By adamg - 2/6/07 - 9:34 pm
Yes - Those kids are troublemakers
8% (14 votes)
No - Those kids are old enough to vote, they should be allowed to go out
90% (157 votes)
Don't know
2% (4 votes)
Total votes: 175
Comments
No Way
That idea is insane on so many levels. First like you stated if you are 18+ you can vote. In addition to that you can join the military and be sent off to referee a low grade civil war in the Middle East. Then there is the pragmatic aspect of it. Without outlets to go out on the town, many in the 18-21 crowd will just end up going to house parties where there will be nothing to do but get drunk off their ass. Those parties will end up causing more disturbances any 18+ show.
Check out my sports, politics, music and Watertown issues blog
I moved to Boston at age 18
I never knew how lucky I was to grow up in North Jersey - of all places! At age 15 I could go to Hoboken or NYC and see just about any band I wanted. I was even able to stay out later than my regular time because at least my parents knew were I would be and that I was relatively safe.
At age 18 I came to Boston. I found myself much more limited because many shows featuring bands I had seen in NYC were 21+ and some were even an odd 19+! I thought college was where one finds freedom! Independence! I even had a curfew in Boston I never had before (early shows, 2am etc)!
I'm 31 now and still living in Boston. I teach high school. One thing that strikes me is that today's youth (or maybe that's youth HERE) don't seem as independent as my generation, nor do they know how to handle freedom with the same maturity. (I hope it's not rose-colored glasses that make me see it this way.)
The longer we treat people like children, the longer they will act like children. Perhaps that, plus the bizarre fear of young people New Englanders seem to have, are the reasons why there are problems with all-ages shows.
Either way, the idea that ending them earlier in the evening will do away with any problems is a flawed one. Trouble doesn't care what time it is. Keep the shows regular-length. When a young person misbehaves, deal with that person or persons directly. (or maybe even their parents). When a club misbehaves towards young people, deal with the owners. But please, enough with the mass punishment.
why 18?
when i was in high school, i was addicted to wbru, and i went to see bands in providence instead of boston because those were the shows i heard about. my friends and i started driving down there almost every weekend to see some band or other the second we got our licenses, and pretty much every show in the city was all ages. we never got into trouble, and we never heard of anyone else getting into trouble, either. that was when we were 16; when we were 18 and in college and could go anywhere we wanted, we were better prepared. we knew we didn't have to get wasted at a club in order to have a good time there. we weren't suddenly more mature because we'd hit a government-mandated milestone--we had been allowed to attain maturity by being trusted not to act like idiots, even before the political world thought we were capable of doing so. people might be surprised at how much trusting a kid to be responsible can actually reinforce a sense of responsibility. of course, it won't work in every case; a person of any age who wants to do something stupid will do it, and if he or she has to do it before 11 p.m., then that's when it'll happen. these arbitrary constraints can't possibly make any meaningful difference.
This policy and the way it
This policy and the way it is being implemented are signs of Menino's increasing arrogance, blind spots and tendency to grandstand while accomplishing little.
If you try to find any official information about this new "directive" - you will hit a wall. The Mayors office no longer feels any responsibility to answer its constituents and is now making policy by decree.
There is no information anywhere and on top of that, this has been going on for one month now, with officials showing up at the doors to clubs and yet somehow neither the Globe or the Herald have picked up on it. There is something very fishy going on here.
The Globe did write about it
City orders suspension of 19-plus club nights, 1/12/07.
If they can vote and join the army..
They should be able to be see concerts/etc. past 11.
With people above 18 , to mangle an idiom, it's not the age, it's the STUPIDITY.
There are perfectly sane 18-year-olds who can handle seeing a late-night concert, and there are 25-year-olds who shouldn't be let near alcohol, women or exposed electrical outlets.
i go out to as many shows as
i go out to as many shows as i can. what are they expecting? that suddenly all the 18+ shows are gonna go 21+? in a college town?? where most of the people attending the shows are undergrads?
sigh... being the ripe old age of 28 and liking bands that have audiences skewing towards the 16-25 age group (when the band members are older than i am!) i'd be a bit worried some of the bands i look forward to seeing live (while hanging with the parents at the bar) wouldn't be playing here that much anymore.
I can't support this
I was the guy who waited until he was 21 to drink. I *really* don't think kids should be drinking at 18. But even so, I have a hard time accepting a law which sets up a probationary period of adulthood. I'm not going to campaign against it, but I'm not going to support any expansion of this mindset. 18 year olds are adults and should be afforded as many rights as they can. A defacto curfew goes against any reasonable perspective of adulthood and lacks the concrete benefits of the increased drinking age. This is an act which simply acts to treat adults like children, and I think that sends to wrong message and simply encourages 18-20 year olds to disrespect authority. The "kids" aren't the problem here. The authority is.
While I agree that 18-20-year-olds should be afforded as many
rights as possible, there really is a legitimate reason for raising the drinking age to 21: There was a time when the drinking age was lowered to 18--many years ago. However, when the drinking age was lowered to 18, there was much more drinking among high school kids, because they had much easier access to alcohol, which is not good, because high school kids are generally not physically or emotionally ready to handle the affects of alcohol. Neither should some adults, but why add to it by making it easier for high school kids to get access to alcohol? Imo-they shouldn't.
slightly off topic
The last couple of 18+ shows I went to were filled with the girls squealing, 'I love you!!' to the lead singer of the bands... Death Cab for Cutie and They Might Be Giants. Are you kidding me??? Haven't been to another 18+ show since.
Two Words: College Town
Does the mayor seriously think that Boston's live music scene will be able to sustain itself after this proposed law goes into effect? It's hard enough to find a good venue in Boston nowadays, even without this restriction in place. I worry that such a law would be the death knell for the few decent clubs that still remain in Boston.
Two words: Cambridge, Somerville
Just to clarify: Tom Menino has no jurisdiction over those communities. If clubs in Boston can't offer 18+ shows anymore, what's to stop clubs in Cambridge and Somerville from offering them? Even for BU students, they're not that hard to get to.
Another Idea, Slightly Off-Topic
How about we just cut the nonsense revolving around the idea that a specific age makes anyone automatically good to go for anything?
I propose we have a written "adulthood" test. You can take it at any age and if you pass, you're officially licensed as an adult. You can then enjoy whatever the hell you want that comes with being an adult - sex, voting, legal drugs, rock and roll, getting blown to bits in foreign lands, etc. If you flunk, nada - even if you're 35 or 40.
I don't disagree with the
I don't disagree with the comments, but BSO and Pops concerts are over by 10:15 at the latest, sometimes earlier for the holiday shows. Other classical concerts there don't make it to 11 PM either.
wow. let's just blame everyone.
The inclusion of every 18-20 year old in Boston for being responsible for supposed immature behavior is rediculous. So are they saying that if a bunch of people around the same demographic start fights at several places, then they shouldn't be allowed in ever again? How is it the fault of every other person in the same group of those involved if SOME of them decide they want to behave immaturely? If all those people involved were 30 or older, then should ages 30+ not be allowed in? If all the people involved were either white, asian or black, then should we ban the accused race from enjoying these events? Since the attack on the WTC was by a bunch of brainwashed Arabs, should we say all Arabs are to blame? Should we now deport every single one of them? If the answer to any of these is 'no' then you can see that these supposed 'protectors of propriety' are, excuse my language, FUCKING RETARDED. Bottom line.
While it's only a minority of them who cause trouble,
that's generally all it takes to instigate trouble and to incite others to act that way who might or might not act that way ordinarily. If the majority is unable and/or unwilling to reign in the troublemaking minority in their flanks, then, yes, they (the majority) do bear responsibility.