This isn’t meant to be a criticism in any way, but it’s something I’ve wondered about for a long time. From my perception as a Brit, I’ve always got the impression from American “teen” shows (Dawson’s Creek, for one example), that alcohol consumption by young adults is seen as a big deal… for instance, if ever the youngsters go out to a party where there’s - gasp - beer, at least one of them is bound to overindulge and almost die, or something.
Now, having spent some time in the states, it seems my perception was right. I was in San Francisco last month, and celebrating my 26th birthday (on St Patrick’s Day - handy!). I don’t look especially old for my age, so I figured I’d take my passport along for ID - good job I did, as almost every bar had a sign saying “If you look under 30, we will ask for ID”.
Under 30? Jeez, back home girls half that age are regulars in the pubs. So, I know it’s a cliched response from a Brit, but why, in a nation where I’m told you can buy hunting rifles in K*mart (I’ve never looked), do you have to jump through hoops to get a beer? And why is drink shown as such a Bad Thing in the media?
TV can’t exactly encourage underage drinking, can it? American TV is very morally correct.
Posted signs don’t necessarily represent actual practice. Putting up that sign just gives them an out when a 26-year-old gets offended over being asked to show ID.
(I don’t see what guns have to do with your other questions, and I don’t think you really want to bring that can of worms into your discussion.)
America has traditionally been more anti-alcohol than a lot of Europe, especially from the mid 19th century onward. Remember, the US banned alcohol manufacture and sale in the 1920s into the 1930s, and in some parts of the country, it’s still illegal. Why is this? I think part of it is due to a strain of evangelical Protestantism, especially Methodism, that’s anti-alcohol use and that’s stronger in the US than Britain (and almost absent on the continent) So, those attitudes have become part of the culture.
You are right. It is the forbidden fruit syndrome.
However, in those American families who do not make it a big deal, and who allow youngsters to drink, the kids(who later become adults) dont think particular anything of alcohol(it is just another “beverage” to them), and are not attracted to it at all. Same as with guns when introduced at an early age, guns are just considered another “tool”.
Also, you’ve got to remember that the US is a very, very car-oriented culture; in many places, there are no public transportation options at night other than calling a taxi (which most teenagers can’t afford). This means that youth drinking often leads to drunk driving, and Americans have a tendency to (falsely) equate the two.
Whoa! This is not close to the truth. Methodists don’t offically accept alcohol, but do not preach against it. On the other hand, denominations such as the Southern Baptists are openly against alcohol (they used to be openly against dancing and playing cards). As to why some counties are “dry” in the south there is a joke about it being a conspiracy between the preachers and the boot-leggers. Neither wants alcohol legalized.
[ul]* [sup]Emphasis mine[/sup][/ul]
I’d tend to agree with Fretful Porpentine. I don’t have a cite, but when I was in high school the favorite statistic they liked to throw around to scare us kiddies was that the number one cause of death for teens and young adults was accidents due to drunk driving.
Even if it weren’t true I’d tend to believe it were due to the fact that by the time I graduated high school I had 4 close friends and 3 acquaintances get killed in auto accidents where alcohol played a major role.
Don’t believe everything you see on TV. Yes, there is the forbidden fruit aspect, but teen drinking is not as widespread as the media would have you believe. Are all British people mutes who are accident prone?
The “Under 30” signs are there to show that the vendor is tough on under age drinking. There are stiff penalties for being caught selling to minors and vendors would lose a great deal of money if their alcohol licenses were taken away.
It also should be noted that many of these “Under 30” signs are provided by the government. The vendors had nothing to do with their creation, they just display the signs to give off that tough on underage drinking stance.
It doesn’t get to the root of American attitudes toward alcohol (which others are addressing), but the reason that bars have “we ID under 30 (or 40!)” policies is because of the draconian measures the police will take if you are caught selling to a single underage drinker. I don’t think the management of many bars have moral qualms about selling beer to 20-year olds, but if they let in one, even one who looks 28, they’re looking at a serious fine if they get caught. Penalties will rapidly escalate, and it doesn’t take many offenses before the cops will close them down. In fact, in many places, the police will do sting operations where they send underage kids to try to buy beer at convenience stores or bars so they can catch places that aren’t carding vigorously enough. So, for the bar, it’s more self-preservation than it is membership in the temperence society.
Doesn’t Sweden have much stricter alcohol laws than the U.S?
Alcohol’s allure in the U.S. was raised about 20 years ago when the feds effectively made the national drinking age 21 (the feds can’t regulate that, it’s a state issue, but they will withhold highway maintenance money if the age isn’t 21).
Also, M.A.D.D. has done a good publicity job raising people’s awareness of drunk driving. Even though more than half of driving fatalities involving alcohol involve levels above .15, most states have lowered the officially drunk level from .1 to .08 in the past few years.
There is a sweetheart deal between US networks and the Federal Communications Commission. It was in the papers awhile back. There’s a requirement to air public service spots against drugs and alcohol. However, if fictional programs slip an anti-substance-abuse into the plot line, the networks don’t have to show so many public-service spots. Thus they can sell more ads instead.
So, if they show some kid on Boston Public or Dawson’s Creek getting hammered, and driving into a tree, they don’t have to show you some sullen youth saying, “Badger me all the time, Dad, and I won’t smoke dope.” They can sell those minute to convince you that if you’re gonna act crazy, you’d better drink Mountain Dew.
At the age of 18 you can buy alcohol in a bar and also beer from a supermarket.
Anything stronger for consumption at home has to be bought at the government run Systembolaget. You have to be (IIRC) 20 to buy stuff from there.
Drink-driving laws are very strict, but that is about the end of it. Underage drinking is accepted, in my experience. There are certain days of the year that everyone seems to ignore that there is even a drinking age, Midsummer and Valborg’s Eve (30th of April) spring instantly to mind, especially Valborg’s as you can find masses of pissed-up teens wandering the streets of Stockholm on that night.
Swedes in general drink to get drunk. Because of the high cost and awkwardness of getting hold of decent alcohol (due to Systembolaget’s lack of shops and magic opening hours) there is no real social drinking like I was used to in pubs back home in the UK.
Th ebest way to look at it is Swedes are very traditional and a lot of their traditions stem from the Vikings, which means a lot of alcohol. I have heard on many numerous occasions Swedes talking about how they “drink like Vikings”.
On the other hand, Americans are sometimes puzzled by how much Brits drink, and how oddly accepted it is to get drunk in public. Drinking beer at lunch with your co-workers? You don’t see Americans quaffing pints at lunch as often as you see Brits doing so. This is, of course, a generalization.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2000, 41,821
people were killed on U.S. highways; 40 percent of these fatalities involved alcohol. Alcohol-related injuries continue to be a serious threat to both drivers and passengers on the road. In 2000, over 300,000 people in the United States suffered injuries in alcohol-related crashes.
From 1990 to 2000, the youth alcohol-related fatality rate has been cut from 16
to 10 deaths per 100,000. Drinking and driving is no longer the leading cause of death for teenagers; however, motor vehicle crashes remain so.
Fretful Porpentine is right: the U.S. is a car culture; there are more cars per capita here than in any other country.
I’ll grant that this is based on a sample size of one Brit (my dad), but he certainly accepted drinking pretty much whenever, but getting drunk (not being able to ``hold your liquor’’) was cause for the worst and longest lasting ribbing ever. So I’d say that it is not oddly accepted to get drunk in public (or in private for that matter)
I understand what Susanann is saying, and I agree.
There is such a taboo with alcohol in the US, that the kids go in the woods to get drunk at 14, because it is sooo cool… They’re not allowed, it is terrible, they do it more.
I personaly am very very shocked that the legal age is 21… It baffles me that you can drive at 16 (too young) and drink at 21 only (too old).
Also, on holidays strongly associated with drinking (especially St. Patrick’s day), bars are likely to be more hardassed with verifying age. I’d suspect that sting operations and such are far more common on these days, and certainly there are more drunk-driving checkpoints and whatnot on “drinking holidays”. The bars are just covering their asses.
As a matter of fact, historically the Methodist church has been one of the strongest (meaning both vocally and politically) opponents of alcohol in the U.S. The Anti-Saloon League, which gained tremendous political power in the early 1900s, culminating in the disastrous foolishness of national Prohibition, was co-founded and initially led by James Cannon, Jr., a Methodist bishop. Another big name in the League was Thomas Hare, a Methodist minister. The League was largely an alliance of the Methodist and Baptist churches (on the subject of drinking), with the Methodist influence being the most politically powerful (at least north of the Mason-Dixon line). So the claim that Methodists “do not preach against” alcohol is at best grossly inaccurate.