Yes, but it's also relatively easy to homebrew alcohol, and for example homebrew beers will almost always have a higher alcohol content than beers bought in a shop.

Incidentally, I've no real problem with people growing their own pot. At least that way money isn't going to dealers.

Yeah, but that's the parent s job to educate their kids not to take the alcohol. My friends mom when I was little had alcohol all over her top cabinet and my friend wouldn't dare touch any of the bottles. Now if your children does it anyway as a parent you must stop being selfish and give up drinking so your children wont have access to them.

While drugs are not directly affecting you - legalisation of drugs may, indirectly. It would run a higher risk of drug related accidents. It also wouldn't eliminate all problems with dealing, people would still be out to make a profit, and people would still not be able to afford these prices. If they were sold at legal outlets, you'd still get people trying to flog it cheaper - and people willing to take the risk buying it through this option. It's not always the drugs themselves that are harmful either - other things that may be present still pose a threat.

Alternatively, you can introduce your children to alcohol at a relatively young age (in small quantities, and I'm talking about nine or ten, a small glass of wine over dinner, maybe a little taste of your whisky or whatever else). Educate your kids about alcohol. Don't tell them not to do it, because that will have absolutely no effect. Instead, just bring them up so that they are well aware of the concept of drinking responsibly and they'll be fine. There's no need to remove all the alcohol from your house or anything like that, it's just a case of common sense.

And it can be exactly the same with legal drugs. Common sense.

I guess I'm biased against it, as I would like to work for the health service. Legalisation would undoubtedly lead to more drug-caused conditions, thus putting more pressure not only on the taxpayer, but the service itself, thus making people who're in trouble not at all caused by themselves may be waiting longer for treatment. Raph brought up the fact that taxes would be able to compensate for this - but would taxes really be adequate?

The bottom line is, if your friends are drinking, and you've never had a drink before, you're gonna try it. Not knowing anything about it is not a good thing.

That works in very few cases - young teens are drawn to breaking their parents rules. If you put a ban on something that has a mystery surrounding it like alcohol, you're more or less asking for trouble in my opinion.

No! No! No! No! As a parent your duty is to set rules that will make your child stay away from any danger, and by not putting rules your kids will be more liberal and the more liberal the more trouble you will have.

And Thats a whole bunch of bologna. The whole "then the child would want to break the rules" is crap. If you set rules on your kids from day 1 and when they break them you punish them, its more of a chance the kid won't do it again than just letting your kid be free. Now if the teen is a "bad boy" then the kid should be taken to counseling or even to juvenile jail for breaking the rules, if he still doesn't listen make the punishment harsher every time until he learns. When I say harsh I don't mean violence. "Violence is not punishing a kid".

all i can say about that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. first of all, the same elliott said - if you tend to not let your son to do some things, he will have curiosity for it and will always be attracted to it. for example, if a young teen who always got a "no" from his parents in all matters surrounding alcohol, when he is hanging out with his friends and they are drinking, he will probably drink, and the results will be much worse than it would be if he was educated before by his parents. a similar example would be in charlie and the chocolate factory - willy wonka's dad never let him eat chocolate. one day he did and he became addicted to it, because it's something that he always had prohibited and wanted to know about.

second, educating your children about drinking alcohol doesn't mean you will let them drink all the time or something like that. for example, my parents let me drink when i'm out, but they wouldn't like it if i drank to much. so i don't. i have a lot of respect to my parents and follow they rules (almost) always. of course that there are different cases, and different people that have less control on themselves, but i think than an average person would do the same. i know my parents won't let me drink 'til i fall, so i don't. i'm not saying i haven't throw up or being drunk, but i try to not break the limit a lot.

and, finally - how can you say "be a parent, not a friend"? that's the worst thing i've ever heard concerning this stuff. if you have a distant relation with your parents, you will tend to lose respect for them and do the things they won't let you doing. i have a great relationship with my parents, i tell my mom everything i do and everything that happens to me. she knows that i smoke, drink and smoke with and she teaches me about that (she never smoke weed but knows cases and that). if you can't talk with your parents like a friend, you'll feel that you don't have the contention you need in your house, so you will try to find it in other places - for example, hanging out with people that smoke weed and you see they have a good time and doesn't feel bad at all, so you start doing it. there's a lot of errors in what you said. think about it.

In reality, alcohol in small amounts, while still being a toxin, is not seriously harmful. Drinking alcohol in large amounts in one go (on a binge) is harmful - it can lead to health problems caused by the alcohol itself, as well as problems caused by being drunk. I'd personally rather a child had a few small amounts and learned about it (not being taught to "enjoy wine") than went out on a binge, got alcohol poisoning and their stomach pumped.