Many thanks to Nash Montana for translating this article from Politically Incorrect:
Templin: “Chaperoned boozing” as an experiment at school
After mandatory porn class fitting into the scheme of early childhood sexualization of six- to ten-year-olds, our children now are going to have to learn how to booze at school. The red-red state government in Brandenburg wants to teach the “correct” drinking of alcohol in a tax-financed project.
As Nordkurier reported earlier, at the beginning of this week, outraged parents called into the editor’s desk. Their children had brought home a paper from school for parents to give their consent for a “school experiment”. In it parents were expected to give written consent that during class their minor children would be given alcohol under the guise of a “drinking experiment”.
The grammar school of Templin on the Uckermark had invited 90 students from the 9th class for this “experiment” in getting kids drunk, chaperoned by the school.
It was explained that for those under 16 years old, a maximum of three Trinkeinheiten (TE) is optimal. This corresponds to about 0.6 liters (1.25 pints) of champagne or wine. And the highest amount that is given to the minors corresponds to up to four TE, which is about 0.8 liters (1.7 pints) of wine or 1.3 liters (2.75) pints of beer, which the “youths” are supposed to drink under supervision.
Even though the school principal Barbara Liedtke admitted that even she would basically be “flat on the floor” after one liter of beer, she defended the boozing class. Because, after all, this was about observing the consequences.
So now students have to play at being guinea pigs for the country.
“First we’re supposed to teach our kids about the damaging effects of alcohol and drugs. And now they’ll get the booze handed to them by their teachers at school!,” says one angry mother.
The medical insurance company DAK has also reported concerns. Rüdiger Scharf, a spokesperson for DAK, is outraged: “Children are not guinea pigs;” this can be done without alcohol. In a similar project conducted by DAK, the subject group was given so-called intoxication goggles which simulate a high alcohol level, Scharf explained.
According to the people responsible, this joint-joint-scholastic getting hammered on command is supposed to promote the “responsible handling of alcohol” in the future.
Generally students of the 9th class are 14 to 15 years old. Some of whom have never even drunk any alcohol. Also, it should be considered that especially among young people peer pressure is extremely high, and that therefore there might be a considerable number of kids who will participate against the will of their parents, with faked signatures from the parents, just in order not to look like wussies.
To offer students in that age group a bottle of wine or more than a liter of beer borders on bodily injury and the abuse of minors. What’s next? Maybe for the sake of “prevention” they’ll be fed cannabis cookies, joints, or a line of coke. All for the ideology.
Therefore: Prost-Mahlzeit! Bottoms up!
I researched the background of this. The school concerned is an Oberschule in the Federal state of Brandenburg which means that it has no classes leading to a university-qualifying exam.
Now in Germany’s school system which divides pupils up into one of three streams at age 11, parental money and education rule.
It thus a fair bet that this school holds pupils are from the lower classes of Germany, especially hard-hit (compare the opioid addiction among poor US Whites) by economic stress and seeking solace in alcohol. Apparently teenager “Koma-saufen” (drinking till you are in a coma) has increased recently in the region.
Hence this school experiment can be seen as a well-meaning but naive attempt to put a sticking plaster on an economic ill.
However the German source, Politically Incorrect, has no interest in this sort of economic analysis which might cast a bad light on Capital’s previous economic policy in Germany, especially as Brandenburg was in the GDR from 1949-1991.
In principle there is nothing wrong educationally with learning, by experiment, how to handle alcohol, but it need not be done at school; it could be done at home, under parental supervision; it need not be done at school.
Drunk driving is supposedly a bigger problem in high-Mormon-population Utah than in other states, because total-teetotaling Mormons tend to overdo liquor consumption once they start. (That report is too good to check.)
Some children have a peanut allergy that is makes eating a peanut life-endangering. Are some people just as severely affected by an alcohol allergy? I have never heard of this, but substance ingestion under school auspices exposes the school to legal liability.
Presumably, Muslim parents would not give permission for their children to consume alcohol, schwineleberwurst, or other haram ingestibles.
The huge question is, does this boondoggle experiment have any corroboration in research? Is there experimental evidence that a controlled overdose of a substance has the effect of lowering susceptibility to abuse of that substance?
There are some anecdotal and coincidental reports. Mark Spahn mentioned the Mormon tendency to overdose on alcohol when a Mormon drinks. Jewish children are given a drink of wine during the Sabbath and other holidays, and Jews are supposed to have a lower rate of alcoholism.
But these are correlation studies and don’t prove anything. You can use a correlation study to claim that lung cancer proclivity induces smoking.
Even if this type of training were legitimate for the schools, which it is not, it is a total abuse of educational prerogative to create a program affecting thousands of kids without some firm, experimental evidence that it is effective.
Ronald, there is no legitimation for this in schools.
However, from my own experience long ago, I have to say that abuse has increased my susceptibility and thus had an educational effect.
But I have to add that the overdose was rather uncontrolled with the whole nine yards I will not describe here.
one method to avoid abuse IMO is quality of product: a very good wine or spirit – say from an upscale price range – give more satisfaction when drinking small quantities and do not incite binge drinking.But that does not work with hard drinkers: I always stow away my fine spirits when they come. They would hoist down a 70$ Malt as fast as a 15$ booze without consideration , let alone sophistication. That way, a real good bottle can stand a year or more in my cabinet.
If I remember correctly, chimpanzee babies used to be taken from their moms and put in isolation chambers to see the state of decline it had on their psyche. Dogs are getting smoke blown directly through their windpipes to see if they develop cancer. Hitler separated twins forcefully to study their development, or cut off limbs from kids, or die bone muscle and nerve transplantation. Etc etc etc.
What was the cautionary tale there? The same in effect it is here. To “see” what happens. It’s such a formidable communist concept. Very little dignity left in there for the subjects, and almost zero learning curve. Unless a child is already predisposed to say no through good parenting (which we know is sorely lacking nowadays), every kid boozing it up there will most likely have the time of their lives and won’t be able to wait for the next opportunity.
This is a useless “experiment” for a school located in a lower working class environment in Germany, a school that has ran out of ideas on WHAT to teach children because their hands are tied on just about every subject.
The only “positive” this “experiment” has is it’ll definitely create a few more alcoholics, therefore people who will be less of a problem later on. Why speak up and stand for something when they let you get drunk already in school?
The correct experiment about this should’ve been something like this:
Parents get that permission slip home, kids bring it back to school, parents get called in to school with police attendance and reprimanded for allowing their kids to go boozing at tax payer cost in school. Now there’s a real lesson in there. About responsible parenting.
A girl can dream, right.
I should say, parents get SHAMED, not reprimanded, for signing the permission slip.
That would’ve been the only honest experiment. Good parenting and good choices start AT HOME!
This strikes me as irresponsible, and I’d be outraged if a school experimented with my child that way. However, I am mindful that I have been drunk exactly once in life: I was 17, got plastered, woke up with a hangover, and thought to myself, “I don’t enjoy this,” and I never did it again. My younger brother- who got drunker- had a stronger reaction: he has, since that time, been a complete teetotaler.
It’s the people who don’t experience hangovers who are most at risk. I was once married to a man whose first love was alcohol, from his very first encounter.
There is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Trump’s brother died of alcoholism, and Trump is a total teetotaler. He sensibly concluded that any inherited predisposition he had towards alcohol should be left unexplored. American Indians also have heavy alcohol addiction; they do best with no drinking at all, social or otherwise.
Again, a school has no business exploring this problem, especially with unproven methods. It seems to be a feature of unaccountable government schools that use tax money and allow parents very little alternative, especially in Germany. I doubt that a private school, in competition with other schools, would even think of this stupid scheme.