How to stop teenagers begging for beers

[brieuxster]

I think in Canada the legal drinking age is 19(?) so that's technically a teenager I guess.

Each province and territory is free to set its own drinking age. The legal age for purchase is: 19 years of age in BC, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, PEI, Saskatchewan, and Yukon. 18 years of age in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec.

 

[Yooper]

Depending on where you live that couldn't be further from the truth (I'm thinking about all of you cheeseheads).

\

True. When I go to a tavern, it's completely legal for the owner's 10 year old to serve my 10 year old, as long as the parents give permission. (We primarily are in Wisconsin for outings).

But, it's never legal for me to serve a minor that is not my own child without the parent's being present and giving permission. So I wouldn't be able to serve my teens, and "their friends" legally, and in some states it could be a felony. We straddle the border between Wisconsin and Michigan, and it could easily become an interstate thing which makes it a felony!

I do want to mention that discussion is valuable, but we never want to get into talking politics or encouraging violation of laws in that discussion. We can talk about the law in the area we live, but keep in mind that this forum is based in Texas, USA. So any real discussion of encouraging minors to imbibe aside from the type of discussion we are currently having will not be allowed. Thanks!

 

[RevKev]

I'd like to know what the states define as alcohol being "medically necessary"

 

[RevKev]

But back to the point I think that for the OPs concerns if it is legal for the teenagers to imbibe, then make them brew it with you. It will make them have a greater appreciation of where the brews are coming from

 

[Hoppy2bmerry]

Aside from putting those teens to work on a brew day, you could always supply some extra bitter tough drinking brew to perhaps slow them down a bit.

 

[65C]

I don't see a prob in a 14+ year old having a super light session ale at home occasionally - rather that than doing it elsewhere with super strong cans or worse spirits

 

[passedpawn]

I don't think it's an issue for most of us- in the US it's illegal to provide alcohol to anyone under 21 and adults/parents could get in serious trouble for allowing someone under 21 to drink, and providing the alcohol can sometimes be a felony.

I don't think that's quite right. In fact, I believe it's decided state-by-state, with many states allowing underage consumption with parental consent. Other stipulations too, depending on the state.

Regarding the OP, I don't have much advice. I've got 3 older kids (19/23/26) and none of them were ever interested in drinking anything. Odd.

 

[passedpawn]

I don't think it's an issue for most of us- in the US it's illegal to provide alcohol to anyone under 21 and adults/parents could get in serious trouble for allowing someone under 21 to drink, and providing the alcohol can sometimes be a felony.

Here's the places and stipulations for underage drinking. For the most part, drinking at home with adult supervision and consent is mostly OK. Unless you ask my wife, then no so much

Exceptions to the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) of 21

 

[chickypad]

I'd like to know what the states define as alcohol being "medically necessary"

They used to use ethanol infusions to treat preterm labor. Was before my time but I've heard stories of having a collection of drunk ladies on the maternity unit.

 

[triethylborane]

They used to use ethanol infusions to treat preterm labor. Was before my time but I've heard stories of having a collection of drunk ladies on the maternity unit.

Ethanol is used to treat vascular malformations.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Is it not true that they used to give ladies Milk stout when they were pregnant? I think my mom told me that's what she used to get with the admonishment to 'drink it up, its good for you'. Saying that they used to also tell me that if I ate my bread crusts it would put hairs on my chest.

 

[kh54s10]

I've got 3 older kids (19/23/26) and none of them were ever interested in drinking anything. Odd.

At least that you know about!

 

[seatazzz]

I'm gonna whip out my old lady curmudgeon card, and in the words of Nancy Reagan, advise "Just Say No". Despite my advanced years (gonna hit the big five oh this Friday) I do remember being a teenager hell bent on mischief...I've also been a bartender for 22+ years and I say, tell the little darlings No unless they are willing to help brew it or do some odd jobs around your home brewery to earn it. I will NOT go into my rant about Millenials who think the world owes them everything...I WON'T. Promise. Little sh8ts. End of partial rant. Get offa my lawn!!!

 

[k1ngl1ves]

and yet the Feds if they like can come in and bust you - crazee

Yes it is, so much for the land of the free.

Yeah, but couldn't you then choose a jury trial?


I mean, if OJ could get acquitted once...

 

[ebstauffer]

We can talk about the law in the area we live, but keep in mind that this forum is based in Texas, USA. So any real discussion of encouraging minors to imbibe aside from the type of discussion we are currently having will not be allowed. Thanks!

Interestingly enough, Cloudflare has no data centers in Texas. So if we're going to be really accurate...

 

[ChelisHubby]

In all honesty I think I would give them beer with parental permission and inform the parents. this keeps you out of BS and gives the kids a chance to learn. If they are so inclined. But if I had a poor quality beer that would be what they would primarily be drinking.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yeah, but couldn't you then choose a jury trial?


I mean, if OJ could get acquitted once...

Lol just because you done it don't mean you're guilty!

 

[jekko]

If you don't mind them drinking, just let them brew some and 'earn' it this way. Though if they are under age and not all of them are your own kids then better just let them understand they won't get any beer from you. Though if you'd like to use free labour force it's probably the best opportunity

 

[cloudybrewer]

Why should I surrender my finest Vienna lager or beloved Kolsch to such ingrates? Gargling the stuff down like ravenous pirates. I ask them did they enjoy the beer and they state, 'Yeah Mr. Robbie, it was bangin!' That's teenager for 'yes it was very tasty. Got any more?'

This is hilarious! Ravenous pirates, that's pretty spot-on.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The feds could certainly find a interstate tie to pot production here in CO, fertilizer from out of state used to made the dankest weed, or something else along those lines. A bigger issue though is paying for it, which often times feds will let the states have jurisdiction bc its just not worth it.

Actually, they don't even need to investigate fertilizer / etc. See Wickard v. Filburn from 1942.

The case revolved around a farmer growing crops on his own land for his own family's consumption. The Supreme Court ruled that was interstate commerce because if he didn't grow his own wheat, he might buy wheat in interstate commerce, and therefore his activity affected interstate commerce.

This was extended specifically to marijuana in Gonzales v Raich in 2005. It stated that even an *illegal* good like marijuana is considered interstate commerce, although that commerce shouldn't <according to the federal gov't> exist. So even growing your own pot for your own [medical] use is subject to federal regulation based on the idea that there is an interstate illicit market.

So yeah, if the feds want to prosecute, they're pretty much going to get away with it, due to the supremacy clause. It doesn't matter AT ALL to the feds that the state declared it to be legal.

 

[Brickman]

Just give the kids a 12 pack of Blue Moon Pumpkin Beer. It will cure them of ever wanting to drink beer again.

 

[dyqik]

Bourbon county would probably put them off quicker. It's an _acquired taste_...

 

[MSK_Chess]

Actually, they don't even need to investigate fertilizer / etc. See Wickard v. Filburn from 1942.

The case revolved around a farmer growing crops on his own land for his own family's consumption. The Supreme Court ruled that was interstate commerce because if he didn't grow his own wheat, he might buy wheat in interstate commerce, and therefore his activity affected interstate commerce.

This was extended specifically to marijuana in Gonzales v Raich in 2005. It stated that even an *illegal* good like marijuana is considered interstate commerce, although that commerce shouldn't <according to the federal gov't> exist. So even growing your own pot for your own [medical] use is subject to federal regulation based on the idea that there is an interstate illicit market.

So yeah, if the feds want to prosecute, they're pretty much going to get away with it, due to the supremacy clause. It doesn't matter AT ALL to the feds that the state declared it to be legal.

That is fascinating. If I understand the link correctly the SCOTUS is basically saying, ok the amount of wheat that you grew in excess of the quota was measly and the purpose that you grew it for was local, however the point is that if everyone did it then the accumulative effect would be substantial and as a direct consequence it must come under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. I suspect that the unfortunate farmer set a precedent that they felt had to be nailed down.

 

[madscientist451]

It gets hot and the first thing I know is that the teenage son and his scurrilous friends are begging me for beers.

Be thankful they are not out doing crack and/or heroin. Young people are dying over here by the thousands, overdosing on drugs. The open borders and free trade crowd don't want to look at the downside of those policies, but numbers don't lie. Plain old alcohol consumption seems pretty tame these days.
Tell them if they want some beer they have to help you brew some. Let them pick out a style they like and then you buy all the ingredients for a 20L batch. When its gone, the ingredients for the next batch will be paid for by them or they can work for the beer, cutting the grass, washing your windows
or whatever chores they can do. No money or no work=no more beer.
They may be up for it or they might not. Either way have a good time and try to impart some old guy wisdom on them: Stay away from lawyers, judges, hard liquor , hard drugs. Find a girl that treats them good and treat her like a gift from god. Don't believe anything in the news or out of a politicians mouth, and all that glitters is not gold.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yeah we heard that there was some kind of opiate abuse problem. Its tragic for everyone, parents and kids, that stuff destroys lives. A glass of home-brew by comparison is healthy, full of natural goodness, uplifting and energy giving. The Government should mandate the labelling of home-brew as a health drink! God damn the pusher man!

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

That is fascinating. If I understand the link correctly the SCOTUS is basically saying, ok the amount of wheat that you grew in excess of the quota was measly and the purpose that you grew it for was local, however the point is that if everyone did it then the accumulative effect would be substantial and as a direct consequence it must come under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. I suspect that the unfortunate farmer set a precedent that they felt had to be nailed down.

I'm not going to go into great detail, as that's better suited for the debate board. But effectively, this Supreme Court decision basically said that it was kosher for Congress to regulate effectively anything it wanted to, because any economic activity "affects interstate commerce."

In the US there had long been a division of power between states and the federal government, with the states largely fighting to retain a lot of regulatory control, and the federal government (Congress) largely relegated to making sure states weren't interfering with commerce--much like the EU broke down many economic restraints when it comes to commerce crossing borders within Europe.

But Congress likes power, and FDR's New Deal regulations involved such sweeping regulations beyond the scope of what Congress had done in the past. Had the Court found in favor of the farmer rather than the regulators, it would have significantly limited Congress' power to regulate.

This is one among many historic changes moving powers once retained at the state level to the federal government in the US.

Interestingly (and on topic for this forum), the 21st Amendment--repealing Prohibition--is written and interpreted by the Courts in such a way as it leaves enormous power over alcohol in the hands of the states. This is one reason you'll hear many of us here talk about the "three-tier system", or why just a few short years ago we were excited that Alabama had finally legalized homebrewing. States have widely different alcohol laws, largely because the 21st Amendment said "alcohol is hereby legal, but individual states can make it illegal if they want to." This largely made it almost impossible for the Feds to use Commerce Clause rationale as it relates to most matters related to alcohol...

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

I thought those kids all preferred Buckfast

 

[seatazzz]

Back in my day it was Animal Beer (aka Schmidt's)...which was actually pretty tasty compared to Natty Ice or the other monstrosities out these days. We couldn't afford Rainer or Oly (god I miss that beer) so had to get the cheapest. I still love me a good Rainier on tap now and again even though it's not quite the same.

 

[rlmiller10]

I'm gonna whip out my old lady curmudgeon card, and in the words of Nancy Reagan, advise "Just Say No". Despite my advanced years (gonna hit the big five oh this Friday) I do remember being a teenager hell bent on mischief...I've also been a bartender for 22+ years and I say, tell the little darlings No unless they are willing to help brew it or do some odd jobs around your home brewery to earn it. I will NOT go into my rant about Millenials who think the world owes them everything...I WON'T. Promise. Little sh8ts. End of partial rant. Get offa my lawn!!!

50 is not advanced years. Just old enough to no longer make a fool or yourself very often and hitting your stride in life....with the occasional limp

 

[RevKev]

Give them wild ales.. that's another thought

View attachment 1501045921499.jpg