@Heather -- There's quite a difference between allowing a sixteen-year-old a half glass of wine at Sunday dinner and hosting a booze party for your teenager's friends.

I've lived from a 21 year old drinking age to 18,19 and back to 21. Passing a law against something never stops it, it just sends it underground and makes it riskier.

I think I can agree with you on this one Randy.

Wine or beer with dinner has a totally different focus (and sends a very different message to the kids) than hosting a 'booze party' for them.

@CowDung --Mark the occasion, folks, because for once CD and I agree. I have a bit of a problem with the whole social drinking/tavern culture, because it encourages driving afterward. The 21 year old drinking age actually works against 18-21 year old legal adults using alcohol in a responsible way -- buying a nice bottle of wine and having it at home.

I mean,golly, we have laws against driving under the influence already, and we're all but telling young people we don't trust them to obey them.

The focus of the post is adults supplying the place and the booze for their teens' parties so that is what triggered my response. I'm glad you found a nice middle ground for your family, but unfortunately, not everyone has such a level head!

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the comment. I agree on your perspective as well that making drinking a "forbidden fruit" only adds to the drive to misbehave for teens. I'm curious though, I don't know your background, but if you don't mind my asking - do you have children? If you do/if you did, would you "supervise" a party for themselves and their friends knowing they were drinking? Or is your perspective more teaching the right time - OK to have a beer with your parents? I'm just curious where you would draw the line?

@Sarah -- Yes, I have one son, who turns 30 in August. I raised him the way I was raised -- with alcohol use being acceptable at home (no driving) in moderation. And for anyone under the age of 21, that meant an occasional wine or beer with dinner. I told him that I knew he would most likely experiment with friends and I didn't care as long as he promised never to drive under the influence (even if that meant calling me at 4:00AM) and he didn't get falling-down drunk just because it was 'cool'.

He never did drive drunk to my knowledge, and he's not a heavy drinker today.

I would never host a drinking party for other people's children. If I found alcohol being passed around I would confiscate it and see to it that no one drove home until the next day. My emphasis is on teaching the healthier way of consuming alcohol -- at dinner for a teenager, or maybe a half-beer during a family party. I also emphasized that a person's nervous system is not mature until the age of 21, so any heavy drinking should be avoided before then as a matter of intelligent choice.

He and I saw in the new millennium (Dec. 31, 1999) by sharing a weak wine spritzer and waiting for Y2K to hit. He was 16 at the time. Mostly, he didn't care for the taste.

So, I draw the line at heavy drinking and any driving. But that's the same line I draw for myself and anyone else over 21.

I also don't know how 'young voting' can cause any level of damage or harm to teens...

I want to add that my sophomore Government class in high school (1964) consisted of a practice election complete with voting machines.

Knowing how to do something is never wrong. Actually being allowed to do it is more of a judgement thing.

And I don't know, CD -- I voted Democratic, even back then. LOL

@Randy1949 -

Your personal experience and resulting preferred political ideology is indeed proof positive that 'young voting' apparently does cause damage or harm to teens ;-)

I think that the point here is that there really isn't a 'magic' age at which a child will suddenly turn into a responsible drinker. Modeling responsible alcohol consumption is certainly important. When a teen shows a certain level of responsibility and attitude toward alcohol, it seems reasonable that they be given an opportunity to partake of the 'forbidden fruit' in a controlled environment.

Having them wait to enjoy a privilege is an admirable idea for some things, but I believe that when they are forced to wait, they tend to partake with reckless abandon rather than responsible moderation once their opportunity finally comes.

I agree with Cow. It has to do with the maturity of the child. Growing up, 9 was the age for wine and liqueurs (beer was not allowed in the home). I wasn't invited to drink the harder stuff but it wasn't a "big deal" if I was mixing. Alcohol is a social tool and it was believed important to know how to manage the drinks and the drinkers. Listening to adults get loud or maudlin from too much drink was the best possible deterrent. I was taught that no one wants to be that person at the party, and sitting in on a few party post-mortems and hearing the deadly comments about the over-indulgent brought the lesson home.

Good parents do teach by example.

But acceptable after reading some comments on Patch.

I actually have more new and healthier brains cells because all that alcohol I ingested in my youth, killed off all the old ones :)

My brothers took me to an 18 year old beer bar for my 18th birthday. To top it off it was a strip club. They could serve beer to 18 year olds but could not serve liquor. I was 19 or 20 when I would get into liquor bars, uncarded. I think my experiences formed my opinion in raising my son. We watched him like a hawk.

By time I was 30 I no longer drank and drove. The drunk driving laws had gotten too tough. And I grew more responsible.

If your kids are "420 friendly" you've failed as a parent. Your job is to give them the tools to make the right decisions, whether you are there or not. If they make poor decisions it's a reflection on you, pure and simple. I've seen far too many parents throw their hands up like it's some random occurrence that their kids made a poor choice. If I caught one of my children with drugs it would be the first time in their life I would have put my hands on them. And it would be VERY painful. And that pain would last for months.

And let's be frank about girls and drinking: it is an equation for disaster for the girl. Getting drunk in public is opening them up to all sorts of undesired outcomes. It's bad enough for the boys but the girls have an order of magnitude higher risk.

Wonders how many other posters had to google 420 friendly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3IuHMxFHjQ

@235301 It is dumb laws like the mariquana ones that make people (and kids) somewhat cynical about all laws. I believe there are about twenty states now that have the so called medicinal mariquana --- and up until 1915 of course, it was totally legal, as were all drugs, and there is good evidence that most of our country's founders used it, as most every farmer and farm kid did.

When something so benign is banned as a hard core drug --- and studies have shown it is less harmful than alcohol overall, and not addicting as alcohol is --- then it brings into questions all of our drug laws.

If you think beating your kid would make them change, you would probably be surprised that it would have just the opposite affect -- aside from putting into jail for domestic abuse.

@Sofia Reino...I am sure your childhood discouraged drinking to get intoxicated. In Southern Europe the main meal of the day was usually 2 to 3 hours long. My experience has been that the wine and spirits were for enjoyment and not for intoxication. Most often their was a short nap after the meal and people arose to go back to work refreshed. Culturally, no one made a big deal out of the practice of consuming wine with meals. Wisconsin has a particular problem with their view of alcohol consumption and is reflected in irresponsible behaviors. I raised my own children in the Southern European style and alcohol consumption has never been a problem.

@Lyle: Above all it is so funny that most Americans think we Southern Europeans have a nap after lunch. I never saw that happening in the countries I lived in (Portugal, Spain, France) In Spain though during summer months they start work MUCH earlier and leave by 2pm, mostly due to the heat of the weather. So sure some with have lunch then have a nap. But that is happening less and less. I do agree with you about raising your children that way. Also you are so right about drinking being an enjoyment and not to get intoxicated. Only once in my life was I actually drunk, but thankfully realized it and decided to go straight back to my dorm as I did not want to not know what I had done that night or other worse things.

The challenge with moving to a 19 year old drinking age is that the federal government tied state eligibility to receive federal highway funds to the adoption of the 21 year old drinking age. So, your 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax would never be returned to your state if you lowered the state law from the federally mandated age of 21.

How is Vermont getting around this?

I think it's all a matter of how it is introduced and how drinking is modeled as the children are growing up. Introducing alcohol to teens by hosting booze parties doesn't do a lot to encourage moderate consumption.

Do the stats differentiate 'kids who start drinking young' into those who had the occasional wine or beer with dinner at home with their parents and those who drank at parent hosted booze parties?

@CowDung -- It's very possible that the stats differ according to the context of the 'early drinking'. But don't expect impartiality from MADD or the JSAD.

Those stats and info are indeed interesting but would love to know more about it, by that I mean, how were those kids introduced to drinking? Behind parents backs? with parents that were not responsible?

@Sofia, the biggest has always been and will always be, peer pressure. And now we have all this music, television, movies, giving them ideas and encouraging more bad behavior. These influences have always been there but now we are being bombarded with it from all angles, all the time.

@mau: I do understand about pressure and also the stuff they are exposed on TV which drives me nuts. Here we are a culture which generally speaking is pretty puritan, yet you watch Disney channel and you are teaching kids, especially girls (tweens) to dress as whores and in general that they can talk to adults with no respect. And again I can see pressure with alcohol especially in college, but then again, IF kids would have learned how to drink socially at home, would that still be a problem? I have 3 nieces in Spain (16 and 18 years of age) the latter in college and they do not go through any of this.

@Denise Lockwood...Conversations are great, beginning early and often. But, more important is your and other significant adult's modeling behavior. Our children are acculturated by those they are around. If you want your children to practice moderate behavior, then you must practice moderate behavior.

thus the reason why my daughter has never seen me drunk... ;)

@Denise -- Actually, seeing a parent embarrassingly drunk makes most teens want the opposite.

What I don't understand is why parents focus on forbidding the wrong things. Drinking is bad, m'kay? So don't do it until you're 21, m'kay? And then it's legal and okay, m'kay?

Rather than focusing on drinking as the evil, tell your kids about the physical toll of heavy alcohol use, especially at a young age. Talk about the humiliation of throwing up at a party and doing goodness knows what. Tell them how drinking shots in rapid succession could actually kill them. Tell them about the stupidity of doing any hazardous activity (especially driving) while compromised. However, 'physically and mentally compromised' should mean the effects of alcohol, drugs both illegal and prescription, sever fatigue, and illness.

@Randy... I've totally had that conversation with her too. And she unfortunately knows about the feeling of being embarrassingly drunk first hand since she got an underage drinking ticket last year.

@Sofia Reino -- The short answer is MADD. The longer answer is American hypocrisy on the subject, plus a return to Puritanism.in our social values. There was a time when the American age of majority was dropped to the age of 18 (down from 21) for all things -- drinking, voting, signing contracts. -- on principle that if you're old enough for the burdens of citizenship (notable fighting in the military) then you're old enough for the privileges and rights.

Then, predictably, there was a rise in alcohol-related auto accidents for 18 year-olds and the age went up to 19; then further back to 21 under pressure from groups like MADD at the federal level. (I would suspect there is a corresponding increase in alcohol related crashes for the 1 year-olds, because that will happen with any 'new' group.)

Why can we drive at 16 (and furthermore be tried as adults at an even younger age)? Pragmatism. American parents are tired of chauffeuring their kids everywhere by the age of 16. A 16 year-old's physical reflexes are good enough to handle an automobile, although I'm not so sure about the mental judgement in all cases.

As far as I'm concerned, in our attempt to make things safe, we've sent a lamentable message, telling a group of young people we don't trust them to obey the laws already in place. So in some jurisdictions, a 14 year-old can be held accountable for a capital crime and even executed, but an 18 year-old can't buy a six-pack of beer and drink it at home.

You are SO right!

@Randy1949: I think you are so very right in all of your comments. I am noticing all that as my teen is growing, hearing her friends etc. Also another thing I am noticing is that in general we are bringing up kids that are simply not responsible in any way. We give them everything and if or when they leave the nest they are clueless as how to live life. I let my older one fall and learn from her mistakes. Sure she hates me at the time, but then realizes she is learning and I prefer her to learn now while still young than once on her own with tougher consequences. I actually like the idea of kids driving young, BUT with adult supervision for the first 2 years. True that we live in a part of the country where there is no public transportation so owning a car at such young age (in a way) makes sense. I have my first car at 30!

@Sofia Reino....It is a fact that we are allowing our children to be exposed to any number of unhealthy influences, but in many ways we are promoting them. I'll be honest that I too have committed sins of over indulgence. However, I learned quickly that it doesn't do children any good to have unrealistic life expectations. My first born had advantages that I knew better than to give the following three.

I look at the issue of cell phones as an indulgence that kids are given at a younger and younger age. TVs and computers in bedrooms also are bad ideas. The list could go on and on. I am a believer of giving kids what they need and withholding that which they don't need. I am fortunate to live in Shorewood where we have excellent public transportation. From an early age my children walked, rode their bicycles or road the bus. If my kids wanted to learn to drive, they got out, found a job and paid for their own drivers education, along with their insurance. I have never bought any of them a car and if they needed to use a car they drove the family car. the two youngest started working while still in high school and have continued right through university and graduate school. They are paying for their educations and such know the value of that education. As you say we Americans are hypocritical; puritanical to a fault on the one had and materially over indulgent on the other. Not only don't we keep our expectations reasonable but also confusing.

@Lyle Ruble: That is fantastic what you have done with your kids. And totally get about the eldest and the others. I am noticing I am more careful with the younger one. Indeed my oldest got a cell at age 11, mainly cause I was working and I wanted to be able to contact her on her way home from school, but still today she knows it is a privilege, that can removed if she does not follow certain rules and it is a pretty plain cell (no internet access, etc) as she does not need that. You are lucky to live in a place where there are public transportation. Here in Sussex apart from walking around the Village if you want to go elsewhere you need a car. I am lucky to go once a year to NYC and another to Europe so my daughters are exposed to learning how to be street smart, seeing other cultures and knowing what is appropriate in one culture may not in another. For example last year we were in madrid, Spain and my daughter then 13, could not believe how all of the kids were up till way late (4am or later), drinking, SOME smoking, but there were parents, kids, etc and no problems whatsoever happened. She participated in all of the parties, slept everyday until midday, but also learned so much about there is no need for problems if there is moderation.

@Sofia Reino...I am jealous of your trips to Madrid. I lived on the Costa del Sol for about six months and traveled all throughout Spain and Portugal. As a young man I hitch hiked, used the trains and buses. Of course it was the 1960s and I could live on less than a dollar a day.

The last time we traveled to Northern Europe my son was 16 and my daughter 12. He had a very good time as he had plenty of opportunities to party in Denmark, Sweden and Germany. In fact, I had the honor of taking him into the "red light" district of Hamburg for a walk around. He made great friends and is planning on going back over as soon as he is finished with graduate school. My daughter enjoyed herself also, but she was a bit young to fully experience the whole European experience. Both of them have learned how to get around on the rail system and what hostels are all about. Since I am retired I don't have the opportunity to get over there as much as I used to. I had the opportunity to experience the Mediterranean by living in Spain, Italy, Sicily and Greece. I wished everyone could do that, there would be a great deal more tolerance.

Actaully in the 80s drunk driving deaths were over 50,000 per year in this country and now (according to MADD's site) they are just over 10,000 -- lots of contributing factors (seat beslts, enforcement, societal changes), I'm sure, but awareness is one of them and MADD/SADD and the like have done a lot to raise awareness...and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Do they have any stats on drunk driving arrests/citations in the 80s as compared to now?

We're leading by example if we attend those festivities and stop at one or two. The idea is not to piously pretend that we don't drink at all, because that just teaches kids to sneak.

American society already tried zero tolerance with the Volstead Act, with disastrous results. I'm slightly worried that today's generation has forgotten that lesson.

Mau - I disagree that a big part is peer pressure - twenty year olds drink for the same reasons other adults drink: It's social, it tastes good, it relaxes you, it takes away some inhibitions if you are shy.....

I was never pressured into drinking - I drank for the above reasons.

I no longer get pressured because I refuse to drink and drive. All the reasons to justify drinking are signs of alcoholism. As far as relaxing and holding a conversation, I can do that just as well or better having a soda or ice water. I never drank because it tastes good.

@J.B. Schmidt -- I grew up with zero-tolerance for pre-marital sex too, and it didn't work at all. I really think it's the all or nothing approach that leads us into trouble.

I gave my son pretty much the same advice about sex as I did for drinking. Go ahead and have sex -- with yourself or someone else -- when you feel ready, BUT never hurt anyone while you do it. No babies you're not ready for. No spreading of disease. No telling someone you love them when you don't. No breaking of hearts. That's the same rules for sex within marriage, when you come to think about it.

There's nothing wrong with sex or drinking per se. It's how and when they're done. We as a culture haven't set the lines for acceptable behavior because we don't all agree on them ourselves. The important thing for parents and children is not to be hypocritical -- if you set a limit for your child, you had best observe it yourself.

@Randy1949: AMEN!

@J.B., I was one of those parents that you are describing. There was almost nothing, that my son did, that I didn't find out about. If it wasn't anything that would hurt him or someone else, I usually let it go to see how far it went. I knew if I said anything he would know I was tracking him and he would make every effort to hide it. He always had jobs so didn't have a lot of spare time to get in trouble. Never any trouble with drugs or drinking. He did have a lead foot. I did end up closing his Myspace and Yahoo email accounts after finding some disturbing information. He did not know I did it as I dealt with the companies to do it. To this day he does not know everything I know that he was doing.

One warning that I was adamant about, if you get a girl in trouble you will be responsible. You will not shirk your responsibility.

He went through a rough spot after high school. Got tangled up with a very wild girl. I talked to him about it all the time. And I know there were times he detested me for it. Luckily he lived through that time and came out of it very well.