Suicide Bombers Have Less Fun
An interesting comment from JanK in Copenhagen, on The Binge Drinking Age, a post about college presidents who were campaigning against the 21-year-old drinking age:
When I was young, I believed that our cultures were a rather close, but as I have explained on my blog, there is a huge difference when it comes to alcohol. Here in Denmark youth can purchase alcohol on their own once they turn 16. The state gives them a ID-card so they can prove their age in shops. Also parents introduce their child to alcohol during the confirmation as it has been a tradition for more than 200 years. We can see that this approach save lives. The youth are very aware of the dangers once they can drive a car and as result of this we have very few cases of DUI if you compare it to the US.Our biggest problem right now are youth who choose not to drink for religious reasons. Due to their decision they are kept out of our social circles because they are a potential threat. If you ask your service men in Iraq if they ever have seen a drunk suicide bomber their answer would be no. We don't like to be blown to pieces either so we stay away from sober youth and right now it is also the same circle who are conducting drive-by shootings in Copenhagen. Some of this fraction who don't to be violent choose to enter our continuation schools called "efterskole" in Denmark - schools we use instead of juvenile detention centers voluntary. They cannot cope with freedom and the right to choose their path in life. I simply don't understand why a state can have a social host law and such a high agelimit for alcohol consumption when we knows what makes our country safe.
JanK explains "social hosting laws" in the linked blog item above:
What an odd thing - social hosting laws I was surfing around when I discovered this term.Apparently parents can be punished for serving alcohol in their own home to minors, which is defined as people aged below 21. People who are allowed to drive, to be a soldier in a war but no to drink.
...minors, which is defined as people aged below 21. People who are allowed to drive, to be a soldier in a war but no to drink.
Here's an interesting counter-point to that argument:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128200.html
Conan the Grammarian at February 5, 2009 8:24 AM
We will never have a deficit of people willing to run the lives of others.
MarkD at February 5, 2009 10:31 AM
Note: I believe, and have argued for years, that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, with tight enforcement of the 18-year age minimum in regards to any purchase of alcohol. I believe parents should be free to serve alcohol (within reason - i.e. not enough to cause them to pass out in a drunken coma) to their own children in their own homes. HOWEVER, I do not think that parents should be serving alcohol to OTHER people's minor children in their own homes, because those children aren't theirs. I think this holds true *whatever* the drinking age is (okay, okay, not if the drinking age is raised to 30, but you get my point). Even if "social hosting" for minors wasn't illegal, parents would be opening themselves up to an immense amount of liability. What if one of the kids doesn't seem drunk, but sneaks out to a car and hits someone on the way home? What if one of the kids gets drunk more quickly than expected and passes out? Etc. Serve alcohol to your own teenagers, but let other parents handle their kids in their own way. Denying 17-year-olds a glass of wine may be silly, but it doesn't constitute abuse.
marion at February 5, 2009 2:40 PM
It's not just serving teens that gets you liability. Anyone who gets tipsy off alcohol you provide and does something dumb to themselves or others has a case against you, and their victims may too. This was lesson #1 in bartending school-do not overserve!
momof3 at February 5, 2009 5:22 PM
I saw the link in the first remark and while I dont drink for religious reason and I am living in Denmark, I dont buy for a minute that a high limit for alcohol consumption can save lives on roads.
You have seen the Paris Hilton generation partying and because they have not been allowed to act out while they were teens and without access to a car, they are doing it now where they can drive. They still live like they cannot die. Once people create families and have children, they change their path.
How old was your previous president when he got a conviction for DUI? How old was Paris Hilton when she got her sentence?
I believe that youth should be tempted by the devil, so they can mature fast in a world where every single celeb almost need to have done time in rehab to succeed. This is the message they are selling to our children: Do drugs once you are an adult, go to rehab, be forgiven, be successful!
In Denmark I have seen children down to about 10 under influence of alcohol and while it is not a pretty sight, I cannot see how the number of inpatient treatment for alcohol-addiction be even remotely close to the number you can show in the state. Not the number of DUI-related accidents either.
I believe in our present system. I support lowering the limit to 15 as school masters in Denmark have suggested. I really think that it is your strategy that needs a wake-up call.
fatima at February 6, 2009 3:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/05/suicide_bombers.html#comment-1625232">comment from fatimaI was allowed alcohol from the time I was a kid (Jewish family) and my father always offered us stuff to drink if he was drinking it. Never wanted it, tasted bad. No allure, not forbidden. Also, when I wanted to experiment with getting drunk, I did it when I went to a wedding with my parents. I knew they wouldn't be mad. In fact, my dad thought it was funny and made fun of me for getting sick. I didn't drink another glass of anything until I was in my late 20s. I can take weeks and weeks to go through a bottle of wine I have in my house. (Gregg got me one of those winesavers.)
Amy Alkon
at February 6, 2009 6:51 AM
Correction: "...Even if "social hosting" for minors WEREN'T illegal..."
Me talk English real good!
marion at February 7, 2009 6:49 PM
marion, you had it right the first time. The subject of you sentence was "social hosting," a singular noun. The phrase "for minors" acts as an adjective and describes the subject, but it is not the subject. Since the verb should agree with the subject, "social hosting wasn't" is correct.
Me talk English real well! :-)
Conan the Grammarian at February 9, 2009 2:39 PM
Leave a comment