I’m very disappointed and shocked that Christy Clark suggested that children will be permitted into drinking establishments, and that licensed restaurants will be able to serve liquor without serving food.
Since when do impressionable children need to see adults consuming alcohol? This will only encourage irresponsible adults, who can’t find a babysitter, to bring little Billy into the bar with them.
What is the point of having a legal drinking age if children are permitted into a bar? It will only enable children to “take a sip” from Mommy’s brew when servers are not looking.
According to www.casacolumbia.org, the earlier someone starts drinking, the greater the likelihood of developing addition. People who began using addictive substances before age 15 are six-and-a-half times likelier to become addicted than those who delay first use until age 21 or older, and every year that substance use is delayed during brain development, the risk of addiction decreases.
It has also been proven that children will replicate the actions viewed via TV or video, and since many bars have big screens playing non-stop violence or objectifying women as mere sexual playthings, what kind of hope do such children have of growing up with wholesome or healthy values if that is what they will be exposed to?
It is not only the responsibility of the family to protect their own children, but also the government’s responsibility to empower bar owners who agree with me to be able to legally say, “No children allowed in my bar.”
The long-term negative effects of allowing children into bars will be seen in health care, social services, and their abilities to learn in school.
There is just so much wrong with Christy Clark’s suggestion that if she gets away with this, I suggest we change the election laws and require that party leaders who cannot get elected in their own riding will not have the option of stealing another elected person’s seat in order to keep a position of power.
Judy Lans
