Food, children and bars

March 3, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
More bars in the state are allowing minors â?? people under age 21 â?? with the proviso that parents are there, too. State law also stipulates a barrier separating bars and family dining areas.

Supporters of the trend say it will result in less alcoholism. What do you think?

More broadly, to what extent should government keep an eye on alcohol? Are regulations too strict, too lenient, about right?
  • Long time listener, first time caller Norm.

    But back to your point: Kids can see booze commercials and booze itsself in every grocery store, convenince store, etc etc, so why not restaurants and bars?

    Gewt rid of all public smoking, and there is no more of a concern.

    Indy (and Indiana) have such archaic laws regarding booze and smoking. Listen to Ballard in his indystar roundtable This city is just not there yet regarding banning smoking in all public places. Yes, he really said that.

    Anyway, get with it Hoosiers, cause its coming. Smoking sucks and you all know it.
  • So government control over private enterprise is ok as long as its for a reason you agree with. How very totalitarian of you.
  • When I was in high school and college, the wildest kids I knew were those who grew up in a household where drinking was hidden or forbidden. They drank everything they could lay their hands on and had no sense of how to drink or when to stop. My parents let us have watered-down wine on special occasions, and sips of beer in the summer, and we saw them drinking responsibly, so it wasn't a big mystery or temptation for my siblings and me.
  • Less alcoholism? I have never seen any research supporting that claim. Has anyone else? The addiction research that I have read is pretty clear - the younger you start drinking, the more likely you are to become an alcoholic.

    Wisconsin, which not only allows kids in bars with their parents, but also allows those 18 and up to drink with their parents in bars, has the highest alcohol consumption rate in the country.
  • Liz is spot on! I grew up in a conservative family with parents who drank very responsibly, but never allowed a sip to the kids. When I went to college, I felt awkward around others who drank as did others like me. The more socially adept individuals were the ones who grew up as she stated. In order to feel like we were on their level, we would drink and didn't fully understand responsibility involved. The quiet, conservative kids in high school were the ones drinking way too much in college.

    And of course there is always the argument that 16 year olds can drive a 1/2 ton vehicle that could mow down pedestrians if out of control, but they can't have a glass of wine at Thanksgiving?
  • Quite frankly, if the issue was only that kids wanted wine at Thanksgiving, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

    I work with college students. There are many factors that play into how much they consume - family history certainly is one of them, but most often it is family consumption at the other end of the spectrum that causes problems.

    Kids who have strong religious backgrounds, are minorities, are very involved on campus (although perhaps not in the Greek system) are less likely to be in the category of high-risk drinkers.
  • I totally agree with Tammy. Alcohol is a drug. Just as the government regulates other drugs and potentially harmful products, alcohol should continue to be regulated and controlled. And kids are just drinking a glass of wine with dinner - they tell us they are drinking to get wasted and don't care or think about the the permanent damage to the frontal lobe of the brain that controls and regulates the ability to learn as well as memory. You can't accelerate physiology. The government might think you are an adult at 18 but your brain doesn't. Our brains continue to develop through our early to mid 20s and any high risk drinking (like underage drinking or binge drinking) creates irreversible changes. Not exactly a good argument for lowering the drinking age.
  • meant to say kids aren't just drinking a glass of wine (not are)
  • I agree Liz - I think people should realize that kids are adults in training - trying to shield them from things that they're only going to encounter in adult life is silly. How will they learn otherwise and wouldn't most parents prefer their kids learn from them, rather than someone else?

    All that being said, I can't say that I would be thrilled about the prospect of kids in bars. Sometimes I choose to eat at bars because I know there will be no unruly kids. If they're allowed everywhere, the prospect doesn't thrill me. Some parents can't seem to control their kids and they run around and yell, which, oddly, I find annoying.

    After coming home from seeing a band out on Saturday night and suffering heightened asthma symptoms for the next two days from all the 2nd hand smoke, I can't wait for nonsmoking laws everywhere!
  • Kids in bars under adult supervision is fine. The drinking age should not change. Everyone's points are valid pro and con. What this all boils down to is parental responsibility to educate and teach their kids. Some of these parents should be thrown in jail with their kids for the lack of responsibility they take for the raising of them.
  • E 101 writes:

    So government control over private enterprise is ok as long as its for a reason you agree with. How very totalitarian of you.

    Yeah. Its called MY OPINION. :lol: srsly, Gov controls all kindsa private enterprise in all kindsa ways. no smoking on commercial flights. no smoking in hospitals. no smoking in grade schools. no smoking in grocery stores. no smoking in courtrooms. etc etc etc. are you really that thin? smoking is tupid.

    Now, on to booze. kids can get booze anywhere anytime. make it illegal, and more often than not, youngsters are breaking the law to get it, drink it, and doing stupid things with it.

    BOTTOM LINE: Rick, as he posted above, gets it..with the exception of lowering drinking age to 18. If you can send an 18 YO to combat to die for his/her country, then that is the age of responsibility. many parents are F-Ups, no doubt. by the time a person is 18, they should be able to take personal responsibilty for themselves.

    I think berwickguy would be proud of my post. :0
  • Da Hooey,

    I have no problem with you stating your opinion. I was simply countering it with my opinion. My point was that it is totalitarian of you to accept government control over the things you agree with but not the things you don't agree with. It would be like me saying, I like the color blue so I think the government has a right to force all houses be blue. But I don't like the color green so I don't think they should have the right to force cars to be green.

    I am in complete agreement with your bottom line.
  • :grouphug:

  • Prouder than a polecat in a perfume factory!!!!

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. why oh why does this state continue to elect these you wonder how much was graft out of the 3.8 billion?

  2. i too think this is a great idea. I think the vision and need is there as well. But also agree with Wendy that there may be better location in our city to fulfill this vision and help grow the sports of hockey and figure skating in Indy. Also to help further develop other parts of the city that seem often forgotten. Any of the other 6 townships out side of the three northernmost could benefit greatly from a facility and a vision like this. For a vision that sounds philanthropic, the location is appears more about the money. Would really like to see it elsewhere, but still wish the development the best of luck, as we can always use more ice in the city. As for the Ice growth when they return, if schedules can be coordinated with the Fuel, what could be better than to have high level hockey available to go see every weekend of the season? Good luck with the development and the return of the Ice.

  3. How many parking spaces do they have at Ironworks? Will residents have reserved spaces or will they have to troll for a space among the people that are there at Ruth Chris & Sangiovese?

  4. You do not get speeding ticket first time you speed and this is not first time Mr.Page has speed. One act should not define a man and this one act won't. He got off with a slap on the wrist. I agree with judge no person was injured by his actions. The state was robbed of money by paying too much rent for a building and that money could have been used for social services. The Page family maybe "generous" with their money but for most part all of it is dirty money that he obtained for sources that are not on the upright. Page is the kind of lawyer that gives lawyers a bad name. He paid off this judge like he has many other tine and walked away. Does he still have his license. I believe so. Hire him to get you confiscated drug money back. He will. It will cost you.

  5. I remain amazed at the level of expertise of the average Internet Television Executive. Obviously they have all the answers and know the business inside and out.