HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >


New drunken low for Sandra-Lee and FN


An outraged friend sent me this link to a Sandra-Lee recipe on FN's website. I have to say that it comes across as the height of corporate and moral irresponsibility to post such an item.

The recipe is for something called a Cruisin' Cooler. This is referred to as a 'driver friendly' cocktail...containing vodka.

This just seems like a despicable new low for FN and Sanda-Lee.


  1. wow... that is just amazing.... good job that it is in ct too, lol

    1. Well, it only has a splash of vodka, and I can only hope there's a designated driver involved.
      I usd to go to the Waterford Speed Bowl for demolition derby night, great fun.

      1. It's a splash. Not even a shot. Well below the legal limit.

        1. Gatorade, ginger ale, apple juice, and vodka sounds like a recipe for disaster even without driving.

          3 Replies
          1. re: Caitlin McGrath

            I agree. Can you imagine how sickening SWEET that is? Much like....nah, that's too easy. ;)

            But I totally agree with others on the vodka--a splash ain't gonna hurt nobody!

            1. re: Caitlin McGrath

              LOL, Caitlin.

              Gatorade. Consider my imagination officially boggled.

              1. re: Caitlin McGrath

                whatever it is, it sounds nauseating. Gatorade is one of the nastiest liquids ever created, imho.

              2. 1 dash or splash = 1/32 ounce = .9ml

                1. I have to agree with you and the various posters on the FN site who took offense at the positioning of this...uh... concoction. I don't care if it's a splash, 1/32 of an ounce, or how small amount it is, of vodka.

                  Alcohol and driving do not mix. Period.

                  Countless studies have indicated that drivers' abilities begin to be impaired far below the various states' legal limits. While one might have to be uber-sensitive to be affected by the modest amount in this cocktail, the message and the name of the drink are highly irresponsible, not to mention inconsiderate to the many viewers who have lost a loved one or been seriously injured in alcohol related accidents.

                  We don't belong behind the wheel after alcohol has passed our lips. That's all there is to it. Fortunately, the country at large seems to have come to understand that, sincerely, in the past few decades. I guess Sandra and her editors are running a generation behind. Shame on them.

                  35 Replies
                  1. re: Normandie

                    I'm going to worry far more about people who are tired, jabbering on their cell phones, dealing with screaming kids, etc than someone who had a splash of vodka.

                        1. re: jgg13

                          Considering the tens and tens of thousands of people who die in car accidents every year in this country--not to mention those who are permanently or seriously injured--why not worry (and speak out against) *all* these things AND people who send messages that it's okay to ingest "a splash" or "a small amount" of alcohol before getting behind the wheel?

                          Plenty of people who killed either themselves or others because they drank and drove hadn't reached "the legal limit" either.

                          I think we all have room enough in our brains to address *all of these things* at once, jgg. Just because I speak out against SL identifying "driver-friendly" booze doesn't mean I don't oppose the dangers that selfish people who talk on cell phones while driving pose to the rest of us. All of these behaviors, and the attitudes behind them, put people at risk.

                          With respect for and acknowledgment of all the other problems you rightfully brought up, I stand by what I said. If we're going to get into a car with the intention of driving it, alcohol should not pass our lips.

                          1. re: Normandie

                            Just because someone had alcohol in their system at the time of an accident does not mean that this was the cause of the accident. MADD might choose to frame the statistics this way, but cognitive experts and forensic analysts do not. Even when the driver found to be at fault in the accident is not the driver with alcohol in their system, people want to blame the alcohol. This just isn't rational. If expert opinion found that levels under .08% were unsafe, the law would change. When most states lowered the level from .1% to .08%, this was not because of expert recommendation; it was purely due to the effectiveness of MADD lobbyists in exerting political pressure.

                              1. re: danieljdwyer

                                Regardless, driving with open containers of alcohol of any amount, is strictly forbidden in all states. I believe Texas was one of the last hold outs allowing people to actually drive with a cocoktail in their cup holder. Amazing, eh?

                                1. re: DallasDude

                                  Eleven states are not in full compliance with the Federal Government's guidelines for open container laws contained in transportation funding requirements (TEA 21). One of these, Mississippi, has absolutely no statewide law forbidding the consumption of alcohol while driving. As far as I know, Texas was in compliance with TEA 21 before it was passed in 1998.
                                  But, drinking while driving isn't the issue so much as drinking before driving.

                                  1. re: danieljdwyer

                                    With regards to the OP, drinking with any amount of alcohol is indeed in question and I also believe the FN is in error for suggesting this regardless of the amount of liquor infused into the gatorade based drink. Besides the nasty recipe, I too must to quiz: 'what the hell were they thinking'?

                                    I am of the opinion this woman, Sandra Lee, possesses some smarmy photographs of the FN chairman.

                                2. re: danieljdwyer

                                  As with most laws, the "for the children!!!!" argument wins the day.

                                3. re: Normandie

                                  >>"If we're going to get into a car with the intention of driving it, alcohol should not pass our lips."<<

                                  If you are going to take such a hard line on this issue, then you need to be consistent. Consumption of alcohol is consumption of alcohol, whether it comes in a glass or on a plate. So if you eat pasta made with a sauce that has a few tablespoons of wine? No driving. Chicken marsala? No driving. And god forbid you should have a dish of Bananas Foster and get behind the wheel.

                                  Is this a ridiculous position to take? Of course it is. Because with even the most sensitive testing equipment, researchers cannont detect any impairment of motor skills or reaction time in subjects with a BAC of .01%. No impairment. At all.

                                  If I have two glasses of wine over the course of a 90-minute dinner, my BAC is going to be around .01%. And when I drive home, the fact that I drank that wine will not create any danger to you, myself, or anybody else out there.

                                  You are free to make any decisions you like regarding your own habits and practices. And I understand that your intentions are good. But for you to to repeatedly tell the rest of us that we need to adhere to your standards - standards that have no basis in law, fact, or science - is more than a little presumptuous.

                                  1. re: Normandie

                                    My point was that people who take a zero tolerance stance on driving & alcohol are being silly - there's no such thing as a driver who has 100% concentration and faculties. If your threshold is that no one should drive if they're not absolutely 100%, I guarantee that you've driven numerous times when you should not have.

                                    It is what it is, people get in car accidents. Why do people feel the need to live in a sterile world where nothing bad happens? Poop happens, just move on and deal with it.

                                      1. re: alanbarnes

                                        ITA? Whatsat? International Trombone Association?

                                4. re: Normandie

                                  If driving with any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream is unsafe, then no one should drive. Ever.

                                  The human gut contains bacteria that use fermentation as a form of anaerobic respiration. So anyone who hasn't had antibiotics, chemotherapy, or something else that wiped out the entire bacterial colony in the gut, has at least some blood alcohol content.

                                  Then there's the question of alcohol in food. Alcohol boils out of liquids following a logarithmic curve. That means it never cooks off completely. If you had coq au vin for dinner, or if the cook made a pan sauce for your steak by deglazing with a little cognac, alcohol has "passed your lips." You don't seriously believe that this disqualifies you from getting behind the wheel, do you?

                                  The real issue is not whether there's any alcohol in the body, but whether the alcohol that's there is enough to impair reflexes, judgment, and motor control. There's no doubt that impairment occurs at levels lower than the legal maximums. But it's equally beyond doubt that there are some blood alcohol levels where no such impairment can be measured.

                                  By my back-of-the-envelope math, 1/32 of an ounce of melon vodka (whatever that is) would raise the blood alcohol content of a 150-pound adult approximately .0004%. There's plenty of evidence that a small amount of impairment occurs at .02%, but policymakers have decided that it doesn't cause a significant public safety hazard. And researchers have a hard time detecting any impairment at all at .01%. So it's inconceivable that levels 25 times lower than that would have any impact whatsoever on driving skills.

                                  1. re: alanbarnes

                                    This does raise thei ssue though of why one would even want to bother with that teensy amount of vodka.

                                    1. re: jgg13

                                      Maybe the subtle hint of artificial melon compliments the complex artificial citrus flavor of the Gatorade.

                                      1. re: alanbarnes

                                        hah, perhaps. maybe the alcohol in the vodka helps 'open up' said artificial citrus?

                                    2. re: alanbarnes

                                      Thanks for breaking it down, Alan. Some people get their panties in a bunch over the trivialest of things.

                                      1. re: alanbarnes

                                        I really don't understand the resistance to not-drinking before driving in this age. There's no reason to drink and drive. Simply designate a driver, arrange for a cab (or a town car if the budget allows big celebrations, in the first place), etc.

                                        It's clear people here disgaree with me; I understand that. The thing is, though, that different amounts of alcohol affect individuals differently and beyond that it can affect one individual differently at different times, depending on various factors, including other medications, fatigue levels, food, even weather. How many people who have gotten into accidents have said, after the fact, "I was fine. I only had one drink."? Regardless of what policymakers may decide, any avoidable impairment can make a difference at high speeds or in busy urban driving. One nannosecond's difference in reaching for the brake or the accelerator can be the tipping point (excuse the pun) in avoiding or having an accident. Drivers have not only to be in best, alert shape to make their own decisions, they also have to be ready to drive defensively. Drinking and driving is entirely avoidable. There's no reason anybody ever has to do it. It's not like people who cause an accident because they drove to work in icy conditions because they have families to support and their bosses told them to come in regardless of the conditions or they'd be fired. I don't see any reasonable justification for not choosing another way--e.g., having that designated driver, taking a cab, whatever--if one would like to enjoy alcohol responsibly.

                                        1. re: Normandie

                                          Well, if it comes to that, I wish people were more aware of all the things that can impair one's ability to drive, including alcohol.

                                          1. re: Normandie

                                            I understand your point of view, and respect the fact that you are rational and level headed about it. Most people I hear advocating for zero tolerance rely more on a style of panic and fear mongering, so it's refreshing to hear someone espouse this view calmly and free of vitriol.
                                            Not to belabor the point - and this doesn't really argue against your view or for mine - but certain points you make seem to be reflective of an urban bias. This is something I find to be common on this site (and most webs sites really). Most people in the US don't live in urban areas, or even in metropolitan areas. Arranging for a cab or town car aren't option for most of the country, though obviously the designated driver and staying home always are. High speeds (which I'm taking to mean highway driving) and busy urban driving aren't a part of most people's everyday lives, or the driving they do to go out. For example, when I still lived in my hometown, if I were to go out to eat in town or a bordering town, the drive home would be about fifteen minutes of driving under 45 miles an hour (and mostly under 30 miles an hour), encountering a maximum of a dozen other cars in the process, and very rarely encountering pedestrians (the rare pedestrian usually being quite drunk). Unfortunately, these kind of conditions do make people think it's more acceptable to drive drunk. I can't count the number of times I heard, "It's okay, I'll take backroads home," slurred by someone leaving a bar or restaurant.

                                        2. re: Normandie

                                          There are innumerable factors that impair drivers abilities. One of the most major of these is age. The senses, along with reaction time and muscular dexterity, all being to fade slowly beginning in the mid to late twenties (mid thirties for some truly exceptional individuals who are mostly highly paid athletes). I think any reasonable person would agree that given X amount of aging, specific to the individual, a person becomes very dangerous behind the wheel. Similarly, I think any reasonable person would agree that given X amount of alcohol, specific to the individual, a person becomes a very dangerous driver. By your logic, we can bar people from driving after a drop of drink, but we also have to take away their licenses at about the age of 30.
                                          Also, countless studies have been assessed by public safety and law enforcement officials to determine the .08% ABV limit. Impairment below this level is not severe enough for anyone but MADD to be concerned (and really, no one aside from MADD was concerned with the .1% limit).

                                          1. re: danieljdwyer

                                            To daniel and invinotheresverde, thank you both for your responses. I've pretty much covered what I have to say in the posts above. Just want to let you know that I read your posts and thought about them, and my thoughts on the subject are pretty much already said.

                                          2. re: Normandie

                                            Alcohol and driving mix just fine, as long as you're below the state-designated legal limit (are all states at .08% now?). Plenty of people enjoy a glass of wine with a meal. Are you saying they shouldn't drive home? If so, you're way, way overreacting. And a splash of vodka? That's virtually nothing. No one is impaired after 1/32 ounce of vodka. My three pound cat could drink that and still drive.

                                            1. re: invinotheresverde

                                              If the car in question is the one in your avatar, I'd pay to see that.

                                              1. re: invinotheresverde

                                                I agree that this small amount of alcohol is nothing to worry about, but when my husband and I go out for dinner and know we're going to have more than a glass or two of wine, we take public transport or a cab.

                                              2. re: Normandie

                                                I'm guessing it's illegal to have any "open" liquor in a car regardless of the amount so probably not a good idea. The law may have a different idea than the occupants of the car.

                                                1. re: c oliver

                                                  The point was she was havng a tailgate party at the Waterford Speed Bowl, not driving around with an open container.
                                                  That particular establishment used to sell beer, in very large containers, to it's many attendees, pre-DUI laws.
                                                  Yes, open containers are an issue with law enforcement, but if it was disguised in the Gatorade bottle...

                                                2. re: Normandie

                                                  I don't disagree with you but, just wondering, why do bars have parking lots?

                                                  1. re: scubadoo97

                                                    Because the designated drivers need to park somewhere? :) Totally kidding.

                                                    And I don't mean to make light of drunk driving, but that wouldn't appear to be what we're discussing here if we are truly discussing this "recipe," such as it is...

                                                    1. re: scubadoo97

                                                      I can't imagine why they wouldn't, scuba. Their interest is in having patrons come to the bar, stay as long as possible, and buy as much as possible. To whatever degree bar owners monitor or cut people off, a great degree of that has come about because bar owners can now be sued or prosecuted over patrons who left their establishments under impairment and then hurt somebody. It was not always that way. Regardless, it's not bar owners' responsibility, ultimately, to make the right decision on our behalf. It's our own personal responsibility.

                                                  2. Dude, that story was on Food Network Humor yesterday afternoon. You should just read the site, then you wouldn't have to get your news from an "outraged friend"

                                                    1. In Maricopa County Arizona, we have what is called a "legal limit" for alcohol; .08 like the vast majority of jurisdictions. HOWEVER, our local sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has taken alcohol consumption to another level. A driver, "impaired to the slightest extent" may be arrested if there is *any* alcohol present in their blood. Less than a single glass of wine with dinner is enough to become a guest of the county. Designated Driver is no longer an option. We either take a driver when we go out or one of us, usually DH, drinks water. Sandra Lee would be wearing black & white stripes if she consumed her "Crusin' Cooler" here.

                                                      4 Replies
                                                      1. re: Sherri

                                                        It's that way in DC and some of the surrounding MD suburbs too. It's ridiculous.

                                                        1. re: reiflame

                                                          That's just ridiculous! I they're going to go that far, you'd better never take a dose of cough syrup or use mouthwash for a couple of hours before you get behind the wheel... and skip the coq au vin and tsirami-tsu for dinner. There might even be enough alcohol in your vanilla essence to do you in. I'm all for MODERATION and responsible driving, but you have to be realistic.

                                                          1. re: Kajikit

                                                            Yeah, my boyfriend blew a .07 and ended up with a DWI. He went to "alcohol class" and was in with a girl who blew a .02.

                                                            What a waste of legal and police resources.

                                                            1. re: reiflame

                                                              Wow. That's just ridiculous.

                                                      2. I can't imagine how bad it tastes, but this *is* driver friendly. You could probably toss several of these back and still be under the limit.

                                                        1 Reply
                                                        1. Okay, let's break this down.

                                                          The recipe in the link calls for equal parts Gatorade and Ginger Ale, blended with ice and a splash each of melon vodka and apple juice. The attached photo shows the batch served in two tall, narrow glasses. So figure you need about 16 ounces of liquid in the blender to go with your "splash" of melon vodka to make two drinks.

                                                          A 150-pound adult needs to consume approximately 4.5 ounces of 80-proof liquor to get up to the legal blood alcohol content limit. At 1/64th of an ounce per drink, and using hannaone's figure that a splash equals 1/32 of an ounce, that's 288 of these bad boys.

                                                          Okay, on to the nutritional information panel. Yeah, you've got 1.8 ounces of pure ethanol. Along with 76,320 sugar calories and 19,680 mg of sodium. In eighteen gallons of water.

                                                          That would definitely make you unsafe to drive. Between water intoxication, hypernatremia, and spiking blood sugar, you'd be lucky to live.

                                                          6 Replies
                                                          1. re: alanbarnes

                                                            Well. I guess FN won't be sued for promoting drinking before driving...

                                                            1. re: alanbarnes

                                                              I doubt anyone making this would add a mere 1/32 ounce of vodka. To me, a dash would be that amount, such as a dash of tabasco or angostura bitters, while a splash would be considerably larger, like maybe a tablespoon (1/2 oz). Not sure where Hannah got her definition, but do you really thing the recipe is calling for two drops of vodka?. Even if a splash is a TB, its still not much alcohol, but you have to figure that people might be a little heavy handed and stray into the not-for-designated-driver territory.

                                                                1. re: hannaone

                                                                  Thanks, hannaone, that is surprising.

                                                                  Do you really think Sandra is putting 4 drops of vodka in her drink? I still say that in colloquial usage, a "splash" is more like "from a few teaspoons to as much as you feel like" and that is where the irresponsibility/danger lies. I mean, if I'm making what is supposed to be a cocktail and it calls for a splash of vodka in a good amount of mixer, it's going to be a pretty big splash! : ) Splash, taste, maybe another splash or two....

                                                                  1. re: babette feasts

                                                                    That's my measuring technique as well but then I don't go out and drive afterwards. Others might, though.
                                                                    I think, without being presumptive of other poster's opinions, that the concensus here is, although the cocktail recipe contained minimal alcohol and most likely would not do any damage, the FN promotion of the drink with the consumption occuring in a inappropriate setting and with a suggestive name, is just not well thought through.

                                                                    1. re: babette feasts

                                                                      Yes, what matters is not how a bartender would interpret "splash" or "dash," but how the untutored person making the drink would interpret it. Inevitably some people are going to make that "splash" a generous one.

                                                              1. Jfood does not drink and drive, heck he does not drink and walk, or drink and eat (alcohol that is). But any outrage on a splash of melon vodka in an adult prior to sitting and watching a couple of hours of car racing is TOTALLY without merit of fact. As others have said...you probably have more alcohol in a plate of coq au vin or some penne with vodka sauce.

                                                                And to Alan Barnes. How long would it take for that 150 pounder to digest the splash. Probably less time than it takes to find the car in the parking lot of the race track, work your way to the exit and accelerate above 3 MPH.

                                                                Not a biggie to jfood.

                                                                1. The friend who forwarded me the link recently lost a close family member to a drunk driver who walked on a technicality. So we will allow her her outrage.

                                                                  For my part certainly one drink as listed mostly likely won't be an issue. It'll be disgusting but not intoxicating. I do wonder about the sense of even creating or calling an alcoholic drink 'Driver Friendly'.(Most drinks seem 'driver friendly' at the end of the night that's the problem.) Why even go there. As for the amount of alcohol used, the term 'a splash' is far too subjective. No one person's 'splash' will be the same as another's.

                                                                  I also can't help but to wonder why FN would even publish such a horrible recipe in the first place regardless of the alcohol content? I keep thinking that they have some standards to uphold.

                                                                  3 Replies
                                                                  1. re: Withnail42

                                                                    In order to be a cocktail, there has to be booze in it. This one has far, far less than most cocktails, making it "driver friendly".

                                                                    I agree the drink sounds nasty.

                                                                    1. re: Withnail42

                                                                      I understand and sympathize with people being particularly sensitive to issues that have taken the lives of loved ones. I do think, however, that we have taken this sympathy a bit too far in allowing this sensitivity or outrage to monopolozie a conversation. Almost everyone who has reached adulthood has lost a number of loved ones to a variety of differrent problems. Drunk driving is an awful, stupid, often tragic thing for a person to do, but I just don't see the outrage and oversensitivity as justified.
                                                                      MADD (whose statistics are often regarded as inflated) reports 11,773 drunk driving related fatalities in the US. This is less than a third of the 37,261 they report, which is less than a third of 121,599 total accidental deaths in the US as reported by the CDC. The CDC reports a total of 2,426,264 deaths last year in the US, which means that less than 0.5% of deaths in the US last year were drunk driving related. Compare that to the over 26% (631,636 total deaths) caused by heart disease, or the nearly 1.5% caused by septicemia (34,234 total deaths).
                                                                      Yet, the outrage over drunk driving, the villainization of alcohol, far, far outweighs the anger I see about nearly any other cause of fatality. Where is the anger over sepsis, something that is incredibly easy to prevent, diagnose, and treat, when even the most basic of healthcare is made available. There's a denigratory tone taken in some reactions to this drink recipe, but where is the similar tone to Paula Deen's recipes for 26 Kinds of Animal Fat Casserole?
                                                                      Sure, if someone doesn't follow the recipe and uses, say, a shot instead of a splash, three or four of these might get them over the legal limit. That might lead to an accident, which might lead to a death, the cause of which might be the slight intoxication of one of the drivers involved. Similarly, if you take liberties with a Paula Deen recipe and use five times the bacon, then have three or four servings, you might have a heart attack as soon as you put your fork down.
                                                                      As sensitive an issue as death is, preventable or accidental death particularly, we can't let people in mourning rule the conversation about a deadly issue. That's not how civilized societies work. If it is, then we might as well get all the families of 9/11 victims together, give them blunt instruments, and set them loose on the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

                                                                      1. re: Withnail42

                                                                        LOL re your last paragraph. I'm wondering if anyone in this thread has tested the recipe (without driving, of course, he he).

                                                                        I mean...really tested the recipe. I've love to hear the reviews, versus my imaginary assessment of what that drink must test like, if I were brave enough to taste it. (Which I'm not. I'd rather drink my counter cleaner.)

                                                                      2. I'm not watching the episode, but in the Where to Find section, it mentions Snap-on.

                                                                        SNAP-ON?? WTF? Does she store her booze in a rolling toolbox? Stir it with a professional grade screwdriver?

                                                                        1. Maybe she should have used zarex or Kool aid or maybe even Hawaiian punch!

                                                                          1. The problem here is not the splash of vodka. It's the Gatorade. Yuck.

                                                                            3 Replies
                                                                            1. re: chicgail

                                                                              Obviously you have never had Death Mix, a/k/a Gatorade mixed with Everclear. Gatorade achieves a certain delicacy when combined with straight grain alcohol. It also helps with the immense hangover that comes with overeager consumption of said Death Mix.

                                                                              I had this stuff at a University of Tennessee homecoming game back in the nineties. It was aptly named.

                                                                              1. re: MandalayVA

                                                                                Completely off topic but the wording "Gatorade achieves a certain delicacy" is now stuck in my head, playing on a loop in the back of my mind.

                                                                                1. re: MandalayVA

                                                                                  Sounds like something you'd get at a frat party.

                                                                              2. Does anyone remember Martha Stewart making her "eggnog" on the NBC "Today Show" when she added SIX FULL CUPS of hard liquor (whiskey, rum and Cognac) to the recipe? If you're going to chastise a corporation for irresponsibility, go after the real culprits who condone a live demonstration (to all age groups watching) of how to make a potentially lethal concoction.

                                                                                That was far more inappropriate than a web posting calling for a splash of vodka - however much a splash may be.

                                                                                6 Replies
                                                                                1. re: Chefpaulo

                                                                                  So now people under the legal age to drink can't watch someone make an alcoholic drink?

                                                                                  1. re: Chefpaulo

                                                                                    Potentially lethal? Were all six cups added to a single serving?

                                                                                    Umm, and children aren't allowed to see liquor? Please. Besides, aren't most kids at school when the today show is on? We always were.

                                                                                    1. re: Chefpaulo

                                                                                      What's inappropriate about it? She's making a batch of eggnog that serves a couple of dozen people. Each serving has about 50 ml of hard liquor - the amount found in a single-serving "airplane" bottle.

                                                                                      Seriously, if having that much liquor in one place is a problem, we should outlaw 1.75 liter bottles. I mean, that's more than SEVEN FULL CUPS of hard liquor.

                                                                                      The problem isn't the total quantity, it's the amount each person drinks. Martha's eggnog would definitely be a problem if two people decided to split the batch. But that seems a little unlikely given that each of them would also have to consume half a dozen eggs, more than a quart of half and half, and nearly half a pound of sugar. Potentially lethal, indeed.

                                                                                      As far as whether it's appropriate for minors to see drinks being made, what do you think parents do at home? Make the kids wear blindfolds whenever the cocktail shaker comes out? Do you live in a place where the bar section of a restaurant is separated from the dining room with full-height walls and a sally port?

                                                                                      I WANT my kids to see people behaving responsibly while making and consuming alcoholic beverages. Hopefully they'll emulate that behavior later on. If you make cocktails a deep, dark secret, you're only going to encourage abuse among those too young (or just old enough) to legally drink. I'd rather have them think it's no big deal.

                                                                                      1. re: alanbarnes

                                                                                        alanbarnes, you are absolutely correct. Contrary to what the 'Mad Mothers' and other neoprohibitionist reactionaries think, the concept of responsible enjoyment of adult beverages can be instilled in the young. 50 years ago I was often allowed a few ounces of beer with dinner when I was a kid (often even at church dinners, where there was always a pitcher of beer on every table). As a result, it was never a big deal and never a mysterious taboo that made me compelled to binge in college (or anytime after that).
                                                                                        Offering a responsible example is the best approach, not the kind of misguided neo-prohibitionist attitudes that organizations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation espouse. They are pretty scary in what they preach...Carrie Nation all over again.

                                                                                      2. re: Chefpaulo

                                                                                        if we removed everything in which underaged people can not participate, the FCC would be out of work

                                                                                        1. re: jfood

                                                                                          And if we removed everything in which it's illegal for anyone to participate, Hollywood would only be able to make cheesy romantic comedies.

                                                                                      3. The debate on legal limits and alcohol while driving are pretty far afield for our site. We're going to close this up now.