Disco Dan wrote:I mean, I'm not gonna go down the ultra-liberal 'anything goes' path because that's not a reflection of my own views, but to say 'you can't do anything, do not touch it' would be hypocritical would it not?
I don't think it is hypocritical. When I was getting pissed and stoned as a kid, the point was that my parents did not approve. This had two effects:
a) To impose some sort of limit on my behaviour, in the sense that I would not have had the balls to arrive home off my tits on acid (well, not often anyway
b) To make me aware that what I was doing was not really socially acceptable.
I'm now a parent, so I see nothing wrong in following my parents' example, albeit perhaps updated to reflect the times we live in. My dad shot at the Japanese during the war, but I don't think he'd have said it was OK for me to do that because he did
. But clearly, I'm not going to get into an apopletic rage if the kids break the rules; I'll just try and get it to a sensible discussion if I think the behaviour is unacceptable or dangerous. I think the key with teens is to get them to 'own' their behaviour - ie not to come out with bullshit about 'they were just following their mates' and to be fully aware of, and responsible for, the consequences of any actions they take. If you can get the idea of self-awareness across, you've more than half won the battle.
Disco Dan wrote: And more to the point, do drugs and alcohol simply fall into the same bracket, with their status as legal/illegal being arbitrary to a degree?
Think you can only really disregard the law and act on the basis of the kid's long term safety. I mentioned above about a friend's pissed daughter passing out on a bus and ending up miles from home. She could have been robbed, raped, anything. That's the key issue - not the alcohol.