Are you against parents allowing underage drinking parties?

[Anonymous]

It is heart breaking to me to think that a parent would provide alcohol to a group of underage kids and then watch them drink and get into their cars to drive home. I just can't see any circumstance where that would ever be o.k. That is like a trusted grown up telling the kids - "Drink up, have fun! Drive! It's o.k.!".

But I also have mixed emotions about the legal drinking age being 21. I was legal to drink at 19 and I was certainly old enough at that age to be under my own supervision. I can't say that I was always wise with my drinking but I (thankfully) had the sense to never, ever drink and drive.

Do I think that a group of 20 year old young adults are not mature enough to hang out and drink some beers while watching a game together? No. Do I think that 20 year olds are too immature to go to a drinking party and get themselves safely home? No. I did it myself many times. Do I think that they should face legal consequences if they choose to drink and drive? Absolutely.

Do I think that 20 year old College Juniors are the same thing as 16 year old HS kids? Nope. Do I think that a 21 year old young adult should be responsible for the decisions of a 20 year old adult? Nope.

I just think that part of the problem that we are seeing today is that the line between a teenage child and young adult as become so blurred.....Even reasonably responsible people might find themselves offering a beer to their kid's 20 year old college friend. The same exact people would *never* offer a beer to a HS kid. Not sure what the solution should be. But throwing a 21 year old in jail for sharing a 6 pack with his 20 year old college buddy seems extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost everybody is against this. The question is, what will be the effect of adding jail time as a possible penalty for doing this?

I don't support the bill.

So you are against parents throwing parties but against the possibility of a harsher sentence to possibly prevent them? That makes a lot of sense.

Two kids died at a party with a parent there. He willingly let them drink shots and beer in his home and then drive home drunk. He told his daughter to let them all go home knowing they were drunk.

He wrote a check for $5,000 and walked out of the court room. You think that is enough to deter parents from doing it?

Yes, because I don't think that it would prevent them. I don't think that the possibility of jail time is an effective deterrent. And I also don't think that we need to put more people in jail.

This is the same attitude as those parents that throw parties in their homes with alcohol for their kids and their friends - "they are going to do it anyways, so why not provide a "safe" place for them to do it." Except, that it's illegal, and the parents of the other kids don't appreciate it, and in some cases, kids die. Thanks so much for your attitude.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is heart breaking to me to think that a parent would provide alcohol to a group of underage kids and then watch them drink and get into their cars to drive home. I just can't see any circumstance where that would ever be o.k. That is like a trusted grown up telling the kids - "Drink up, have fun! Drive! It's o.k.!".

But I also have mixed emotions about the legal drinking age being 21. I was legal to drink at 19 and I was certainly old enough at that age to be under my own supervision. I can't say that I was always wise with my drinking but I (thankfully) had the sense to never, ever drink and drive.

Do I think that a group of 20 year old young adults are not mature enough to hang out and drink some beers while watching a game together? No. Do I think that 20 year olds are too immature to go to a drinking party and get themselves safely home? No. I did it myself many times. Do I think that they should face legal consequences if they choose to drink and drive? Absolutely.

Do I think that 20 year old College Juniors are the same thing as 16 year old HS kids? Nope. Do I think that a 21 year old young adult should be responsible for the decisions of a 20 year old adult? Nope.

I just think that part of the problem that we are seeing today is that the line between a teenage child and young adult as become so blurred.....Even reasonably responsible people might find themselves offering a beer to their kid's 20 year old college friend. The same exact people would *never* offer a beer to a HS kid. Not sure what the solution should be. But throwing a 21 year old in jail for sharing a 6 pack with his 20 year old college buddy seems extreme.

+1 to all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is the same attitude as those parents that throw parties in their homes with alcohol for their kids and their friends - "they are going to do it anyways, so why not provide a "safe" place for them to do it." Except, that it's illegal, and the parents of the other kids don't appreciate it, and in some cases, kids die. Thanks so much for your attitude.

No, it's not. "They're going to do it anyway so why not provide a safe place for them to do it?" is a personal philosophy. "Possible jail time is not an effective deterrent" is an evidence-based statement. When you pass a law, you should want it to actually do what it's supposed to do. This one won't.

[Anonymous]

The law should be that if you provide alcohol to minors other than your own, and that minor drives drunk, then you should be held liable and go to jail.

So, go ahead and share that beer with a 20 yr old, just make damn sure he doesn't drink and drive.

I think such a law would make more people think about allowing young people to drink *and drive*. That should be the point of the law.

There are laws that hold a bar liable if they allow a patron to drive knowing how drunk they are. No different.

There are no laws that will stop something 100%. We have laws about wearing seatbelts but some people still don't do it. Should we then just not have that law anymore? If such a law deters some people from otherwise being careless, then I say it's a good law.

[Anonymous]

AGAINST it? well, Duh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the same attitude as those parents that throw parties in their homes with alcohol for their kids and their friends - "they are going to do it anyways, so why not provide a "safe" place for them to do it." Except, that it's illegal, and the parents of the other kids don't appreciate it, and in some cases, kids die. Thanks so much for your attitude.

No, it's not. "They're going to do it anyway so why not provide a safe place for them to do it?" is a personal philosophy. "Possible jail time is not an effective deterrent" is an evidence-based statement. When you pass a law, you should want it to actually do what it's supposed to do. This one won't.

One rich couple who can't write a quick check but has to wear orange for a month - that will indeed change the perspective. But I like your thought that nothing will help - always positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The law should be that if you provide alcohol to minors other than your own, and that minor drives drunk, then you should be held liable and go to jail.

So, go ahead and share that beer with a 20 yr old, just make damn sure he doesn't drink and drive.

I think such a law would make more people think about allowing young people to drink *and drive*. That should be the point of the law.

There are laws that hold a bar liable if they allow a patron to drive knowing how drunk they are. No different.

There are no laws that will stop something 100%. We have laws about wearing seatbelts but some people still don't do it. Should we then just not have that law anymore? If such a law deters some people from otherwise being careless, then I say it's a good law.

I think that there should be a distinction between under aged adults (who should be legally responsible for their own actions) and minor children (who are under the supervision of parents/guardians).

It is a huge mistake to blur the two. There is a huge difference between a legal adult and a child.

[Anonymous]

^an adult providing alcohol to a child would be contributing to the deliquiency of a minor even if the kid doesn't drive, right?

[Anonymous]

It's a shame. I would have signed this, except that it is through change.org. After signing a couple of petitions, I was getting spammed so much by change.org. It took 3 requests over several weeks before I could get off their spam list. I'm not willing to get on their spam list again, so I won't sign this petition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the same attitude as those parents that throw parties in their homes with alcohol for their kids and their friends - "they are going to do it anyways, so why not provide a "safe" place for them to do it." Except, that it's illegal, and the parents of the other kids don't appreciate it, and in some cases, kids die. Thanks so much for your attitude.

No, it's not. "They're going to do it anyway so why not provide a safe place for them to do it?" is a personal philosophy. "Possible jail time is not an effective deterrent" is an evidence-based statement. When you pass a law, you should want it to actually do what it's supposed to do. This one won't.

One rich couple who can't write a quick check but has to wear orange for a month - that will indeed change the perspective. But I like your thought that nothing will help - always positive.

"Possible jail time is not an effective deterrent" =/= "Nothing will help"

Also, it's unlikely to be the rich couples who go to jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame. I would have signed this, except that it is through change.org. After signing a couple of petitions, I was getting spammed so much by change.org. It took 3 requests over several weeks before I could get off their spam list. I'm not willing to get on their spam list again, so I won't sign this petition.

PP, change.org doesn't do much anyway. If you live in Maryland and want to support this bill, then you should write or call your state legislators. I oppose this bill, and that's what I'm planning to do.

[Anonymous]

They specifically use the term "adolescent". Is a legal adult an "adolescent" or are they specifically using that term in regard to underage minors?

I think they are talking about HS teens and middle school tweens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame. I would have signed this, except that it is through change.org. After signing a couple of petitions, I was getting spammed so much by change.org. It took 3 requests over several weeks before I could get off their spam list. I'm not willing to get on their spam list again, so I won't sign this petition.

PP, change.org doesn't do much anyway. If you live in Maryland and want to support this bill, then you should write or call your state legislators. I oppose this bill, and that's what I'm planning to do.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Good point. I do communicate with our state senator and delegates regularly because one or another of them is often around our community off and on throughout the year, and we always make time to stop and chat. I love Jim Rosapepe...he does get out to meet the constituency regularly. I'll send an email to his office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They specifically use the term "adolescent". Is a legal adult an "adolescent" or are they specifically using that term in regard to underage minors?

I think they are talking about HS teens and middle school tweens.

Here is a link to the bill: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0409&stab=01&ys=2016RS

The synopsis: Increasing the penalty for a first offense to a maximum imprisonment of 1 year or a fine not to exceed $5,000 or both for the violation of specified prohibitions relating to obtaining or furnishing alcoholic beverages to an individual under the age of 21 years or allowing an individual under the age of 21 years to possess or consume alcoholic beverages under specified circumstances; increasing penalties for a second or subsequent offense of specified violations to a maximum imprisonment of 2 years or a fine not to exceed $7,500 or both.