Barry
02-05-2010, 01:38 PM
The recent discussion regarding parents being held responsible for sanctioning teen drinking (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/63260-sebastopol-may-fine-parents-who-sanction-teen-drinking.html#post106454) got me thinking about the nature of law and enforcement.
I have offered my 18 y/o daughter (Waldorf educated with a 4.0 GPA) and her friends the opportunity to enjoy alcohol at my house in a safe, supervised and responsible manner from time to time. I think this is responsible parenting. Nicely enough I live outside the city limits so I can continue to do this with impunity!:wink:
Let's be real and logical. There are only two alternatives:
1) They drink in an unsupervised setting and who knows what happens and there is no one to be sure they are safe.
2) They don't drink. And then when they turn 21, they are fully allowed to use/abuse alcohol with no prior experience. And when they drive under the influence the parents have no responsibility.
And not that I encourage it, but I can't think of a better lesson about use/respect for alcohol than a good hangover! I've had mine as a teen, and I bet you had yours.
That said, I don't doubt that there are some parents that make alcohol available without proper safeguards. And if somebody gets hurt because of that they should held responsible.
So I'd like to think that is what this law is about, to hold parents responsible for not providing proper supervision. However you can't legislate exactly what that looks like.
As moderator here, I am well aware of the difficulty of drawing a particular line and saying this OK and this is not and then evaluating the myriad of real life actions, in all their complexity, and deciding if that crosses the line.
What it comes down to, in my book, is not about whether it crosses the line, although that's what's needed to be perceived as "fair", but rather is the behavior appropriate and responsible. The line (i.e. guideline or law) is just a rough approximation, and a point of reference, to ascertain what is truly right/wrong, fair/unfair, respectful/disrespectful, responsible/irresponsible under the circumstances.
And since you can't find anyone "guilty" unless you can say they crossed the "line", it behooves you to draw the line fairly conservatively and then allow for discretion to allow (or not prosecute) behaviors that cross the line nominally, but not in spirit.
I can only hope that this is the intent behind such a law, and that it will be enforced with discretion. I can see value in such a law in that it puts parents on notice they will be held responsible if they don't exercise proper supervision, and to be more careful if they choose to proceed anyway.
I have offered my 18 y/o daughter (Waldorf educated with a 4.0 GPA) and her friends the opportunity to enjoy alcohol at my house in a safe, supervised and responsible manner from time to time. I think this is responsible parenting. Nicely enough I live outside the city limits so I can continue to do this with impunity!:wink:
Let's be real and logical. There are only two alternatives:
1) They drink in an unsupervised setting and who knows what happens and there is no one to be sure they are safe.
2) They don't drink. And then when they turn 21, they are fully allowed to use/abuse alcohol with no prior experience. And when they drive under the influence the parents have no responsibility.
And not that I encourage it, but I can't think of a better lesson about use/respect for alcohol than a good hangover! I've had mine as a teen, and I bet you had yours.
That said, I don't doubt that there are some parents that make alcohol available without proper safeguards. And if somebody gets hurt because of that they should held responsible.
So I'd like to think that is what this law is about, to hold parents responsible for not providing proper supervision. However you can't legislate exactly what that looks like.
As moderator here, I am well aware of the difficulty of drawing a particular line and saying this OK and this is not and then evaluating the myriad of real life actions, in all their complexity, and deciding if that crosses the line.
What it comes down to, in my book, is not about whether it crosses the line, although that's what's needed to be perceived as "fair", but rather is the behavior appropriate and responsible. The line (i.e. guideline or law) is just a rough approximation, and a point of reference, to ascertain what is truly right/wrong, fair/unfair, respectful/disrespectful, responsible/irresponsible under the circumstances.
And since you can't find anyone "guilty" unless you can say they crossed the "line", it behooves you to draw the line fairly conservatively and then allow for discretion to allow (or not prosecute) behaviors that cross the line nominally, but not in spirit.
I can only hope that this is the intent behind such a law, and that it will be enforced with discretion. I can see value in such a law in that it puts parents on notice they will be held responsible if they don't exercise proper supervision, and to be more careful if they choose to proceed anyway.