Are you against parents allowing underage drinking parties?

[Anonymous]

The thread-bully is insufferable. I'm against the bill just becaus she supports it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

Just to let you know the girl's Dad hosting the party was 16 at the time, not 18-21yrs old. And the notion that 18-21 drink responsibly is way off. Most European countries have 18 drinking limits and have some of the highest binge drinking for teens. And 18yr olds hang out with 13/14yr olds in the same school. Do you want your 13yr old Freshman guzzling a 6 pack with a senior?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

The points of this bill are

a. to add jail time as a possible sentence for anybody 21 or older who provides alcohol in their home to anybody 20 or younger .
b. to make people feel better who think that two counts of $2,500 each were not sufficient punishment for the man in Gaithersburg at whose house the three teenagers were drinking before the fatal car crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

OK - so inviting other parents too. That might work.

[Anonymous]

I think that drinking age should be reduced. If someone is old enough to die for their country, get married or elect a president, why can't they be trusted with a beer or a glass of cheap wine on their wedding days. I didn't grow up in the US, so the 21 limit mystifies me.

At the same time, and given the law, I am absolutely parents throwing 'drinking' parties for kids who should not be drinking by law. And if I found out that DCs were at such a party, hell would break loose.

But no, I am also against throwing such parents in jail. Other creative solutions should be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thread-bully is insufferable. I'm against the bill just becaus she supports it.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about Tracy, I mean the one thread bully, so against it.

It obviously has merit. They stopped halfway thru testimonies to anonymously vote in favor of it. The police officer saying 1/3 of every underage drinking party they have to break up in Montgomery County is parent-hosted. That is terrible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that drinking age should be reduced. If someone is old enough to die for their country, get married or elect a president, why can't they be trusted with a beer or a glass of cheap wine on their wedding days. I didn't grow up in the US, so the 21 limit mystifies me.

At the same time, and given the law, I am absolutely parents throwing 'drinking' parties for kids who should not be drinking by law. And if I found out that DCs were at such a party, hell would break loose.

But no, I am also against throwing such parents in jail. Other creative solutions should be found.

Okay, we get it - you said it a few times already. 18yr olds should be allowed to drink. If you feel that strongly about it, do what these parents/police did and start a bill. Go ahead and see how far that goes.

[Anonymous]

^^^^^Actually I am a np. So, said it only 1 time. The horror, at least 2 people share an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that drinking age should be reduced. If someone is old enough to die for their country, get married or elect a president, why can't they be trusted with a beer or a glass of cheap wine on their wedding days. I didn't grow up in the US, so the 21 limit mystifies me.

At the same time, and given the law, I am absolutely parents throwing 'drinking' parties for kids who should not be drinking by law. And if I found out that DCs were at such a party, hell would break loose.

But no, I am also against throwing such parents in jail. Other creative solutions should be found.

Okay, we get it - you said it a few times already. 18yr olds should be allowed to drink. If you feel that strongly about it, do what these parents/police did and start a bill. Go ahead and see how far that goes.

They asked their state legislators for a bill. But the drinking age of 21 is basically a federal law.

Also, there certainly are people/organizations who think that the drinking age of 21 is a bad idea. A group of university presidents, for example.

I am not the PP you're responding to.

But really, it's not so much that 18-year-olds should be allowed to drink, it's -- how come we allow 18-year-olds to do all of these other adult things with immense consequences, but we don't allow 18-year-olds to buy beer? If you have a good answer for that question, please provide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

The points of this bill are

a. to add jail time as a possible sentence for anybody 21 or older who provides alcohol in their home to anybody 20 or younger .
b. to make people feel better who think that two counts of $2,500 each were not sufficient punishment for the man in Gaithersburg at whose house the three teenagers were drinking before the fatal car crash.

So you are saying a Dad that let twenty plus 16-18yrs old get wasted on beer and vodka shots, and then tell his daughter to tell everyone to go home should not be liable for anything but a $5000 fine? The kids in the car accident weren't the only ones who drove home drunk that night. They were all told to leave after drinking for over 3 hours. When the police arrived at the house scene, there were still drunk kids in the lawn and leaving in cars - with the Dad inside watching a movie. And since then, there have been over 20 parties under-age drinking parties busted with parents hosting. They are just the ones that were caught. It is not a one time issue. This happens all the time. Parents acting as friends.

How about the Sherwood boy who was sentenced to 18yrs for killing a fellow classmate after driving away from an underage drinking party at a high schooler's house. The thought at that time was to be able to prosecute the parents even if they are not home. Would you rather have that bill passed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

The points of this bill are

a. to add jail time as a possible sentence for anybody 21 or older who provides alcohol in their home to anybody 20 or younger .
b. to make people feel better who think that two counts of $2,500 each were not sufficient punishment for the man in Gaithersburg at whose house the three teenagers were drinking before the fatal car crash.

I haven't read the entire bill, but, in MD, state law allows minors to drink alcohol on private premises with parental consent. So, I assume then this new bill won't contravene existing state law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thread-bully is insufferable. I'm against the bill just becaus she supports it.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about Tracy, I mean the one thread bully, so against it.

It obviously has merit. They stopped halfway thru testimonies to anonymously vote in favor of it. The police officer saying 1/3 of every underage drinking party they have to break up in Montgomery County is parent-hosted. That is terrible

Do you truly believe that the only people who would post on DCUM to oppose this bill are friends of one North Potomac couple?

Also, unanimous votes don't necessarily mean that the bill has merit. For example, the Patriot Act passed the US Senate by 99-1. (No, I'm not comparing this bill to the Patriot Act.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you are saying a Dad that let twenty plus 16-18yrs old get wasted on beer and vodka shots, and then tell his daughter to tell everyone to go home should not be liable for anything but a $5000 fine? The kids in the car accident weren't the only ones who drove home drunk that night. They were all told to leave after drinking for over 3 hours. When the police arrived at the house scene, there were still drunk kids in the lawn and leaving in cars - with the Dad inside watching a movie. And since then, there have been over 20 parties under-age drinking parties busted with parents hosting. They are just the ones that were caught. It is not a one time issue. This happens all the time. Parents acting as friends.

How about the Sherwood boy who was sentenced to 18yrs for killing a fellow classmate after driving away from an underage drinking party at a high schooler's house. The thought at that time was to be able to prosecute the parents even if they are not home. Would you rather have that bill passed?

He was liable for $2,500 per instance. If there were 20+ kids there, then under the EXISTING law, he could have been liable for 20 x $2,500 = $50,000 or more. I don't think that $50,000 is nothing, do you?

But, if you do think that $50,000 is nothing, and that only the possibility of jail will deter parents from allowing high-school parties with alcohol to take place at their homes, then write the bill narrowly to address specifically that problem. This bill is not narrowly written. Under this bill, if a 21-year-old college student and her 20-year-old boyfriend drink a beer at her apartment, she could go to jail for up to a year. Do you think that would be justice? I don't.