If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
:yes:
The law defines the crime, by definition it cannot prevent it.
No, I haven't missed your point. An 18 age limit is useless - it's ignored by the vast majority of people and does not serve the public interest. What terrible effect on society is bringing the drinking age down to 16 going to have? You'd probably have less trouble and youth crime for a start.
Bad example.
If raising the speed limit would increase casualties etc, then obviously that is not the best route of action; speed limits can be - and are - policed and regulated to a considerable extent. Some people would actually argue raising the speed limit for motorways would actually decrease accidents, but i'm not "up" on the issue so won't comment.
My logic is this - a law which cannot be enforced and serves no practical use in terms of the public benefit (possibly being detrimental in reality) shouldn't be upheld. People wonder why there's a lack of respect for the police - this is part of the problem, no doubt about that.
The majority ignore it, and it serves on purpose - so it is incompatible with our society.
There's a world of difference betweem the infringement of others' rights and ineffectual, useless laws which serve no effective purpose towards the public good. It's a distinction I would have presumed is easily understood by most.
See above.
I've just dismissed your examples. To reactively amend laws which are useless and only serve a detrimental purpose is a good thing, surely?
So it can't, for example, stop a person of under 18 getting served in a pub? It certainly can! Most cities are now undertaking initiatives to clamp down on underage drinking. In most places now, if you look under 21, you have to prove you are 18. This is not enforced well in all places, that I do not doubt, but in many places it is being enforced strictly and hence the law is stopping under 18s getting their hands on drink in many establishments. If supermarkets, off-licences etc were equally strict and cautious and used similar ID-ing criteria, the situation would be a lot better.
Edited- Just so clarify, I do understand what you're saying in the sense that if someone wishes to engage in criminal activity they will by and large find a a way, but to say that it can't prevent a 'godamn thing' or whatever (can't remember who said that) is inaccurate. Whilst there is doubtless some truth in a kind of displacement theory (i.e. by supressing criminal activity in, say, a pub, kids will go and get drink at home or have their parents buy it) I still think we should make it as awkward/difficult for under 18s to get alcohol as possible. To give in and relax the law would, imo, be the wrong signal to be giving out.
IMO we can't just relax laws because they are easily circumvented.
The other thing is, whilst law should ideally reflect society, it must be noted that it is not human nature for us to always act in our own best interests. If the majority of people drink at 15 and have sex at 14, that doesn't mean it's in our best interests to be allowed to do so. Law should also, surely, be there to (try) and protect the individual as well, and this is reflected in consent ages for various things etc.
Trying (whether it is successful or not) to stop minors drinking too much and causing trouble, not to mention protecting their own liver at a young age, is a 'detrimental purpose'?
Also, you draw a distinction between things which do/don't infringe other people's liberties. I'd say making alcohol freely available to a younger class of person than it already is, and having more drunk youngsters on the streets, will probably lead to the infringement of the liberties of many people who suffer as a result of drink related crime which will doubtless rise amongst those under 18s who could legally buy as much alcohol as they like.
That's right, it can't. Nothing stops a pub landlord from serving beer to who the hell he likes but the fear he carries around in his own head. The "law" cannot prevent him, it seeks to create a fear, kinowing it's limits as it does. It can only do something to him afterwards.
What's supposed to happen is you wander around imagining consequences for your actions and then obey the arbitary whims of other humans who give themselves all sort of titles and outfits.
That might be true where you live, but where I live it isn't. there's even a "kiddies" pub in the town, the local people realising that they are better off under adult supervision than wandering around destroying things and catching cold. Is it official? No. Does it work. Yes. It'll all go wrong when some do-gooding halfwit wants to put the letter of the scribble above what's sensible but for now it's fine.
The best people, that is those with the most experience of dealing with people in various states of inebriation, are pub staff. Hence, get the kids into pubs.
Yeah, what you are missing is that for most "crimes" the process goes - think about it - do it - hope you don't get caught. It's a very scary feeling (I have been told) to realise exactly how much you can get away with, which is why most people pull up well short of the realisation. The "law" really is just scribbles on paper and policemen just men in suits.
I don't believe in human nature, or that people act against their own best interests. I think people make choices based on bad information, not bad choices.
They probably haven't been drinking in the pub, to be honest.
It must depend on where you live. Wherever I have lived all I see is teenagers sitting on a wall by the rec swigging Strongbow from a three-litre bottle. I don't understand how anyone can think this is preferable to letting these teens sit in a warm and SUPERVISED pub playing pool with their mates.
I think the drinking laws are unhelpful, to be quite honest, as they encourage binge drinking and dangerous drinking. 24-hour licenses and lower limits on drinking beers and other drinks of an ABV below 6% would solve far more problems than they would create. All most teens want to do is have a drink and a laugh with their mates and a pool table, and I do strongly believe that if they were allowed to do so in a pub they would drink less and drink more safely. Drinking outdoors is seen as "anti-social", and it is criminalised with the atrocious ABOs; allow them to drink in a pub and this "anti-social" behaviour will disappear.
Surely it'd encourage more 16 years olds to drink knowing that what they're doing is legal?
Saying that however imagine the icrease in trouble because of drucken behaviour in city centres. In my opioin smoking should be raised to 18 anyway.
agreed, but even if smoking is raised to 18, it won't stop people that are young though.
Don't think you understood what my argument was there at all.
Do you really think your average 16 year old gives a shit? Because i can assure you that they do not.
So a few 17 year olds get turned away from city centre bars on a Saturday night to go and get drunk on the street instead. What does that achieve?
Did/do you not drink alcohol underage?
Do you not consider drinking when you're 16/17 is normal and socially acceptable?
It's impossible to prevent under 18's getting their hands on alcohol just as easily as if they were over 18. Wait outside an off-license and hand your shopping list over with the money to the first person who looks like the type of person to be understanding of your situation...not exactly difficult.
If a law is ignored and the only possible effect is perhaps detrimental to the public good, you can't justify upholding that law purely on a theoretical basis when it has become ineffectual in practice.
Practically, what can be changed? The levels of underage drinkers cannot be significantly reduced, it's indellibly part of modern youth culture. No matter how stringent you make the whole ID thing or whatever you'd like to see, underage drinking is here to stay and nothing can be done about that. To change the situation, you'd have to alter the very nature of man.
that would be fine by me, i would still be entitled to refuse to serve them for any reason i wished without having to give that reason to them
The logic goes - only adults can drink - I want to be an adult - if I drink I am an adult.
So theres this whole rites of passage thing related to getting pissed in the middle of nowhere, or getting served for the first time or whatever. On the continent, where in some places you can get a drink as soon as you can reach the counter to put money on it, they have less problems.
The law in this case is actually the thing which causes the problem. If you could drink anytime you wanted to the problem would be solved in short order.
Not right away, because it might take a decade or so for it to sink in. Of course, we have "governments" that think maybe 4 years at most into the future so theres no chance. Theres also no money in decriminalising anything, which is why we always get more law, not less.
Children shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol and sit in pubs with a pint, obviously. There's a world of difference between children and 16/17 year olds, it's finding the right line to draw...which imho is around 14/15/16.
tbh i think that explanation is very simplified...not all teenagers act like that, their peers have more influence on them than them just wanting to be an adult...
But if age limit is 16 what stops a 15 year old getting it etc etc. Lowering the age limit solves nothing you will just get younger people doing it.
So what?
Let anyone who is conscious and capable of understanding get pissed up. Even 5 year olds. Why not?
Would be my test, not age.
If you got a "x" year old prodigy and they understand and demonstrate understanding give em a drink.
Who makes a judge qualified to make such a judgement?
They are making it up as they go, why can't I?
Peer pressure is the same thing, really. Peers want to look mature and adult to each other, and drinking, smoking, drug-taking and sex are, at least in part, all to do with this.
I don't think many 14-year-olds stand on street corners because they love the taste of White Lightening, to be quite honest.
I would make the legal age for buying drinks under 5%ABV at 14, but not allow spirits consumption until 18, as now. It gets kids inside where they are supervised, it removes the rebellion element of drinking, and it gives them something to do. Why would someone want to sit in a bus shelter drawing things on it when they can be sat in a pub playing pool with their mates?
exactly when i was 16ish we just sat around drinking cause it was actually the cheapest thing to be doing to pass time, as every other activty was a mug, if we had access to pub we'd of probably gone there and just stuck to our pints
people forget there isnt much for under 18s to do these days when youre low on money and all there is around you is housing and off licenses
Because then there is no consistency. Every single person will make a judgement and to allow it to operate that way would need every single bar staff to operate responsibly which is unlikely.