In the US you have to be 21 to drink. But you can fight a war at 18. Does this make sense to you? I have mixed feelings. I am sure that if the age was lowered then we would be having all sorts of kids getting drunk all the time. But yet I do not agree that they see you adult enough to fight but not adult enough to drink. Does not make complete sense to me. What do you think?
I think the problem is that we say no, no, no and when the kids do turn 21 suddenly they can go crazy. By stigmatizing the entire experience, we make the forbidden fruit more appealing to young people. We also give them a tool that is readily available in most homes that they can use to rebel with. Many parents also set a bad example with their own drinking habits. When kids do turn 21 they realize that all the awful things they were told about alcohol were mostly false. The DARE program has been proven to actually encourage kids to do drugs because they are not honest about the effects of drugs and kids figure this out and dismiss all the advice that they received during the DARE presentations, even the good advice.
You make a very good point. I did not know though that DARE has been proven to encourage kids to do drugs. That is sad.
Here is the multi-year study that talks about the D.A.R.E. program. D.A.R.E. doesn't work, study finds Students in program used same amount of drugs as others By Jim Avila, NBC News Correspondent CHAPEL HILL, N.C., March 18, 1998-- The D.A.R.E. anti-drug program may be a good idea gone bad. A new study concludes that the program is not working and, in fact, may actually be hurting drug-abuse prevention efforts in some communities. The six-year study followed 1,800 Illinois kids from fifth grade through high school. FOR MORE THAN 23 million children 80 percent of America's schools the nation's anti-drug mantra is I pledge to lead a drug-free life. That pledge comes from a program called D.A.R.E., which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. At McDougle Elementary School, in the Carrboro School district of Chapel Hill, N.C., D.A.R.E. is one of the favorite subjects among fifth-graders. Though popular, Chapel Hill is thinking about dropping the class. The body of research about D.A.R.E. says that it has no long-term effect for drug-abuse prevention, said Susan Spalt, the health director for the Carrboro School District. In the most comprehensive study yet on D.A.R.E., researchers followed 1,800 students using techniques endorsed by D.A.R.E. itself. Its author concluded that D.A.R.E. is a waste of money $220 million in tax money and donations last year alone with no beneficial effect on drug use. It hurts me to sit here and tell you that D.A.R.E. does not work, said Dennis Rosenbaum, the author and head of the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Illinois. But it's time for us to go back to the drawing board and figure out how it can be improved or what better ways we can spend our money on drug education in this country. Rosenbaum's six-year study finds that kids in the D.A.R.E. program used the same amount of drugs as others. Perhaps the researchers most surprising conclusion: D.A.R.E. actually appears to have an adverse÷ effect on drug activity in suburban communities. Kids in the suburbs who were exposed to the D.A.R.E. program, who participated in D.A.R.E., actually had significantly higher levels of drug use than suburban kids who did not get the D.A.R.E. program, said Rosenbaum. This was very disturbing to us. It's a mystery the researchers say requires further study. Bill Alden, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement agent and spokesman for D.A.R.E., calls the study outrageous.÷ NBC News provided him with a copy and asked him about its findings. I don t have an answer, he said. For its part, D.A.R.E. embraces one study from Ohio State University that says the program does work, if students are given additional anti-drug classes through high school. But an overwhelming majority of students do not take such classes and a dozen other studies have flatly concluded that D.A.R.E. does not deliver on its promise to teach kids to resist drugs. D.A.R.E. officials are pushing to add more programs in junior high and high schools. It's not that D.A.R.E. doesn't work, said Bill Alden, deputy director of D.A.R.E. America. D.A.R.E. does work. But it dissipates. It erodes. What has to happen ... there has to be more, not less. Alden said D.A.R.E. is a popular program. We've got thousands and thousands of principals, he said. Millions of parents say, D.A.R.E. made a difference in my child's life. But the two key federal agencies evaluating drug abuse programs do not recommend D.A.R.E. on their lists of acceptable programs, leaving school districts like Chapel Hill with a difficult choice.
Most european countries allow kids to have a wine with meals at resteraunts from a early age (normaly waterd down) so they are familiar with drink there is no great mystery to it and they dont suddenly go wild when legaly allowed to buy there own However we here in the UK have laws against children consuming alchohol Guess what we have high levels of drink dependency amongst our youngsters and bad cases of binge drinking!! When you get to the legal age (18 here) to purchase booze it can quite often be like a kid let loose in a candy store Perhaps we should try following the european example and de-mystify it?
Oh, not so fast De Orc: France Passes Ban on Underage Drinking - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
I guess if the libs had their way, drugs, alcohol, condoms, etc would be offered in grade school (or earlier) instead of an abstinence message.
Yeah, because there is only giving grade school kids drugs, alcohol, and condoms or the wildly successful approach of just telling them to say "No"? Are those really the only two ideas you can come up with? It's either one or the other? It’s either this extreme or the other extreme? Seriously, this is as far as you've reasoned out the possibilities for addressing these problems? You've decided that you either tell kids not to drink, not to do drugs, and don't have sex or the only other solution is to give grade school kids access to all of the above? I say the "only solution" because you phrased it that way or at least you suggested that if it isn't abstinence, it must be complete and total indulgence. You then suggested that this is the Left's position to all these issues. I bet your dad was an authoritarian S.O.B. wasn't he?
Oh, not so fast CoinOKC LOL they want to ban the SALE of booze/tobacco to those under the age of 18 now I never mentioned selling it I said they drink it with meals which is NOT banned
I must have missed something in the translation from UK to US. Doesn't a business transaction occur when someone is buying and someone is selling? LOL
Read what I said in context not just picking out a part and using it out of context Most european countries allow kids to have a wine with meals at resteraunts from a early age (normaly waterd down) so they are familiar with drink there is no great mystery to it and they dont suddenly go wild when legaly allowed to buy there own However we here in the UK have laws against children consuming alchohol Guess what we have high levels of drink dependency amongst our youngsters and bad cases of binge drinking!! When you get to the legal age (18 here) to purchase booze it can quite often be like a kid let loose in a candy store Perhaps we should try following the european example and de-mystify it? You see the differencewhen it is read as a whole
Forgive me, De Orc. When I see words such as "buy" or "purchase" used, I would assume that a seller is involved as opposed to giving it away for free (e.g., parent, friend, co-worker, etc.).
I think that this could be used as an example all over the world. I think that when people turn 21 they do tend to turn wild.
