post='1404073' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:07 PM']I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.[/quote]

Fyi, it actually [i]is[/i] legal to go within 5 MPH of the speed limit. Penalties do not start until after 5 MPH in either direction (you could actually get a ticket for going too slow if it was deemed a hazard to other drivers).

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='XIX' post='1404073' date='Oct 17 2007, 01:07 AM']I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.[/quote]
Actually, it depends on the time of the month. If you're in New Jersey and it's the end of the month, the cops are trying to fulfill their ticket quotas and you may still get pulled over. NJ cops are very zealous about enforcing traffic laws.

[Aloysius]

Should the law be in place? Maybe. I don't know, I understand the reasoning for having it in place to catch the kids who do it irresponsibly.

Are we obligated to follow it in our private lives? Not necessarily, because it becomes an overreaching of the government's authority when applied there.

I agree with treating situations in which you would not get caught, but are doing it responsibly, as being "legal", like in a family setting, or with parental permission, or in private, so long as it is done responsibly.

but the fact is that in many states, such as PA, even the family setting is technically illegal. You justify disregarding that law on the basis that it is not enforced or enforceable, I justify it on the basis that it is not within the authority of the government to forbid such practices.

But the government may go and protect public safety by stopping minors from running around drunk. I think if it were possible for minors to purchase and/or drink in plain sight, it'd be easier to regulate that and treat them for crimes of public drunkenness or attempting to drive drunk rather than just villainize the drinking in and of itself.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403546' date='Oct 16 2007, 11:44 AM']PLUS, you can drink when you're 21. It's a regulation [u]not a ban[/u]. There is no oppression here. You can't vote till you're 18. You can't drive till you're 16 or 18 (depending on the state). You can't rent a car until you're 21-25. You can't buy a firearm when you're underage.[/quote]

Never heard that some states don't let you drive until 18... is that true? It's as low as 14 is some agricultural states.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1403553' date='Oct 16 2007, 12:06 PM']Don't know if this has been listed yet, but [url="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/StateAndLocalLaws/20070914111947.html"]this link[/url] shows a list of states that do allow underage drinking in certain circumstances (ie: under parental supervision) Even so, there are stipulations that said parents cannot give alcohol to underage friends of their children, even with those parents' permission (at least in KY, don't know about in all states).[/quote]

Now, that is interesting. It says underage drinking is permitted in Kentucky and a number of other states, so that stipulation you're talking about must be in the fine print.

Let's say one were to buy a drink for an underage person... from the way that link reads, in Kentucky there is nothing illegal about that.