Over the years I have heard many stories from my kids and many parents about serving liquor to minors while in their homes. I have been totally opposed to this reckless practice and quite frankly am amazed when I hear the lazy assed excuses/reasons why people do it. They range from… the after-prom party is here at my house, I’ll take the kid’s car keys from them and they will sleep here so what’s the problem with them having a few beers, I did when I went to the prom…” to “big deal, they’re 18 and I drank when I was 18” to “I’d rather they had a few beers here in my basement compared to drinking in some parking lot or the woods and then drive home…” or “in Europe kids start drinking when they’re 10…”. Plus if there is a problem, I have home insurance to cover me.
Well here’s the bad news, The Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association (MPIUA) took this to court and the courts have sided with MPIUA and stated that your home owners insurance will not provide coverage nor defense for any claims arising from “host liquor liability”. So if you serve a minor (or any guest) at your home and they leave and get into an accident, you may lose your house. You may be able to get some other coverage to protect against this liability.
No comments are needed for this other than to please use your heads and don’t serve minors, no matter what the rationale or justification. This insurance reason is just another reason not to do it.
JohnD… the party pooper.
I think it’s more accurate to say that no minor guests should be served alcohol, and of course NOBODY should drink if they are going to drive. I am of the opinion (along with my Austrian wife) that serving my children (18 and older) moderate amounts of wine and/or beer with our family meals in our home is an entirely appropriate way to introduce them to the proper use of alcohol. I note that MA law explicitly allows this.
Here is the specific text of the MA law, MGL c.138, sec. 34 (emphasis mine):
I’m also pretty sure that this means that a 22 year old man married to an 18 year old woman can legally order a glass of wine for her at their favorite restaurant.
According to the Chief of Police in my town…
No mention of the married couple scenario.
What is your argument aside from the insurance thing? I think we agree that people don’t suddenly gain a wondrous new sense of responsibility on their 7,669th day alive. What’s wrong with 18 — if someone can die in our military, why can’t they get served in our bars?
The legal drinking age in MA was 18 from 1973 to 1979. Then…
It’s a Federal requirement. They held 10% of Highway Fund assistance hostage to force compliance.
…just pointing out what it is, though it looks like Tom made a valid clarification. I could be wrong, but I thought I once heard about research relative to the formation of the brain that justifies delaying most alcohol consumption until 21.
and there is never a good age for lead consumption.
and I think a fairly serious one. If you serve someone a drink (independent of age) and they get into an accident – don’t expect your insurance company to defend you.
BTW – drinking age should be 19 – 21 is ridiculous. You can be charged as an adult with drinking as a minor – this is crazy.
I’m not debating age. When I grew up the drinking age was 18 so of course we started at 16. I think an increase in highway deaths (and the end of the Viet Nam War) may have caused to drinking age to return to 21.
My point was simply a warning to anyone thinking of serving minors to think twice unless they feel like possibly being liable with no insurance protection.
When I grew up, the drinking age was 21, so of course we started at 16.
“I think an increase in highway deaths (and the end of the Viet Nam War) may have caused to drinking age to return to 21.”
Rightly or wrongly?
The European answer to this dilemma is to make the drinking age 16 (for beer and wine), and the driving age 18. They also enforce DUI regulations far more rigorously. Finally, they have built a civilization that is far less dependent on driving a car (walking, biking, and public transportation are each much more available in Europe than here).
I just want to understand the theories about right and wrong that inform conclusions about what to think about the drinking age. In particular, I’m wondering about the analogy with gun control. That is, if highway deaths are enough justification to regulate something, what does that say about what gun policy should when gun deaths are considered.
I just want people to protect their assets and not risk them unknowingly.
Agnosticism is a perfectly legitimate position. At least until it becomes inconsistent with the underlying foundation of other positions.
We could debate the SCOTUS role in the ObamaCare decision without necessarily debating whether ObamaCare is good or bad. That might be for a separate debate or post. That happens a lot here and before you know it the post comments have nothing to do with how it started.
For insurance reasons, it’s stupid to serve someone underage who is not in the family. For cultural reasons, it’s stupid that we don’t and can’t.
Given the system the way that it is, sure. But I wonder if we were a bit more level-headed about alcohol in Anglo-Saxon societies if we would have as much binge-drinking and beer-fueled college dropouts.