Author Topic: 18-20 year-old can drink in the company of parent (Read 1156 times)

rpm · « **Reply #30 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:02:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
I can't support that, because it would be ultimately be paid by the buyer of the car. Also you could probably bypass or cheat it pretty easily.

If some people don't know how to behave it's not my responsibility.

Seat belts, turn signals, air bags, laminated glass...all safety devices that were once optional but have been proven to save lives. The cost of them is nominal in comparison to the money they save. If mass produced a breathalizer would cost under $100. They are a very simple device. Sure you could bypass or cheat a breathalizer, but if you are caught doing it, automatic felony. You would lose your license for 2 years as well.

There is no downside to having factory installed breathalizers other than reduced DWI revenue. You can not make a logical arguement against them. They are purely a saftey device, nothing more. If you want to get drunk, that's fine. If you want to drink and then get behind the wheel, that's not fine.

mora · « **Reply #31 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:08:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
You can not make a logical arguement against them. They are purely a saftey device, nothing more. If you want to get drunk, that's fine. If you want to drink and then get behind the wheel, that's not fine.

You might be right, but my argument is that I certainly don't want to spend a buck or blow into a device which I don't need. I'm sure it would be for the common good though.

mora · « **Reply #32 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:11:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Glas
Europeans (not the UK) tend to give their children glasses of wine or beer with meals. They have nowhere near the same problems that we have in the UK with teen drunkenness and the violence associated with it.

Here it's fairly common for parents to buy a six pack or even more to a 15 year old for the friday night. My parents never did that, and were pretty strict about drinking until I was 16. My solution was to brew my own.

Lizking · « **Reply #33 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:13:50 PM »

Mora, do your fifteen year olds have cars, high speed interstates to drive them on and the freedom to do so?

mora · « **Reply #34 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:18:00 PM »

No, and I don't think they should be allowed to.

Let me predict the next guestion...Why am I "pro underage drinking"(which I'm not), but I wouldn't let them drive at the same time?

A: You can make a lot more damage to yourself and innocent people with a car than with a six pack.

The logic behind outlawing alcohol for the underage, is the same as is behind in taking guns away from the people. The only difference is that guns can be infact taken away(British example), but you can't take away alcohol(probhibition example)

Lizking · « **Reply #35 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:26:16 PM »

No, Mora, the logic is not the same. It is a proven fact about underage drinking and driving, but only a myth about guns. What part of fact do you not understand?

mora · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:34:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
No, Mora, the logic is not the same. It is a proven fact about underage drinking and driving, but only a myth about guns. What part of fact do you not understand?

Teens drink and drive, and people die. People have guns(legal or not) and people get shot.

Alcohol cannot be taken away, so that cannot be a viable solution. Guns can be taken away, at least to a degree.

It's a proven fact that drinking and driving can be reduced by other means. I'm not sure about the gun crime?

In both cases the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Lizking · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2005, 05:43:18 PM »

I am not going to bother hunting down the stats for the US, but they speak for themselves and it was a good thing to do. If you are interested enough, google it and see how many fewer children die on our roads since it went into effect.

Maverick · « **Reply #38 on:** February 07, 2005, 06:02:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Personally, I think breathalizers should be factory installed on ALL vehicles. A pre-emptive strike against DWI's. Law enforcement and government won't go for it, tho. Would cut into their cash cow.

That's an incorrect statement from RPM. DUI's are not a cash cow for any law enforcement agency. The fines, when the courts assess any, go the the jurisdiction general funds or to the court. Frankly it's been my experiance that the offendor is rarely fined as much as the statute calls for. They never confiscate the car and almost never sentence a repeat offender to any serious amount of jail time.

As far as in vehicle breathalyzers are concerned it actually has been tried. They worked around it by having someone else blow on the machine. Using a small stored supply of air can be used to run the breathalyzer as well.

I have to admit that the idea is intriguing. If it could be made fool proof it would be great. Unfortunately once you let the repeat offender out of supervision you cannot keep them from getting around the device.

Bluedog · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2005, 06:15:46 PM »

I have to agree that it seems strange that it is quite OK and normal to send an eighteen or nineteen year old kid, armed to the teeth into a war zone and expect him to behave as an adult , a representative of your nation and a warrior, to possibly give his life, yet that same kid (man actually, lets face it, he's an adult) isn't old enough to have a beer??
Thats just plain wrong. Who deserves the drink? a 21 year old kicking back on some college campus, or the eighteen year old Marine stright out of Fallujah.

Mebbe they should just add an 'active service' clause.....no drinking untill you are 21 unless the DoD signs your pay check, in which case any time your CO says its OK is fine.

You seen those pen things diabetics use to test their blood suger levels?.....a small salamander, a couple of seconds and you have a readout.

Could the same sort of device be used to read blood alcahol levels?
Granted, you could easily get someone else to take the test, but if there is someone handy that hasnt been drinking, wouldnt you just get them to drive anyway?

rpm · « **Reply #40 on:** February 07, 2005, 06:32:09 PM »

BZZZZ, wrong. Fines and court costs are not the only money municipalities make from DWI's. Probation fees ($40 per visit x 24-36 months), Manditory Drug Testing Fee ($30 per test), DWI Victim Impact Panel Fees ($60), DWI Driver Education Class Fees ($250), Rehabilitation Class Fees ($24 x 2 x 16 weeks), plus any other classes your Probation Officer may decide to send you to at his sole discretion. These are all LOCAL fees paid to the City and County and do not include any State fees or surcharges related to your Driver's License. Texas has a surcharge ranging from $1000 - $2000 per year for up to 3 years for an Essential Need License. That license is only good to drive straight to and from work on a designated path. No side trips.

Been there, done that, got the certificates. They are a cash cow.

Shuckins · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2005, 07:43:13 PM »

Personally, I've got no problem with someone taking a drink to relax, or with a meal.

But the problems inherent with the abuse of this legalized drug should give us pause: 20,000 highway deaths a year; spousal and child abuse; anti-social behavior; a host of others.

In addition, the bragadocio that so often accompanies excessive drinking makes my gorge rise. Can someone please explain to me what is fun about waking up in the morning rolling in your own vomit with no memory of how big an arse you acted the night before, with pounding head and a stomach that feels as if it has knives twisting in it?

And yeah, I have done it a time or two, when I was young and stupid.

mora · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2005, 08:32:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
I am not going to bother hunting down the stats for the US, but they speak for themselves and it was a good thing to do. If you are interested enough, google it and see how many fewer children die on our roads since it went into effect.

Give me a break.. A single statistic proves absolutely nothing. That's like the claim: "The global warming is caused by the CO2 emissions created by the humans. The stats show that the climate has warmed significantly after the industrial revolution." That proves nothing, like your statement, infact it's impossible to prove that global warming is caused by the humans just by looking at statistics.

No we come to this time and age... the US has the highest number of substance abuse and violent crime, and you also have probably the highest number of DWI deaths in the western countries. Is it really wothwile to clinch to a totally non-scientific logic that might have applied 30 years ago? Again there's plenty of examples from other countries that show that drinking age bears no relation to the number of DWI cases.

mora · « **Reply #43 on:** February 07, 2005, 08:50:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Can someone please explain to me what is fun about waking up in the morning rolling in your own vomit with no memory of how big an arse you acted the night before, with pounding head and a stomach that feels as if it has knives twisting in it?

That's exactly the reason why responsible consumption of alcohol should be taught at home. Sadly too many Americans I've met seemed to lack any. Maybe switching away from denial(meaning booze is bad, mmmmkay?) could be the first step in reducing the harm caused by alcohol?

Maverick · « **Reply #44 on:** February 07, 2005, 10:04:10 PM »

RPM, read the post again. None of the money goes to the Law Enforcement side. BTW I suppose you'll now state they have to falsify the DUI to make sure they get enough.

Kind of hard to build a budget based on how many get arrested then convicted.

Perhaps you wouldn't have those "certificates" if you made better choices.