Anonymous wrote:

How do you know that? Do you have a magic time machine we all don't know about? Or is it your opinion so no one should do anything to deter these parents and just keep allowing them to throw parties with minimal fines.

Many people said increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21 wouldn't reduce drinking or drinking and driving and it has done in such huge numbers it is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because I think it's an overly broad bill that will not deter parents and will not reduce drunk driving.

My alcohol consumption per week is about 1.5 beers, spread out over several days, and if my kids get drunk in high school and I find out, there will be major consequences.

And what if you find out a parent gave your child the alcohol to get drunk and then let them leave to drive home? How about when you child sleeps over a friends house that you know and trust? The parents okay the drinking and your child dies of alcohol poisoning?
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a13054/binge-drinking-killed-shelby-allen/

Then it's still an overly broad bill that will not deter parents and will not reduce drunk driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because I think it's an overly broad bill that will not deter parents and will not reduce drunk driving.

My alcohol consumption per week is about 1.5 beers, spread out over several days, and if my kids get drunk in high school and I find out, there will be major consequences.

And what if you find out a parent gave your child the alcohol to get drunk and then let them leave to drive home? How about when you child sleeps over a friends house that you know and trust? The parents okay the drinking and your child dies of alcohol poisoning?
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a13054/binge-drinking-killed-shelby-allen/

Anonymous wrote:School starts August 10-17? In VA? Where?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because I think it's an overly broad bill that will not deter parents and will not reduce drunk driving.

My alcohol consumption per week is about 1.5 beers, spread out over several days, and if my kids get drunk in high school and I find out, there will be major consequences.

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?

Anonymous wrote: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 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?

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?

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same applies with an 18yr old having sex with a 17yr old? Do you want the statutory rape law to go away so an 18yr old can freely fuck a 17yr old without risking getting arrested? Please tell me the difference because you are grasping at straws here.