<p>He didn’t know Mikes was alcoholic?? Where did he buy it? At the store (in the beer section) or at the concession stand of a game??</p>
<p>No, it was at the concession of the ball game. If you google Leo Ratte and Mike’s Hard Lemonade I think you will find the news articles.</p>
<p>Actually, I am reading NPR’s blurb on this - apparently the father had to move out for the kid to come back home. He wasn’t able to come back for another week or so.</p>
<p>I remember being at a restaurant in England with my mother when I was about 14, and ordering a glass of cider, having no idea that it was alcoholic. When I tasted it I told my mother it was, but she didn’t believe me, so I drank it. :)</p>
<p>“mini, it is my understanding that binge drinking (and its associated ills) has increased on college campuses since the days in which drinking was legal at age 18. Is that not true?”</p>
<p>It’s a complicated subject, but here goes. Monitoring the Future (the gold standard survey going back to 1975) does not show an increase in the percentage of kids binge drinking. Actually, a slight decrease. That’s very much in part because of the massive increase in Hispanic, Asian-American, and African-American students, who simply binge at much, much lower rates. Caucasian students definitely binge more (most of the increase reflects young women bingeing.)</p>
<p>However, the picture is incomplete. With the switch from beer to hard liquor (beginning around 2001, but massive as a result of alcopops/malt beverages easily available at 7/11s, gas stations, etc.), experimental data suggest that 1) students don’t know how many drinks they’ve had; 2) students don’t know what a standard drink looks like.</p>
<p>The result being that the four-drink non-binger on average had NINE drinks (rather like the OP) but is classified as a non-binger. So not only are there more bingers than the data indicate, but the intensity of binge drinking is much, much greater than it was prior to 2001. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drinking-age law, and everything to do with the industry (and the weird regulations around malt beverages). It has nothing to do with 19-year-olds having a sip of wine, and everything to do with white students choosing to get hammered. </p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>I drink, and serve wine with meals, and other alcohol, and those over 21 are offered those drinks. We are not teetotalers here. As an adult, I obey the law, and do not permit underage drinking on my watch. There is no magic that makes a person who is a minute from his 21st birthday turn into a more responsible drinker at that time; it’s just that it becomes legal then, and just like when they turn a certain age, they can get a work license and find a job or get a drivers license and work, or are tall enough to ride something at an amusement park, it’s all about obeying the rules set out there, and respecting those who are enforcing them. There is too much greatness put into “getting over” regarding rules, IMO and that is what drives a lot of young people, and all people into breaking the rules. Instead of thinking over the benefits, long and short of breaking rules, the wider implications and the possible ramifications along with the possibilities of punishments if one gets caught, there is some inherent pleasure in doing bad things and “getting over” on the authorities. Popular culture, the movies, books, the internet all push this, and the problem is that they don’t really get into what the pain it can cause loved ones, the expense, the loss of opportunities, and the rarer but more critical serious outcomes that disobeying the law can bring. </p>
<p>We, parents, along with all of those helping in raising our children are supposed to be inching our kids up to those thresholds so that crossing the line to age 18, 21, is not a huge chasm to leap because the transition is really minute, and if things have worked well, there isn’t much difference. Being able to have that glass of wine at dinner or have a drink is not that big of a transition from not being able to do so. This celebrating the drink by getting blitzed on ones 21st is a tradition that I think is flat out stupid. It should not be a big deal thing to be permitted to drink, because we are talking about drinking responsibly. I think my kids would be aghast and disgusted if i went out and got drunk and sick (as I can’t hold much liquor physically) as it would be quite an unattractive sight. Being allowed to drink is an additional responsibility when out socially and having to drive afterwards. Being small, I don’t think it would take too much, especially if I don’t eat much to bring my alcohol level to a danger point, and even less before I can feel it. When you don’t drink at all, you don’t have to worry about these things. </p>
<p>So I don’t see anything hypocritical about drinking and not supporting underage drinking or even not agreeing with the age limit (which I don’t) and still not supporting underage drinking. It’s AGAINST the law. I might not agree with a number of laws, but still obey them, and by not doing so,one is taking certain risks. As I said earlier, the chances are certainly there that when you provide alcohol to young people, that one of them drinking it, can get into some trouble, and your head will be on a stick for it, if it happens. You are taking a chance. Not only that, you are encouraging young people to break the law. </p>
<p>I wish I knew the answers. In our culture, it’s difficult to get away from the cars. I am a prime example of one who tried to keep the car option out of the picture, particularly with one of ours, and he just drove illegally, and other people’s cars. But at least, we the parents, kept our cars out of the picture so it reduced some of the chances of issues, though he claims that fueled his driving of others’ cars-makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>I am glad that my kid is at a school where few of the students have cars available there. That cuts down on some of the possibilities. Never eliminates them, but cuts them down, which is all we can do.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between drinking wine, beer with meals, and having a drink at night, and the all out binge drinking that is often causing problems. I haven’t seen the stats, and don’t know what is valid and what isn’t, but I can tell you that there was over drinking when I went to college and a lot of foolishness and mishaps due to it, but not once did I hear of anyone gettting alcohol poisoning or dying from drinking too much alcohol. We were talking about this at our reunion, and many of my fellow alums went on to grad schools, working at colleges, prof schools where they were around college kids, and it was not a thing that one heard happening on campus back then. Now every year, we hear about some kids, and I know of a number who had to be transported to the ER for alcohol poisoning or passed out in a way that was dangerous, and, yes, some who died. I know a father, personally whose son died that way, and a number of stories in the last few years of kids who literally drank themselves to death. Binge drinking. So what ever the cause, something has definitely changed. I don’t remember binge drinking back in my day. You just sort of drank too much, one drink after another, but not chugging them down in succession for the express purpose of getting blitzed. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance can mean different things. I don’t serve or permit the drinking of anything with alcohol in it at my house and under my watch for those under 21, and that includes a toast of champagne or a taste of wine. That is direct conflict with the way most everyone I know operates, where a glass of wine at a meal, or for a toast is often given, and that is an exception under the law, here. I don’t permit it because, I have too many kids to be able to track them, especially with their friends and other people’s kids at the house at many occasions, and I don’t want any of them gulping an allowed glass of wine or champagne and leaving the house within the hour behind the wheel. Because there is no minimum allowed level here with driving. Also, some of these kids, mine included, are not the brightest when it comes to these things, and would take advantage. I don’t want to police amounts or have any issues. You just don’t get alcohol here in my house until you are age 21. My house, my rules. The same with when I am hosting at a restaurant, and I tell my kids that as long as i am paying for them (College, etc) they are not to drink. I make it very simple and very clear. Not a drop. Even the biggest knuckleheads have to understand my stance. Not that they obey when my head is turned, but they know where I stand on this and there is no quibbling. You permit your kids to drink wine with a meal at your place, fine. Not permitted under 21 at mine. And mine are not so permitted at your place either, thank you.</p>
<p>Novimom, I very much remember that baseball game/Mike’s Lemonade outrage. The father genuinely believed that it was just a bottle of lemonade that he was buying at the concession stand. The son wasn’t sick at all but someone in the stands noticed the bottle and recognized what it was… called security… who called the police… who took the child to the hospital and the father to the police station… and then placed the child into foster care.</p>
<p>There was nothing on the concession stand sign to indicate that it was alcoholic and it was listed just under the soda pops. Now, most of us know that “hard” indicates alcohol but I can see where someone might not. It was a complete accident.</p>
<p>The idea of raising the drinking age to 25 seems strange to me because by then I was married, owned a house and had my first child. If a bank trusted me with a hefty mortgage, I think society could trust me with a cocktail. :)</p>
<p>You can’t be President until you are 35, or Senator til 25 (at which point you’ll be driven to drink. ;))</p>
<p>With each of my three kids I find myself amazed all over again at the parents who knowingly allow huge high school booze parties in their homes. </p>
<p>I am also consistently amazed by the parents who leave their teens home alone for a weekend and are then suprised that their kids threw parties while they were away. </p>
<p>Our neighbor almost lost her home daycare license when a very, very drunk girl abandoned her car (lights on, door wide open, car left sitting in the middle of the street) on the street behind the neighbor’s house one night. My neighbor’s son let the girl in through the basement walkout door. She passed out in their basement. Someone called the police to report an abandoned car, and eventually the police arrived at my neighbor’s house, where they found a still drunk teenaged girl passed out on the floor of the basement home daycare area. Our neighbor had no idea the girl was even in the house.</p>
<p>When I was in college the legal drinking age was 18, and colleges had bars on campus. Our campus bar was in the basement of the student union building. Those campus bars did keep us off the roads.</p>
<p>To those parents who condemn other parents for buying their kids beer. </p>
<p>In NY State it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to buy your own kid booze . I’ve told that to friends and clients. If you want to see it in print, look here. <a href=“Legislative Information - LBDC”>Legislative Information - LBDC; Read paragraph 2b.</p>
<p>The summer between my kid’s junior and senior year in college, I bought the booze. All kid’s friends were over 21. If my kid went to a party and had a beer, friends faced possible charges. No such risk if I bought the booze and the only people drinking it were my own kid and friends over 21. </p>
<p>When I told a friend this, she began buying the beer for her two college aged sons. You can stay in and watch a sporting event together on our giant screen TV while having a few beers, or you can go down to the local sports bar and risk getting arrested for doing the same thing. </p>
<p>Of course, you can NOT buy for someone else’s kid.</p>
<p>I am NOT advocating having kids in high school drink. Personally, though, I’d support a law that says you can drink wine and beer but not the hard stuff from 18-20. However, I do live in NYC where people just don’t drive to get around the City. So driving drunk was never an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, obedience of the law is likely different when someone agrees with the law than when someone disagrees with the law. This may be especially problematic when the enforcement of the law is weak enough that getting caught is like “winning” the lottery. Adolescents and young adults may be particularly prone to “testing the boundaries” and may perceive the low chance of getting caught as a risk that they are willing to take.</p>
<p>VM-</p>
<p>I am surprised now that the story made NPR and wash post. I remember reading the lemonade story in the detroit free press. </p>
<p>I think what outraged people was the lack of judgment that the police showed in “following the rules”. The way it was reported, nobody thought the kid was in danger, but they took him anyway. Horrific for him and the family.</p>
<p>I disagree with the legal age for drinking to be 21. i enforce it, but I disagree. Not enough to fight about it or make a campaign out of it or to ignore it, but I disagree. Yes, it saves lives. It will save even more to raise it to age 22, 23, 24 and I don’t see any magic in age 25. Why not 30 or 35? It would make more sense to me to say you can’t drink if you are not independent by FAFSA definitions than just to make it age 21,since a lot of the problems with binge drinking is at a colleges. </p>
<p>The benefit of having the drinking age at 21, is that it does help in keeping more of the alcohol away from the younger kids, in that 21 year old are highly unlikely to buy middle school kids booze, whereas they would 18 year olds, and 18 year olds would be more likely to buy a high school freshman who could be as young as 13, the alcohol. Also since people do have SOME common sense and awareness of risks, there are those who don’t drink or if they do, do so cautiously. Also it makes high school parties dry by law and there could be a lot of young kids who are underclassmen at those things. With some kids legally able to drink, it makes it even more difficult to keep those younger kids dry. </p>
<p>That cop who made that huge deal over the Mike’s lemonade should be fired. He’s too stupid to be a cop. He joins my stupid list like the principal who suspended a first grader for a plastic knife in his lunch or other idiots who are just too stupid for that kind of work.</p>
<p>I have a neighbor whose 16 year old daughter having a party, allowed some guys to crash it though the basement door. The parent had no idea that those guys had joined the party for a while. When she went down there and found out, she realized the guys had all been drinking and brought booze to the girls who did not appear have yet imbibed. She did not want to call the police, did not know what to do. I called the cops, further enhancing my evil reputation. Those kids, if they had left the party drunk, and had an accident, could not only have caused and suffered terribly but also involved my neighbor. I would have ended the party as well and had the parents of the girls take them home, for them not reporting the boys immediately. But my neighbor is scared to death of her daughter not having friends or getting excluded from things if she does as I do, and, yes, my kids have paid socially when I 've done these things, or reported underage drinking or refused to let my kids go to a venue where it is taking place, or having any of it here. If anyone shows up underage with alcohol on the breath, my kids know that I’ll call a parent and/or the cops. I want nothing to do with this, and believe me, it is rampant around this area. </p>
<p>Yes, Jonri, you are permitted to serve your own kids drink in NY. I just don’t.</p>
<p>I see your point cptofthehouse. </p>
<p>What do you say to the argument that supervised teenage drinking by parents (ie drinking at 17 or 18) might help kids develop a better relationship with alcohol?</p>
<p>
I think what confuses some of these discussions is that not everybody agrees with the statement above–and even many of those who would say they do agree with it don’t act as though they do. This is why I always bring up speed limits as an example. The overwhelming majority of drivers exceed the speed limit every single time they drive. Why do they do this? It’s not because they don’t believe in speed limits–most of them don’t exceed the limit by very much. Is it because they think the limit is “too low?” Maybe. I think it’s largely because most drivers think they know how fast to drive in a given situation based on experience and common sense. They don’t think they are endangering anybody by driving a few miles over the limit–most of these people would never deliberately run a red light, because they know it’s dangerous to do that. To put it another way, most people don’t think speeding a few miles over the speed limit is a big deal, even though they well know it’s breaking the law. Similarly, many, many people don’t think drinking by adults between 18 and 21 is a big deal, even if it is against the law. If you don’t think the mere fact of something being against the law makes it a big deal, then you will need other justifications before you think it’s a big deal. Personally, I don’t find the justifications for a total ban on drinking for people between 18 and 21 to be persuasive, on balance, so somebody who thinks as I do may have trouble agreeing that it is a big deal. I could support a progressive approach, as I’ve suggested before, and others have mentioned. I think some states used to have this, in fact, allowing younger people to buy 3.2 beer, for example.</p>
<p>DUI is a big deal, because it’s so dangerous.</p>
<p>This is all kind of far afield from the OP, perhaps, but I’d say that since many, many colleges don’t really treat underage drinking as a big deal, it would be hypocritical for them to treat a youthful DUI as disqualifying, as long as the student takes it seriously and takes remedial actions.</p>
<p>CPT-</p>
<p>You have my sympathies. I don’t think I can really appreciate everything you have been through with your kids and also what appears to be a toxic and overly tolerant alcohol culture. I can’t really relate because my kids (11, 13) are the ones telling us not to drink and drive. If I went through what you went through, and if my neighbors were like your neighbors, I might also agree to raising the drinking age to 30. It also can’t be easy or fun to always have to play the bad guy and I’m sorry you have to take that role. </p>
<p>I hope for your sake and the kids sake that the culture changes. And I think you are absolutely right that parents need to be on board.</p>
<p>“What do you say to the argument that supervised teenage drinking by parents (ie drinking at 17 or 18) might help kids develop a better relationship with alcohol?”</p>
<p>That actually has been studied intensively (in Australia) and the reverse has proven to be the case, most likely because the parents who “supervise teenage drinking” are statistically more likely to have had drinking problems themselves. Doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen, or doesn’t happen; only that statistically, it doesn’t turn out to be the case.</p>
<p>Remember: 9-10% of adults turn out to be alcoholic later in life (doesn’t mean they are still drinking), even higher for males, and for Caucasians, and an even higher percentage experience serious drinking problems at some point. And those who drink early have about five times the lifetime alcoholism rate of those who begin at age 21.</p>
<p>Well, the percentage of alcoholics in the population is consistent with the percentage of addicts (since alcoholics are just addicted to alcohol) in the population, and the percentage has never changed ever. Not in any country where there is alcohol and other drugs available, and not based on the age of legal acquisition.</p>
<p>So, it’s not necessarily about the “drinking age,” so much as that most caucaisons, and by most I mean more than not, will have had alcohol by the time they are freshman in college, and those who are alcoholic may well be more attracted to it. It’s not necessarily causation, this fact.</p>
<p>But, either way, nobody should be drinking and driving. And people should keep on eye on the law. I understand the NTSB is recommending a federal BAC limit of .05. If this happens, people really need to be aware of it.</p>
<p>
Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920’s. Why would it work now?</p>