Posted on 11/17/2008 7:02:01 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
When a 15-year-old comes into Wile-e’s bar looking for a cold beer, the bartender, Mike Whaley, is happy to serve it up — as long as a parent is there to give permission.
“If they’re 15, 16, 17, it’s fine if they want to sit down and have a few beers,” said Mr. Whaley, who owns the tavern in this small town in southern Wisconsin.
While it might raise some eyebrows in most of America, it is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve.
When it comes to drinking, it seems, no state keeps pace with Wisconsin. This state, long famous for its breweries, has led the nation in binge drinking in every year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began its surveys on the problem more than a decade ago. Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a sitting for a man, four for a woman.
People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.
Now some Wisconsin health officials and civic leaders are calling for the state to sober up. A coalition called All-Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education started a campaign last week to push for tougher drunken driving laws, an increase in screening for alcohol abuse at health clinics and a greater awareness of drinking problems generally.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FWIW,
Wisconsin represents only 3% of the US population but 12% of the alcohol consumption. ive been there many times my Brother Graduated from UW-Madison twice and Ive many a drink on state street.
A few years ago I drove to Chicago for a few days. Then continued on to Osh Kosh then on the Macinaw Island.
While in Osh Kosh I was amazed to see at least two and sometimes as many as three small taverns on nearly everry street corner.
Drinking is not just a past time there.
That’s a bit of a truism (meaning it’s true when it’s true and not when it isn’t.) We were brought up allowed a little alcohol, and we both turned out to be alcoholics.
SUVs with ALCOHOL in them. A lethal combination.
I h ad rather they make driving after drinking ANY alcohol a criminal act than keep unrealistically defining intoxication. Course, then you’re on a “one-drop” rule, and prohibition can’t be far behind.
“Save your pontificating,..”
...I’m not “pontificating” as you say....I’m speaking from personal experiance....I’ve been cleaning up the wreckage from drunk drivers for the past 29 years and it’s not very pretty.
i’d say you were a guy who can really multitask.
except this article seems to contradict that notion. i expected
to learn that people in wisconsin weren’t binge drinkers and
didn’t have high rates of dui.
That’s a great story. The cool part is that heaven isn’t like any service anyone would want to escape, it’s so awesome it can’t even be described or we’d lose our stuff! And your Dad is just getting started on enjoying it.
“....drunk driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in the United States....”
Yeah! In addition all men are rapists becuase they have the tools to commit rape.
It ain’t violence until a car wreck occurs.
What took you so long?
“I noticed this right off. In college, kids who had been allowed an occasional alcholic drink at home by their parents never got into the binge drinking thing.”
Well, maybe I’m an odd one, but I grew up in a home where I was allowed to partake in wine with dinner - if I wanted it which I usually didn’t because I didn’t like the taste. But I still went through a period of “binge” drinking (5 drinks at a sitting? That’s just a warm-up to a real binge.), and still do occasionally “drink for effect”, as they say. But I don’t drink and drive, and I don’t hurt anyone or neglect anything because of it, so I don’t consider it a problem.
We have now made it a Christmas Eve tradition to each have a glass of that wine. We also make the children over age 12 partake with us. We are only talking the equivalent of a shot glass full for them.
The reason behind it is simple, we figure that if they actually get that glass down, they will not drink alcohol for at least the next year! They can't stand the stuff.
So far it has worked. My 18 year old son left for college this year, and on his own requested a "dry" dorm. Meaning that any one who comes home after drinking can be kicked out. My husband and I were shocked, and when we asked him why he chose that dorm his answer was "The last thing I want is some stupid drunk waking me up at 3:00 in the morning."
BTW, I live in Wisconsin, and I do drink socially.
Thanks for the rant. I would also add that it is my belief that the concentration and continual harping on “drunk drivers” is actually causing the roadways to become more hazardous. I don’t have any way to back it up with stats, or links, but I believe that the general population has heard about the “dangerous drunk driving” for so long, while there is no other discussion about dangerous driving habits, that the general perception is that the only dangerous driving is “drunk driving.”
I contend that people are forgetting how dangerous it is to handle tons of moving steel, they figure that since they aren’t drunk they can’t be dangerous. I find it reprehensible that a driver can be rear ended by a sober driver, and then have a BAC of 0.08 and be the one charged at fault for the car wreck.
I’ve had 2 friends killed by sober drivers. One had dumped his motorcycle and was being attended to on the shoulder of a 2 lane highway when an impatient elderly man decided traffic was to slow so he decided to drive on the shoulder, only to run my friend over and kill him at the scene. The other friend was on his way to work one morning and was stopped in traffic on I94. A lady was texting and never noticed that traffic was at a stand still, she rear ended him at 60+ MPH and killed him instantly, leaving his widow with 2 infants and a baby to raise on her own.
In both cases, the murderers received less time than a typical DUI 3rd offense that never caused personal or property damage to anyone. Yes, multiple DUI’s is an indication of a problem, but when no damage is caused then it becomes clear that the concentration is on revenue enhancement.
My opinion is that any driver that causes personal or property damage should be held to the same standard. I also am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a car “accident.” I consider all car wrecks to be caused by someone’s negligence. All wrecks, regardless of level of sobriety, should be aggressively prosecuted. I honestly think that this would make our roads safer.
“I’ve been cleaning up the wreckage from drunk drivers for the past 29 years and it’s not very pretty.”
I guess that means the wreckage caused by sober drivers is pretty. Wreckage is wreckage and all should be treated equally.
Yes, great post in pointing out the incrementalism of the BA limits and in general, the philosophy of the nannyists in going draconian after you’ve given them an inch.
Now, 2 beers or glasses of wine will set you over the line.
And, it’s certain that more sober drivers than drunks have car accidents! If you match the percentages of drunks who have accidents versus the percentage of sober drivers who have accidents, drunks do pretty good.
I did not accuse you of pontificating, and before I remind you what I did, I want to make a couple of things clear.
I have personal experience with this issue, too. I have two firefighters in my family, one of whom has served even longer than you, IIRC. I also have a brother who didn't listen to their warnings about binge drinking and nearly snuffed his life out drunk driving.
So I don't think drunk driving is no big deal, or cool, or that stopping it is tyranny, or that the results are "pretty." Ask my brother who still sets off metal detectors with the pins in his legs.
Now, here's your reminder: I asked you a question. You quoted a description from the article and said that the person being described was driving home drunk. In response, I asked you the following questions:
Where’s the part of the story where he gets behind the wheel drunk?Or are you just assuming that because he drinks, he’s a drunk driver?
Now, can I get an answer? Or are we now convicting people of DUI based on one line of hearsay printed in a newspaper article? Where’s the part of the story where he gets behind the wheel drunk? Or are you just assuming that because he drinks, he’s a drunk driver?
Yep, the lazy will always look for a scape goat and our government reps are lazy at all levels of the government.
Same here.....we would have red wine in our Pepsi at the big Sunday table.....now....Pepsi and red wine...blaaaaaa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.