Poll: age limit for drinking alcohol

[JJM 777]

Many discussers seem to assume that only two options exist in the world: never drink any alcohol at all, or daily get totally drunk.

Majority of alcohol consumption happens in circumstances and with motives where it would be more correct to call it "a refreshing beverage" than "drug use".

 

[Rolfe]

Since the poll said nothing about the drinking being unsupervised, I went for 12. That's the transition from primary to secondary school, old enough to behave in a civilised manner if properly instructed. For want of a better answer, it's a reasonable age to allow parents to begin to introduce a growing young person to alcohol.

I just don't see why this reasonable behaviour should be criminalised because some dysfunctional families will let pre-teens get wasted. They'll do that anyway, whatever age you set.

Rolfe.

 

[JJM 777]

So we are the two who voted 12 so far.

 

[Rolfe]

I think many countries have a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol, and in trying to rein in the damage they criminalise what should be normal behaviour.

I was brought up by parents who virtually didn't drink at all. My mother occasionally had a sherry at a wedding. I remember her shocked reaction when she asked me where I'd got the glass of orange juice I was drinking at the interval in an opera we were attending together, and I confessed I'd gone up to the bar for it (I was about 15 I think). A bar wasn't something any nice girl should even approach. Normally, drinking alcohol was tut-tutted at. But even they let me have a small amount of Advocaat in a lot of lemonade at New Year. I wasn't really aware it was alcoholic at the time.

Now, I drink the occasional glass of wine. I don't have any particular urge to drink any more than that. I just don't think criminalising the consumption of the stuff does any good at all. Put the price up, and criminalise the selling of it to minors, but I can't see why parents who like a glass of wine with dinner should be criminalised for giving a small glass to a young teenager.

I've read suggestions that the further north you live, the more dysfunctional your national relationship with booze. The less people are inclined to have a civilised glass or two with dinner, and the more they are inclined to go out and get wasted on cheap whisky. I don't know if that's been proven, but if it has it would be very interesting to know why.

Rolfe.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's because there only are observational studies, mostly from US data where the age went up. The NZ study is the only one example of concrete lowering drinking age legislation, but their analysis is flawed (as I mentioned in the other thread). The last example you posted compares a few drinking related numbers of US vs other jurisdictions, and comes up with a nonconclusion from a really rudimentary descriptive statistics analysis.

Well, I still think they are slightly better than "this is how it was when I grew up and it seemed fine" or "I'm sure kids will always drink and drive no matter what" . I'm not beholden to them, but I find it odd that no one has tried posting anything beyond personal musing.

 

[Jorghnassen]

When I was 9, we went on a family trip to jolly old England and Scotland. Our visit to Scotland was on a tour bus, where we'd return to the same hotel, in Inverness if memory serves, every evening, and we'd have breakfast and supper at the hotel restaurant. We're of course French speakers, and my parents drink alcohol. Apparently, every time my parents ordered wine for themselves, the waiters and waitresses would comment/ask that my parents not share the alcohol with us kids (they had no intention of doing such thing in the first place). Apparently, drinking alcohol in the presence of children was an alien concept. Or they thought we were from France and believed they start drinking at a much earlier age than they actually do (my brothers were 6 and 11 at the time).

We went later on a family trip to Sweden, my older brother was now 17 and enjoyed a beer with his meal sometimes. In restaurants in Québec, with the parents around, no one minded. So he tried to order a beer with lunch in Sweden, like my parents, who had no objection. The waiter said he'd have to ask for ID. My brother had to settle for a coke which is cheaper anyway. Other funny story on that note: in Québec, the legal drinking age is often joked to be just a suggestion, and IDs are only asked of those who look 14 or under, during Frosh at McGill (Americans can't hold their liquor and behave like 14 y.o. when discovering alcohol) or in places like the Concorde rotating restaurant in Québec City. A bunch of acquaintances when I was a teenager, they were 16-17, went there. They just wanted a beer with their meal to feel "cool" (not inebriated). The waiter asked for IDs, then they found out why: Coke was 5$ a glass, beer was 4$.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Well, I still think they are slightly better than "this is how it was when I grew up and it seemed fine" or "I'm sure kids will always drink and drive no matter what" . I'm not beholden to them, but I find it odd that no one has tried posting anything beyond personal musing.

Few jurisdictions care that much about changing the drinking age, especially down, so they're be few studies on the subject in the first place. From the community health point of view of course, raising the legal drinking age is a simple to implement measure that will have a clear effect across the board, and there is data on that, thanks to lobbying and legislation in the US for the last 40-50 years.

But it may not be the optimal solution in all circumstances, as demonstrated by the college drinking culture in the US. But it would be hard to get funding and ethical approval to do some sort of nonobservational study on lowering the drinking age. The best you can do is case studies, as with the New Zealand link you have, or essay like this book, where the author visited a number of campuses across the US plus McGill in Canada, where drinking is much less of an issue. The legal drinking age is just one factor in that difference, and cultural attitudes are tougher to change. But they do, thanks to advertizing campaigns and initiatives other than going the "easy" way of changing the legal drinking age. Drunk driving and US culture spawned MADD and its tough abstinence and legislative approach, drunk driving and Québec culture spawned Éduc'alcool and Opération Nez Rouge, both about education and other options for transport when one does chose to drink. All these approaches have their merits and limitations. Insurance costs in the US would make Opération Nez Rouge practically impossible to implement there, while Québec "no fault" insurance allows to keep operating cost for this kind of endeavour manageable. So societal drinking problems can be dealt with by other means than playing around the legal drinking age, and there is data on that. It's just tougher to measure, because other approaches take longer to have a measurable impact, and by that time, you can just say "it's the culture".

 

[JJM 777]

Some Belgian schools serve up to 2,4% beer to pupils of elementary school:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_27_52/ai_77337321/
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Table_Beer#History_of_Table_Beer
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/table-beer-schools-belgium-uk-293725/

These Belgians are close to my thoughts about beer. With lower alcohol content school students can be introduced to positive and moderate ways of using alcohol.

 

[Dragoonster]

People living in poverty can magically improve their situation by not drinking alcohol; alcoholic beverages tend to be expensive, so not drinking them saves them a lot of money.

Bottom-dollar alcohol would cost $5 a day to get wasted. So, $150 saved a month is a magical improvement? Gets them out of poverty?

People with severe psychological afflictions can often improve those afflictions by not drinking alcohol, and if that is not enough not drinking alcohol at least makes it possible for them to use psycho-pharmaceuticals to deal with their afflictions.

Yeah. When did I say "often"? I thought I'd said "some". Is it your position that every single person in the world can improve their psychological affliction simply by not drinking alcohol?

Oh, I forgot that you mentioned "psycho-pharmeceuticals". Which of course cost no money and are 100% effective (?)

That leaves humans who work 70 hour weeks, who can magically improve their situation by working less than 70 hours a week, and not drinking alcohol.

"Si, you are working 70 hours a week in your Chinese coal mine. Why don't you just stop working 70 hours a week?"

"Mustafa, you are working 70 hours a week in Burkina Faso, why don't you just stop?"

"Well, uh...my family will die if I don't because I will not be able to buy food for them. I mean, duh."

"But, you should obviously be able to work only 60 hours a week if you don't buy alcohol, which you are using all your additional 10 hours pay for!"

"Yeah...60 hours a week would be heaven. I'd surely be happy at home with "only" that. Definitely would take that rather than working an extra 10 hours and being able to take my mental pain away with alcohol every night. THANK YOU, WESTERNER, WHO HAS BEEN IN MY SITUATION!"

 

[Earthborn]

Bottom-dollar alcohol would cost $5 a day to get wasted. So, $150 saved a month is a magical improvement? Gets them out of poverty?

For poor people, $150 dollars a month is a huge difference and makes them substantially less poor. If they can save that amount, not only do they stop being poor, but they start getting rich.

Is it your position that every single person in the world can improve their psychological affliction simply by not drinking alcohol?

Every single person with psychiatric problems can make stop making their psychiatric problems worse by not drinking alcohol.

Which of course cost no money and are 100% effective (?)

Those do cost money, but are quite likely covered by some sort of insurance or government plan. Those are not 100% effective, but are substantially less effective -- even dangerous -- when taken together with alcohol.

"Si, you are working 70 hours a week in your Chinese coal mine. Why don't you just stop working 70 hours a week?"

"Mustafa, you are working 70 hours a week in Burkina Faso, why don't you just stop?"

Strange examples. I am pretty sure someone working 70 hours in a Chinese coal mine is not allowed to drink alcohol, because that is the sort of thing that causes accidents. He likely has no access to alcohol, because he spends most of his time underground, where any mining company worth its salt forbids alcohol. "Mustafa" in Burkina Faso likely doesn't drink alcohol because of his religion and would not have easy access to it either.

For both of them, a difference in income of $150 a month is a huge deal, but I think that if they were offered the chance to work less than 70 hours a week, they would take it.

Definitely would take that rather than working an extra 10 hours and being able to take my mental pain away with alcohol every night.

Alcohol doesn't take away mental pain, and if one drinks to try to do so, they have a drinking problem.

 

[Damien Evans]

There shouldn't be an age that one needs to be to 'drink' alcohol. As a child, and now as a parent, I've had and have allowed my children to have very small amounts of wine, for example, at special meals and such.

There should be a limit as to how old you need to be to purchase alcohol, and I think this should be 18. As parents, we should have the say in when our children can partake.

This.

 

[Roboramma]

I generally don't drink alcohol: the last time I had a drink was over chinese new year (February) when I met my family at the grand canyon.

But I certainly enjoyed having a few beers with my dad and brother. We hadn't seen each other in years and the beers seemed to act as a social lubricant, getting my generally quiet father to start talking and shifting the conversation away from my brother's obsessions.

I generally find that drinking alcohol takes time, and makes me a little more tired the next day, even if only a couple of beers, and I'd rather have more energy for the things I want to work on and the things I want to enjoy, but from time to time I find it valuable.

Would the world be a better place without it? That's an interesting question, but it's not one I except we'll be able to answer here.

As for the OP: I agree with the many posters who suggest parental discretion, though I voted for 16 years old.

 

[Roboramma]

"Parental discretion" is a slippery slope. There are many parents without any discretion whatsoever. Thousands of parents in the world give vodka to a 0 yrs old baby, to get them stop crying. Millions of mothers get their unborn fetus intoxicated by drinking while pregnant. Thousands of parents have sex with their children. Millions of parents circumcize their daughters. All this is "parental discretion".

This suggests that it is such irresponsible behaviors that we should deal with, rather than alcohol consumption itself. A mother gives vodka to her baby to stop it from crying? Prosecute her for endangering the life of her child, just as you would if she used some other drug, or some other dangerous approach to stopping it from crying.

There's no danger of, if it is legal for parents to give alcohol to their children, there being no way to prosecute, for instance, mothers who kill their children through alcohol poisoning.

 

[angrysoba]

If my wife was pregnant I'd let her drink so that our fetus would grow up to learn how to handle booze in moderation. Of course, if it got brain-damaged in the meantime I think it would be fine before the first trimester.

 

[Dragoonster]

For poor people, $150 dollars a month is a huge difference and makes them substantially less poor. If they can save that amount, not only do they stop being poor, but they start getting rich.

No. $150 a month isn't a big change. To poor people. $150 savings on not buying alchohol will not get them started to richness.You are speaking from idealist theory.

Those do cost money, but are quite likely covered by some sort of insurance or government plan.

LOL. Even in America this is not so. And so much more not so in other countries.

Just to check/verify on your own--you should go into an ER and request a prescription for a drug that would make you not drink alcohol. And you demand that it doesn't cost any more than actual alcohol costs you per month. And let's just say that no, you don't have "insurance", which costs money. Let me know how that experiment goes.

Those are not 100% effective, but are substantially less effective -- even dangerous -- when taken together with alcohol.

Definitly dangerous. Drugs that help people overcome their problems are often counterindicated with alcohol. Drugs that help people overcome their problems are also often much more expensive than alcohol.

Strange examples. I am pretty sure someone working 70 hours in a Chinese coal mine is not allowed to drink alcohol, because that is the sort of thing that causes accidents. He likely has no access to alcohol, because he spends most of his time underground, where any mining company worth its salt forbids alcohol. "Mustafa" in Burkina Faso likely doesn't drink alcohol because of his religion and would not have easy access to it either.

Yep. The Chinese coal mine overseers care solely about accident-preventions. Chinese mining companies are also clearly "worth their salt", as they care so much for their workers. (have you any idea of Chinese mining?)

Yep. Mustafa in Burkina Faso is a Muslim, so of course he's forbidden to drink alcohol. All Muslims adhere absolutely to the Koran and never, ever wander. There are no Muslims that drink alcohol, ever. If a person in a majority Islam community even looks at the Koran, he is absolutely bound by it.

For both of them, a difference in income of $150 a month is a huge deal, but I think that if they were offered the chance to work less than 70 hours a week, they would take it.

That's $150 American per month. This not only is not enough to impact some American alcoholics, but is also way less money/month for other countries.

Alcohol doesn't take away mental pain, and if one drinks to try to do so, they have a drinking problem.

They absolutely do have a drinking problem. And yet alcohol does take away mental pain, for some. Two things can be true at the same time.

 

[Puppycow]

My dad let me sip his beer when I was about 7.

I'm not sure if the poll means that, or whether you can buy it in a store.

 

[davefoc]

So we are the two who voted 12 so far.

Since the poll said nothing about the drinking being unsupervised, I went for 12. That's the transition from primary to secondary school, old enough to behave in a civilised manner if properly instructed. For want of a better answer, it's a reasonable age to allow parents to begin to introduce a growing young person to alcohol.

I just don't see why this reasonable behaviour should be criminalised because some dysfunctional families will let pre-teens get wasted. They'll do that anyway, whatever age you set.

Rolfe.

I think parents should have discretion on this and the only at home use restrictions I might favor would be some rules that restricted consumption by children to relatively small amounts. I don't propose to make it legal to get your children seriously inebriated, although that situation might be better handled by general rules against child endangerment.

I decided that 7 was the best choice to indicate my view on that although a weakly enforced 12 would be ok with me also.

My dad let me sip his beer when I was about 7.

I'm not sure if the poll means that, or whether you can buy it in a store.

I wasn't sure what the poll meant with regard to that either. If we're talking public consumption like in a restaurant I think 12 feels about right. If we're talking unsupervised purchase 16 or maybe 18 would be ok with me.

A little story that I've told before in this forum:

We had taken our 14 year old on a trip to France, UK and Ireland. In France I rather enjoyed that our daughter could join us with a glass of wine at dinner. When we went to England, we assumed that the situation would be the same and we sat down in what looked to us like a family style pub. The guy asked us to leave because our daughter wasn't old enough. Fast forward to Ireland: We sat down in a restaurant and asked the waiter what the Irish drinking age was. He said 18 and I said that I guess my daughter couldn't have a glass of wine. He said absolutely not, a glass of wine would be fine. What did we think? That they had a bunch of alcohol police all over the place in Ireland?

 

[gabeygoat]

I voted for 7, but really, I think it should be 3, because drunk toddlers are hilarious.

 

[davefoc]

I voted for 7, but really, I think it should be 3, because drunk toddlers are hilarious.

Of course, if the toddler is hilarious drunk that should override any child endangerment issues.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I voted 18 for unsupervised drinking, but think there should be room for parental discretion (under supervision) at lower ages.