twa Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Well, the whole point of these parties is to NOT let kids drive home, which is why she was taking their keys.I for one am of the opinion that kids are going to drink one way or another. Doing it like this in a controlled environment, and not allowing them to drive drunk is the best situation. Otherwise, driving drunk WILL happen. I agree with your thought,BUT it must be with parental approval and assuming responsibility for the kids actions. If either of these are missing it should not be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Come on. It does matter that they are providing it. Peoples tolerances, body makeups are different, and peer pressure does exist at 15-16. Sure you would love to think you kid is responsible and trustworthy at 15-16, but at the same time they are still learning the adult decision making process. Most kids think they are invincible, most kids dont know how much they can or should drink. yes which is why you have to tell them as a parent, not saying anything is worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 this in my opinion would have been ok: she asked their parents, and their parents approved she, or someone responsible was around so some kid wouldn't get sent to the hospital she took away their keys and made sure none of them drove home #2 and #3 are by far more important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 So you think she thought is was OK....but just didn't want to get in trouble?How could she get in trouble if it wasn't wrong? Or she thought it was wrong.......but if the kids didn't tell..........it would be ok? If I know it is wrong......and I do it........I know I will get in trouble if caught. Are you serious ? They knew they would get in trouble thats why they tried to get the kids to lie. Of course she knew she would get in trouble - that is not in dispute here. Doesn't mean she thought it was wrong. There are people on this board who smoke weed every day - and don't think its wrong at all. But if a cop came up to them, you better believe they're gonna lie about it. :laugh: I agree with your thought,BUT it must be with parental approval and assuming responsibility for the kids actions.If either of these are missing it should not be done. Yeah, she was stupid about it, I agree. Still better than letting the kids go out and drink and drive, IMO. Its just a shame that our society is so prudish that they don't see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 It was wrong. Period. I have to agree with Kosher Ham on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Yeah, she was stupid about it, I agree. Still better than letting the kids go out and drink and drive, IMO. Its just a shame that our society is so prudish that they don't see it that way. They were 15 & 16 years old. Not serving them alcohol is not prudish, it's called being a responsible adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 this in my opinion would have been ok:she asked their parents, and their parents approved she, or someone responsible was around so some kid wouldn't get sent to the hospital she took away their keys and made sure none of them drove home #2 and #3 are by far more important Which ones are #2 and #3? I couldn't tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Which ones are #2 and #3? I couldn't tell... #2she, or someone responsible was around so some kid wouldn't get sent to the hospital #3she took away their keys and made sure none of them drove home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Okay, while I don't agree with what the mother did, she should not be serving 27 months, it should have been the 90 day that the DA suggested. 27 months is EXCESSIVE. Here in NC, the penalty for providing to a minor is no more than 30 days in jail, no more than $1000 dollar fine and loss of license for 6 months (or a year, I forget). The punishment is about to get stiffer, though. http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/05/31/StateNational/State.Ups.Drinking.Penalties-2910291.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 This sums up my thoughts: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120657.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 The punishment is about to get stiffer, though. http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/05/31/StateNational/State.Ups.Drinking.Penalties-2910291.shtml I think that is fair. I do believe they should lower the legal drinking age to 18 again though, I have never understood how you can graduate high school and be able to enlist into the armed forces to defend your country, but you can't drink a ****ing beer. On a side note, the people that choose not to go to college have to wait 3 years to drink when their independent lives have already started. It really makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 The punishment is about to get stiffer, though. http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/05/31/StateNational/State.Ups.Drinking.Penalties-2910291.shtml Damnit, I'm going to have to get some kind of insurance that will pay the bills IF that ever happens to me.. I swear I've had some guys come through my line that were 21 years old but they looked 29 or so, I almost didn't card them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Also, from the artical only a 1/3 of the kids were even taking part in drinking and 1/2 of them weren't even legally drunk. From what I got from the article, Natty, was that there were about 14 more who apparently took off through the woods when the cops arrived. So your percentages could be incorrect. And what difference does it make that some "weren't even legally drunk"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I think that is fair. I do believe they should lower the legal drinking age to 18 again though, I have never understood how you can graduate high school and be able to enlist into the armed forces to defend your country, but you can't drink a ****ing beer.On a side note, the people that choose not to go to college have to wait 3 years to drink when their independent lives have already started. It really makes no sense to me. I don't think the legal age should be 18, I think it should be 19. Most people turn 18 when they are still in high school, which will lead to them buying beer for their high school buddies. At 19 you're out of high school for a year and probably don't hang out with many of them anymore... If any of you guys smoked in high school, remember that friend you had that turned 18 in like September of senior year and you'd give him $10 to get you 2 packs of smokes? It would be like that with beer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I don't think the legal age should be 18, I think it should be 19. Most people turn 18 when they are still in high school, which will lead to them buying beer for their high school buddies. At 19 you're out of high school for a year and probably don't hang out with many of them anymore...If any of you guys smoked in high school, remember that friend you had that turned 18 in like September of senior year and you'd give him $10 to get you 2 packs of smokes? It would be like that with beer... I can agree with you on the age being 19, very good point. Maybe that and if you are in the military, you can drink at 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I think that is fair. I do believe they should lower the legal drinking age to 18 again though, I have never understood how you can graduate high school and be able to enlist into the armed forces to defend your country, but you can't drink a ****ing beer.On a side note, the people that choose not to go to college have to wait 3 years to drink when their independent lives have already started. It really makes no sense to me. nah 21 is fine it is hard to compare us to europe or other places where alcohol like wine is a a part of their life growing up plus if i had to wait till I was 21 so should everyone else to say i can fight for my country means i should drink beer is not a good reason to to allow it, remember they made the decision on their own to join the military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I can agree with you on the age being 19, very good point. Maybe that and if you are in the military, you can drink at 18. Sounds good to me. But it should DEFINITELY be lowered. I mean, you can get married, own property, smoke cigarettes, kill, and be killed, but you can't drink??? :wtf: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Of course she knew she would get in trouble - that is not in dispute here. Doesn't mean she thought it was wrong. There are people on this board who smoke weed every day - and don't think its wrong at all. But if a cop came up to them, you better believe they're gonna lie about it. :laugh: But they know its illegal right ? Seems as she should have known. Weed smokers know the risks involved as well. Yeah, she was stupid about it, I agree. Still better than letting the kids go out and drink and drive, IMO. Its just a shame that our society is so prudish that they don't see it that way. I dont think for a second that knowing letting anyone drink and drive is a good thing. And it is better than giving them that option. However I dont own a car that has less than 3 sets of keys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 It was wrong. Period. I have to agree with Kosher Ham on this one. Thank you sir. They were 15 & 16 years old. Not serving them alcohol is not prudish, it's called being a responsible adult. Absolutely. I can agree with you on the age being 19, very good point. Maybe that and if you are in the military, you can drink at 18. 18,19 or whatever. Part of the problem is that alcohol is a little taboo (for certain people). If you have the opportunity to grow up having drinks and learning how to handle it in a responsible manner than it doesnt matter. it is hard to compare us to europe or other places where alcohol like wine is a a part of their life growing up So why not learn to enjoy it, as opposed to learn to exploit it ? I went to the Bahamas when I graduated HS at 18 because I could play blackjack. I went to casinos and sat at the bar and never even got carded. I step foot near the casino floor and there was someone there to card me everytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I guess most people in this thread have never seen the studies showing that if you have an alcoholic drink before 15, you are like 10 times more likely to be an alcoholic. Great dad duty to those who said they have no problem supplying their underage kids. Your number one duty is to raise your kids with the best possible shot at having a sucessful, fulfilling life. Sometimes parents want to be liked so much, they think things like this are alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Interesting stats for you father of the year types in the crowd: http://www.alcoholfreechildren.org/gs/pubs/html/Stat.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 At least the mom didn't have sex with any of the minors there.... I just thought that should be said... We're doing nothing but bashing her, but it could have been worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Interesting stats for you father of the year types in the crowd: I'm gonna take a wild guess that the vast majority of those you're talking to are not parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Personally, I'd suggest that the problem with this situation was the REDUCTION in the sentence, not the sentence itself. The law says "No alcohol if you're under 21." There are no 'buts' or 'ifs' in the legislation. There are no allowances for extenuating circumstances. She obviously knew this. She ignored it. So far as I'm concerned they should have thrown the book at her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Personally, I'd suggest that the problem with this situation was the REDUCTION in the sentence, not the sentence itself. The law says "No alcohol if you're under 21." There are no 'buts' or 'ifs' in the legislation. There are no allowances for extenuating circumstances. She obviously knew this. She ignored it. So far as I'm concerned they should have thrown the book at her. I should probably think like this as well, considering the fact that I sell it on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.