Are you against parents allowing underage drinking parties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

No it is not. It is an issue, even for people over 21 but that is not the point of this bill and you are going so far away from it to try and prove some strange point.

Anyway, so how will people get to school and work? You do realize that not all teens and people under 21 drink? Or do we expect all kids to live with their parents and have them drive them around until they are 22? Many people under age 22 have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities. Many that are not near public transportation. Are they not allowed to drive because you want teens to be able to drink instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

No it is not. It is an issue, even for people over 21 but that is not the point of this bill and you are going so far away from it to try and prove some strange point.

Anyway, so how will people get to school and work? You do realize that not all teens and people under 21 drink? Or do we expect all kids to live with their parents and have them drive them around until they are 22? Many people under age 22 have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities. Many that are not near public transportation. Are they not allowed to drive because you want teens to be able to drink instead?

This bill exists because a high school student drove drunk and killed two of his friends. So yes, that is exactly the point of this bill.

As for how people would get to school and work -- well, they'd figure something out. Half of 18-year-olds don't have driver's licenses. The majority of 18-21-year-olds don't own cars. A driver's license at 16 is a US cultural assumption, not a fact of nature. I'm not the one who brought up drunk driving, but if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is the public health problem, then it's a lot more effective to stop 16-21-year-olds from driving than to try to stop 16-21-year-olds from drinking.

And if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is not the public health problem, then why is the drinking age 21 when the legal age for everything else is 18?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

No it is not. It is an issue, even for people over 21 but that is not the point of this bill and you are going so far away from it to try and prove some strange point.

Anyway, so how will people get to school and work? You do realize that not all teens and people under 21 drink? Or do we expect all kids to live with their parents and have them drive them around until they are 22? Many people under age 22 have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities. Many that are not near public transportation. Are they not allowed to drive because you want teens to be able to drink instead?

This bill exists because a high school student drove drunk and killed two of his friends. So yes, that is exactly the point of this bill.

As for how people would get to school and work -- well, they'd figure something out. Half of 18-year-olds don't have driver's licenses. The majority of 18-21-year-olds don't own cars. A driver's license at 16 is a US cultural assumption, not a fact of nature. I'm not the one who brought up drunk driving, but if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is the public health problem, then it's a lot more effective to stop 16-21-year-olds from driving than to try to stop 16-21-year-olds from drinking.

And if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is not the public health problem, then why is the drinking age 21 when the legal age for everything else is 18?

I would much prefer knowing that the chances of a licensed 18 year old driver (who has likely only been driving about a year or two at best) is unlikely to be impaired by the effects of alcohol. I would much prefer that the 21 year old (who has 5 years of driving experience) be the drunk on the road. I just can't understand who these people are that think it is ok to have these "kids" drinking. Yes, they are legally adults, but they are still too immature to know how to handle the effects of drinking to excess. And they WILL drink to excess and they WILL do foolish things, like get behind a wheel.

[Anonymous]

Here's an idea: you tell your kids not to drink and if they find themselves in such a situation to USE THE PHONE TO CALL ME OR UBER. AND NEVER EVER GET IN THE CAR WHEN THE DRIVER HAS CONSUMED ALCOHOL (that includes your dad and me cause you know we like our martinis).
ok, everyone covered now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would much prefer knowing that the chances of a licensed 18 year old driver (who has likely only been driving about a year or two at best) is unlikely to be impaired by the effects of alcohol. I would much prefer that the 21 year old (who has 5 years of driving experience) be the drunk on the road. I just can't understand who these people are that think it is ok to have these "kids" drinking. Yes, they are legally adults, but they are still too immature to know how to handle the effects of drinking to excess. And they WILL drink to excess and they WILL do foolish things, like get behind a wheel.

I don't want anyone to be drunk on the road, whether 18, or 21, or any age.

I, personally, don't think it's ok for anybody to get drunk. But many people do like getting drunk, and if they want to get drunk, then that's their business, as long as all they're doing is getting drunk. It becomes my business when they get behind the wheel. What I want to prevent is drunk driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

No it is not. It is an issue, even for people over 21 but that is not the point of this bill and you are going so far away from it to try and prove some strange point.

Anyway, so how will people get to school and work? You do realize that not all teens and people under 21 drink? Or do we expect all kids to live with their parents and have them drive them around until they are 22? Many people under age 22 have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities. Many that are not near public transportation. Are they not allowed to drive because you want teens to be able to drink instead?

This bill exists because a high school student drove drunk and killed two of his friends. So yes, that is exactly the point of this bill.

As for how people would get to school and work -- well, they'd figure something out. Half of 18-year-olds don't have driver's licenses. The majority of 18-21-year-olds don't own cars. A driver's license at 16 is a US cultural assumption, not a fact of nature. I'm not the one who brought up drunk driving, but if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is the public health problem, then it's a lot more effective to stop 16-21-year-olds from driving than to try to stop 16-21-year-olds from drinking.

And if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is not the public health problem, then why is the drinking age 21 when the legal age for everything else is 18?

So start fighting to raise the driving age to 22. I mean all you are doing is complaining here non-stop. We get it. You are one person who doesn't like the bill. But there is a petition that raised over 1000 votes in a few short days and a huge backing of the police force who are sick of parent hosted underage drinking parties. It doesn't have to do with ONE party. There have been 20 broken up since then. You seem like you really want to rationalize what the Salzmann's did was okay but there are so many more that don't want their kids going to a house and having parents giving their kids alcohol. I am one of them. You are not. End of story.

http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Bethesda-Area-Police-Commander-Threatens-Strong-Consequences-For-Underage-Drinking-Offenses/

http://www.mymcmedia.org/bethesda-police-commander-sends-underage-drinking-warning-to-residents/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

No it is not. It is an issue, even for people over 21 but that is not the point of this bill and you are going so far away from it to try and prove some strange point.

Anyway, so how will people get to school and work? You do realize that not all teens and people under 21 drink? Or do we expect all kids to live with their parents and have them drive them around until they are 22? Many people under age 22 have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities. Many that are not near public transportation. Are they not allowed to drive because you want teens to be able to drink instead?

This bill exists because a high school student drove drunk and killed two of his friends. So yes, that is exactly the point of this bill.

As for how people would get to school and work -- well, they'd figure something out. Half of 18-year-olds don't have driver's licenses. The majority of 18-21-year-olds don't own cars. A driver's license at 16 is a US cultural assumption, not a fact of nature. I'm not the one who brought up drunk driving, but if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is the public health problem, then it's a lot more effective to stop 16-21-year-olds from driving than to try to stop 16-21-year-olds from drinking.

And if drunk driving among 16-21-year-olds is not the public health problem, then why is the drinking age 21 when the legal age for everything else is 18?

I think you need to read the bill again. It has nothing to do with just one incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would much prefer knowing that the chances of a licensed 18 year old driver (who has likely only been driving about a year or two at best) is unlikely to be impaired by the effects of alcohol. I would much prefer that the 21 year old (who has 5 years of driving experience) be the drunk on the road. I just can't understand who these people are that think it is ok to have these "kids" drinking. Yes, they are legally adults, but they are still too immature to know how to handle the effects of drinking to excess. And they WILL drink to excess and they WILL do foolish things, like get behind a wheel.

I don't want anyone to be drunk on the road, whether 18, or 21, or any age.

I, personally, don't think it's ok for anybody to get drunk. But many people do like getting drunk, and if they want to get drunk, then that's their business, as long as all they're doing is getting drunk. It becomes my business when they get behind the wheel. What I want to prevent is drunk driving.

Not the PP but it is my business when another adult offers my underage child alcohol and they "just get drunk" even if they call me or get a ride home. While I agree no one should be driving, it doesn't have to do with just drinking and driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you need to read the bill again. It has nothing to do with just one incident.

I think that you need to read the Post article about the hearing in front of the Senate judiciary committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't want anyone to be drunk on the road, whether 18, or 21, or any age.

I, personally, don't think it's ok for anybody to get drunk. But many people do like getting drunk, and if they want to get drunk, then that's their business, as long as all they're doing is getting drunk. It becomes my business when they get behind the wheel. What I want to prevent is drunk driving.

Not the PP but it is my business when another adult offers my underage child alcohol and they "just get drunk" even if they call me or get a ride home. While I agree no one should be driving, it doesn't have to do with just drinking and driving.

But "underage" is a function of the drinking age, and the drinking age was the issue. If the drinking age were 18, and your (legal adult) child were 19, it wouldn't be an issue, because your child wouldn't be underage. If the drinking age were 21, and your (legal adult) child were 19, it would be an issue, because your child would be underage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you need to read the bill again. It has nothing to do with just one incident.

I think that you need to read the Post article about the hearing in front of the Senate judiciary committee.

I have read that. And I read the bill. And I have read the deputy report. And I have read the Montgomery county police captain's letter. And I have read the multiple principal letters too. It is not about one incident.

[Anonymous]

I think parents opposed to the bill are the ones likely to allow underage drinking in their own homes. Else why oppose it?

Parents should not be allowed to let underage kids, even their own kids, drink at home. If they do, they should be prosecuted. End of story.

Parents often support underage drinking because they are drinkers themselves. Drinkers don't like to drink alone, so parents who are drinkers often encourage their own kids to drink. That's the disturbing truth and I've seen it with my own eyes, followed by disastrous consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: you tell your kids not to drink and if they find themselves in such a situation to USE THE PHONE TO CALL ME OR UBER. AND NEVER EVER GET IN THE CAR WHEN THE DRIVER HAS CONSUMED ALCOHOL (that includes your dad and me cause you know we like our martinis).
ok, everyone covered now?

Ha ha ha. Great idea. Tell your teenager to do the right thing! Why didn't I think of this!

In fact, kids don't know they are drunk. Kids don't always know the driver is drunk. Some people who are shit-faced don't appear drunk. A drunk kid can get into a car with another drunk kid. Both have impaired judgement. Who's available to call Mom or Dad or Uber?

[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?

What age is HS? 13? Really?

[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.

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?

What age is HS? 13? Really?

Not PP, but yes, it's possible for a HS freshman to be 13. Many school districts have the K cut off such that they could be 4 when entering K. So, when they enter 9th grade (HS in most districts), the kid could be 13.