Legal for Minors to Drink in a Bar in Wisconsin (with Parent present)

[Freedom 4 all]

Drinking for me lost a lot of its fun the day when I became legal.

 

[WRellim]

... but it's perfectly ok for the doctors to give the kids powerful stimulant drugs and antipsychotics to settle them down and get them "under control" without parental supervision (ie at school)...

And for it to even be FORCED when the child themselves do not WANT to take the (so called) "medication" for a "disease" (so called) which they do not believe they have, and which cannot be objectively (scientifically) demonstrated that they do (since there are ZERO lab tests for the whole "chemical imbalance theory" baloney) -- especially since it essentially labels them as "mentally defective" for life (so much for that vaunted "self-esteem").

Heck, give a kid a beer, or have him smoke a doobie or two per day (a heckuva lot cheaper than prescription meds) and he just might be a lot more relaxed and "settled down" in school!

And happy about it as well!

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Want to make something a restrict? Commodity it.

What?

 

[GivePeace_A_Chance]

Hopefully it spreads

 

[DamianTV]

The entire problem with this is it PROMOTES BINGE DRINKING.

Teaching someone how the effects of alcohol work on you and not restricting its usage based on age or substance teaches children personal responsibility. Teaching someone that they cant drink at all teaches many (not all) to drink as much as possible in a short ammt of time as possible.

 

[James Madison]

The entire problem with this is it PROMOTES BINGE DRINKING.

Teaching someone how the effects of alcohol work on you and not restricting its usage based on age or substance teaches children personal responsibility. Teaching someone that they cant drink at all teaches many (not all) to drink as much as possible in a short ammt of time as possible.

That's why the laws are in place. The powers that be take advantage of well-meaning idiots like MADD and the social conservatives to get the drug laws in place. Of course, making something illegal does nothing but create a black market and fuel even more abuse of the substance. Then the government can claim that not enough power has been consolidated to appropriately address the problem, thus allowing even MORE centralization which in-turn increases abuse still further.. in reality one begets the other, so to speak. But people who abuse drugs do so to give their meaningless and empty lives at least some type of substance, a void which government can also fill. That's why a lot of the youth have been so motivated (and manipulated) by Obama...they want to feel that they belong to something, something that can give their life an ounce of substance.

 

[Knightskye]

That's why the laws are in place. The powers that be take advantage of well-meaning idiots like MADD and the social conservatives to get the drug laws in place. Of course, making something illegal does nothing but create a black market and fuel even more abuse of the substance. Then the government can claim that not enough power has been consolidated to appropriately address the problem, thus allowing even MORE centralization which in-turn increases abuse still further.. in reality one begets the other, so to speak. But people who abuse drugs do so to give their meaningless and empty lives at least some type of substance, a void which government can also fill. That's why a lot of the youth have been so motivated (and manipulated) by Obama...they want to feel that they belong to something, something that can give their life an ounce of substance.

Quoted for truth.

(Whenever I try to just put "QFT", it puts all the letters in lower-case.

 

[Wendi]

Funny, there was a lot of drinking going on at a few local Ron Paul meetups, and I don't remember anyone ever getting carded

 

[Knightskye]

Drinking for me lost a lot of its fun the day when I became legal.

Exactly.

Now if only we could legalize other things.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Countries in Europe which allow kids to start drinking in public at younger ages and have looser societal constraints on drinking also have the higher rates of alcoholism in adults. If you think this is a desirable thing, then by all means, lower alcohol restrictions in this country.
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_lifestyle/alcohol/index_en.htm

Alcohol is a key public health and social concern across the Community. Europe has the highest proportion of drinkers in the world, the highest levels of alcohol consumption per population and a high level of alcohol-related harm. The consequences of this include a considerable number of fatalities on EU roads, a broad social impact such as violence, hooliganism, crime, family problems and social exclusion, as well as low productivity at work. Alcohol is responsible for the premature death and disability of 12% of males and 2% of females in the EU.

 

[Knightskye]

Countries in Europe which allow kids to start drinking in public at younger ages and have looser societal constraints on drinking also have the higher rates of alcoholism in adults. If you think this is a desirable thing, then by all means, lower alcohol restrictions in this country.
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_lifestyle/alcohol/index_en.htm

People are going to drink no matter what. There would be less crime with fewer restrictions.

 

[Mini-Me]

People are going to drink no matter what. There would be less crime with fewer restrictions.

Yup. Besides, every individual human being is sovereign over their own body, and no government or collective has a right to prevent kids from drinking. Since kids are dependent upon their parents for survival, the parents have every right to use their own discretion regarding whether their kids are mature enough to handle alcohol (and in what amounts). Alcoholism rates, whatever they may be, are hardly a valid excuse to undermine individual liberty. Besides, the statistic that ZippyJuan cited says nothing about causation, because researchers are hardly able to isolate the variables involved. For instance, if I lived in the EU and had to deal with their tax rates and other governmental bullshit from on high, I might be more likely to become an alcoholic as well.

 

[Zippyjuan]

More info on alcohol impact in Europe:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/

Dr Peter Anderson, the report’s lead author, who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and addiction. ‘You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug…. But when you talk about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less powerful’ (1).

The draft report doesn’t mince its words when it comes to estimating the social harms of alcohol. ‘The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco.’ (2) The report further highlights the broader social cost of drinking, with the proviso that ‘these estimates are subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol’.

‘The intangible costs show the value people place on pain, suffering and lost life that occurs due to the criminal, social and health harms caused by alcohol’, says the report. ‘In 2003 these were estimated to be €270bn, with other ways of valuing the same harms producing estimates between €150bn and €760bn.’

http://alcohol-statistics-in-europe.own69.com/alcohol_in_teens/

An alcohol researcher at the University of the West of England, said that "people as young as 20s are currently dying of alcohol-related liver disease, and even teens are developing it".

Irish Minister of State, speaking about his own country, captured the European inclination: "People used to drink for pleasure, but now many teens are drinking to get plastered. The teens that are provided with alcohol at home are less expected to do the heaviest types of drinking" he said.

Also, contrary to some beliefs, the stricter control of consumption of alcohol in teens in America has not translated into a "forbidden fruit" type mentality where American teens drink more and experience more problems than other countries that have a weaker control on alcohol sales and consumption.

Alcohol statistics in Europe say that teens coming from homes that had no alcohol and were not taught how to drink responsibly had more issues with alcohol. Also, 33% of the teens who said that they bought their own alcohol, were six times more likely to drink in a public space, 3 times more likely to drink frequently and twice as likely to overindulge on alcohol. The behavior in these teens was less risky if parents allowed them to drink in the home.

Amongst the imposed measures that had an effect is a legal drinking age which has substantially reduced drinking by teens. As a direct result, it reduces drinking-related injuries amongst teens, but also the risk of alcohol abuse and dependence later in life. Thus, having a legal drinking age has greatly reduced consumption of alcohol in teens.

Another alcohol related problem in Europe is binge drinking. Alcohol statistics in Europe did recently reveal that binge drinking is a current problem among teens. This is because legal drinking age in Europe is mostly 18. A possible solution is to extend the teen alcohol drinking limit until they are 21 years of age. Recent alcohol statistics have shown that binge drinking has decreased by 12 percent when 21 was adopted as the legal drinking age in some countries. The United States Department of Transportation also concluded that imposing a minimum drinking age law, by itself, has played an important role in reducing both teen drinking and driving after drinking.

A member of the European Health Department said that they are currently working with the alcohol industry to persuade the responsible production and sale of alcohol in teens.

 

[free_mail]

Countries in Europe which allow kids to start drinking in public at younger ages and have looser societal constraints on drinking also have the higher rates of alcoholism in adults. If you think this is a desirable thing, then by all means, lower alcohol restrictions in this country.
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_lifestyle/alcohol/index_en.htm

Who gives you the right to regulate whether a person can or cannot be an alcoholic? That is not my responsibility nor is it the Governments.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Who gives an alcoholic the right to harm somebody else? Is it wrong for a society to try to reduce behavior which negatively impacts the rest of its members? If alcoholism only effected the alcoholic you would have a point. But if others end up paying for the actions of alcoholics then it becomes society's issue. Among these costs:

Alcohol statistics
UK spends £25bn a year on drink
About 40% of violent crime is alcohol-related.
There are about 5,000 "glassings" each year
About 90% of the UK drinks alcohol
Drunken offenders are responsible for 40% of violent crime, over three quarters of all assaults and 88% of criminal damage cases, according to government figures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/863939.stm
(Figures for the UK in the year 2000)

 

[Mini-Me]

Who gives an alcoholic the right to harm somebody else? Is it wrong for a society to try to reduce behavior which negatively impacts the rest of its members? If alcoholism only effected the alcoholic you would have a point. But if others end up paying for the actions of alcoholics then it becomes society's issue. Among these costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/863939.stm
(Figures for the UK in the year 2000)

Rather than the comments you bolded, a better and more substantiated quote from the passage you pasted would be:

Alcohol statistics in Europe say that teens coming from homes that had no alcohol and were not taught how to drink responsibly had more issues with alcohol. Also, 33% of the teens who said that they bought their own alcohol, were six times more likely to drink in a public space, 3 times more likely to drink frequently and twice as likely to overindulge on alcohol. The behavior in these teens was less risky if parents allowed them to drink in the home.

This is something that research can indeed scientifically demonstrate (and it's really just plain common sense). In contrast, the comments you bolded, as well as the subsequent mention of the Department of Transportation's findings, were much more speculative, because they're running comparisons with too many uncontrolled variables and pretending as though they isolated the legal drinking age...hardly scientific. However, I'm not really here to argue empirical data or government statistics, because they're both completely beside the point.

To answer your question, nothing gives an alcholic the right to harm somebody else, for the same reason that nothing gives a non-alcoholic the right to harm somebody else. Human beings must always be held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they were intoxicated or not...the price paid by victims is also a reason why the criminal justice system needs to refocus on doing its best to compensate victims rather than settle the perpetrator's score with "society," by the way. Society is comprised of individuals who have rights to have their own life, liberty, and property respected - which obviously contradicts the supposed "right" of the collective to gang up and make arbitrary rules that infringe on someone else's liberty because the exercise thereof might lead them to become intoxicated and make stupid decisions which might lead them to make aggressive/criminal decisions. In other words, it is only the violent crime itself that should be illegal, not every step that someone might take in their life that might make them more prone to violent crime (or accidents from recklessness), such as drinking. Accepting any other system means that you do not believe individual liberty is a right whatsoever: Instead, you must necessarily believe that individual liberty is at best a "good guideline" which can be overridden by any arbitrary concern that some particular group of people might have.

If you're arguing that the government or some collective majority should be permitted to make arbitrary decisions restricting individual liberty for the "overall safety" of society, your same argument could be used to justify any and every state intrusion on individual liberty for "our own good" and the good of "society."

 

[danberkeley]

Imagine if the headline read, "Legal for Minors to Have Sex in a Bar in Wisconsin (with Parent present)" LD

 

[Danke]

Nothing gives an alcholic the right to harm somebody else, for the same reason that nothing gives a non-alcoholic the right to harm somebody else. Human beings must always be held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they were intoxicated or not...the price paid by victims is also a reason why the criminal justice system needs to refocus on doing its best to compensate victims rather than settle the perpetrator's score with "society," by the way. Society is comprised of individuals who have rights to have their own life, liberty, and property respected - which obviously contradicts the supposed "right" of the collective to gang up and make arbitrary rules that infringe on someone else's liberty because the exercise thereof might lead them to become intoxicated and make stupid decisions which might lead them to make aggressive/criminal decisions. In other words, it is only the violent crime itself that should be illegal, not every step that someone might take in their life that might make them more prone to violent crime (or accidents from recklessness), such as drinking. Accepting any other system means that you do not believe individual liberty is a right whatsoever: Instead, you must necessarily believe that individual liberty is at best a "good guideline" which can be overridden by any arbitrary concern that some particular group of people might have.

If you're arguing that the government or some collective majority should be permitted to make arbitrary decisions restricting individual liberty for the "overall safety" of society, your same argument could be used to justify any and every state intrusion on individual liberty for "our own good" and the good of "society."

+1

 

[Pete]

In Ohio, a parent can serve their own child alcohol in a bar or restaurant. I like OH when it comes to parents' rights.

I am a very occasional drinker myself, probably no more than a dozen drinks per year though I am thinking of taking up a glass of red wine per day for health reasons. My practice with the children was to give them sips so they would know what it tastes like, but discouraged drinking until legal. Most binged a little when they hit drinking age, then cut back and are responsible about it. It worked out.

I have some relatives who were 'cool' parents and hosted heavy drinking parties for their kids. The kids turned into big partiers, didn't do well at school, etc.

 

[Knightskye]

Who gives an alcoholic the right to harm somebody else?

Nothing gives you the right to harm someone else. But you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Individual liberty. If you interfere with someone else's liberty, then there are consequences.