Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickey1992 on February 07, 2005, 09:24:56 AM
-
In Ohio, a person 18-20 years of age can drink if they are in the company of a parent/spouse/guardian of legal drinking age.
**********************
§ 4301.69. Offenses involving underage persons.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person shall sell beer or intoxicating liquor to an underage person, shall buy beer or intoxicating liquor for an underage person, or shall furnish it to an underage person, unless given by a physician in the regular line of the physician's practice or given for established religious purposes or unless the underage person is accompanied by a parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian.
(B) No person who is the owner or occupant of any public or private place shall knowingly allow any underage person to remain in or on the place while possessing or consuming beer or intoxicating liquor, unless the intoxicating liquor or beer is given to the person possessing or consuming it by that person's parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian and the parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian is present at the time of the person's possession or consumption of the beer or intoxicating liquor.
***********************
Do any other states have similar provisions in their drinking laws? Does anyone else have experience with this?
My Dad, when visiting my two half-brothers in college, will sometimes try and buy them a beer at a restaurant and always has to try and explain the law to the server/manager.
-
Along those same lines........
I can remember being in a restaurant in Austin, TX back when I was like 10 or 11, and my folks being amazed as they watched a couple buy their kids (who were my age and younger) beer with their meal. The waiter took the order without blinking an eye and brought the family their beers.
My dad asked the waiter about what had just happened, and the waiter replied something along the lines of "as long as they are with their parents and the parents buy the drinks for their kids,and the kids are used to it, it is all perfectly legal in Texas."
My dad was one of those old farmers who thought a cold beer at the end of the day was just normal as hell, but seeing kids chugging away as they ate kinda knocked him back a bit.
Was an eye opener, to say the least.........
-
Don't worry about the drinking age, you can always go to a drug dealer...they don't have age limits.
-
people should learn to drink *before* they learn to drive, including at least one full-on drunk.
if only to reinforce the point drinking irresponsibly and driving is a big no-no.
-
Children under the age of 10 have very limited ability to burn alcohol. It's extremely hazardous to offer drinks to them.
-
Our brains don't fully develop until we are around 25 anyways.
While I know you can't keep them from doing it, let their brains develop a little more before helping them kill off brains cells eh?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Our brains don't fully develop until we are around 25 anyways.
While I know you can't keep them from doing it, let their brains develop a little more before helping them kill off brains cells eh?
How many brain cells does a glass of beer kill? Teaching them to drink even somewhat responsibly might actually save quite a many brain cells on the long run.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
In Ohio, a person 18-20 years of age can drink if they are in the company of a parent/spouse/guardian of legal drinking age.
In Britain, a person 18 years or older can drink with whoever the hell they like!
-
I know the point you're making.
Teach kids how to drink responsibly so they don't go crazy with it when it's available to them.
Cocain and pot will be available to them too..... not legal but available....... oh ya.... sex too.
You can educate someone about something without letting them have it.
btw.... I'm on the fence with this... just throwing out the agrument.... :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In Britain, a person 18 years or older can drink with whoever the hell they like!
20 years go 18 year-old Americans could too.
-
A recent study shows that it is beneficial for elderly people to drink alcohol regularly.
*checks calendar*
I'm past 25 WOOHOO!
-
It is legal in Texas for a parent to purchase and serve alcohol to their children. It is also legal for the establishment to refuse to serve them, which is normally the case when they see it happening. The establishment is still liable for any concequences that may occur from the minor's consumption.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
20 years go 18 year-old Americans could too.
I was in IL 1979-81, where the legal drinking age was always 21. But IIRC, WI legalised consumption of beer and wine (but not hard liquor) for 19-20 year olds. But there were problems because people in the 19-20 age group in IL were driving over the state line into WI to piss it up, and then making the return journey rather the worse for wear. I think there was then pressure for harmonisation.
-
Louisiana was the last hold out for 18 year old drinking, and only agreed when they lost all of their Federal road money. I think it was around 1988-89. When I was young it was no big deal to drink in a bar at 16-17 years old.
-
The most ridiculous thing about your drinking age is the reasoning behind it. Also I think it's probably a big contributor to the levels of drug use in your country.
-
Actually, the reasoning makes perfect sense. Kids that age get drunk and drive, killing themselves and others at a high rate.
-
You aren't supposed to drive drunk at any age. Then again why let them drive at all at that age.
Do you think it has affected drinking of young adults at any significant amount? Do you think that there are less intoxicated drivers(any substance) because of this?
Btw, there's no such trends in countries where the drinking age has been traditionally lower.
You have a lot to do with better enforcement of DUI laws. Forget the damn ABC and line walking tests and start brethalyzing people on the roads for christs sake! Oh wait a minute you can't do that, it violates peoples privacy...then at the same time you see no problems with random drug testing or Patriot Act etc..:rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
What if you got a big discount on your car insurance if you had one installed?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Actually, the reasoning makes perfect sense. Kids that age get drunk and drive, killing themselves and others at a high rate.
Define "kids".
-
18-21 year olds.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
What if you got a big discount on your car insurance if you had one installed?
Yes of course, if it wouldn't be mandatory. I think the effect could be quite significant over there. In here you wouldn't be getting any discounts, the insurance monopoly would make sure of that.:(
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Actually, the reasoning makes perfect sense. Kids that age get drunk and drive, killing themselves and others at a high rate.
This goes into the same category as: "Let's sue Smith&Wesson because someone was killed by their gun."
-
No, Mora, actually it is pretty well documented fact.
-
Seriously, I don't really doubt that 16-21 drinking and driving isn't a huge problem.
But, I really can't see how this law helps the situation at all. I doubt that teens in the US use any less alcohol because of this, and the law creates massive problems at the same time, including:
While it might marginally decrease the alcohol consumed, it is more than replaced by illegal drugs.
Lack of respect to authority.
Higher rate on alcohol related violence, because alcohol is consumed in places without any control.
Higher rate of alcohol related accident's and health problems.(for the same reason as above)
Crime related to obtaining of alcohol.
Then there's the ethical guestions and the fact that it's needless goverment intervention, America is supposed to be a model for freedom, right?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
18-21 year olds.
are kids?
ok then they can not vote, can not serve in the military, can not be held accountable for crimes as adults, can not pay taxes, and not marry without parental consent... the list goes on.
that's BS, and the age 21 is just lame.
-
A friend of mine who lives in US told that the underage kids used to collect together outside the town, light a fire in the forest and drink illegal booze. Everyone naturally came with their vehicles and .. well, drove away after boozing.
What if they could just drink IN the town instead of driving 20km out? ;)
The same friend busted his kneecap driving intoxicated with his scooter. Crashed to a parked car and suffered heavy insurance penalties along with the lifetime damage to the knee.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
What if they could just drink IN the town instead of driving 20km out? ;)
Out of sight, out of mind.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I know the point you're making.
Teach kids how to drink responsibly so they don't go crazy with it when it's available to them.
Cocain and pot will be available to them too..... not legal but available....... oh ya.... sex too.
You can educate someone about something without letting them have it.
btw.... I'm on the fence with this... just throwing out the agrument.... :D
Cocaine and pot are available, but are illegal. If you need to use a stick to beat it in to their heads, then that should be enough.
With alcohol however, kids see it freely drunk among adults. The temptation for them to try increases with exposure.
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.
The area I live in Scotland is called Lanarkshire, which consists of many small and large towns. In most of these towns, the favourite drink among teens is a cheap tonic wine called Buckfast. The wine, believe it or not, is made by a load of monks in an Abbey somewhere in Devon (Buckfast Abbey strangely enough).
All they have to simply do is stop selling it here. Sure the kids will get something else to drink, but it will certainly be more expensive and less potent.
Its a sad day when even our main religions are driven by market forces, especially when it concerns something like alcohol and the health of thousands of young kids :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.:)
-
Mora, do your fifteen year olds have cars, high speed interstates to drive them on and the freedom to do so?
-
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)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :rolleyes: 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.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
While I know you can't keep them from doing it, let their brains develop a little more before helping them kill off brains cells eh?
Originally posted by GScholtz
Actually the well known "fact" that drinking alcohol kills brain cells is just a myth.
Originally posted by Cliff Clavin, the mailman from "Cheers"
"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive drinking of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
-
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.
I emphatically agree.
Karaya
-
Did most of my hard drinking when I was 17-19. Alcohol is easy to get, let the kids have their fun.
-
Mora before you judge americans too much, remember that finland also has one of the highest drinking related murder levels in the world.
People get drunk -> they kill. No guns needed, just an axe to the neighbours head is enough.
-
legal drinking age for beer and wine is 16 here, 18 for liquor.
you can get a driving license at 18, in some states at 17 as long as an adult is driving with you.
I don't know how drinking related car accident statistics compare to the US or other countries and can't be bothered to find out right now. But by some of your definitions, the amount of such related deaths should be significantly higher here.
The difference in # of cars per capita isn't much lower than in the US and we definately do have high speed interstates that we're free to use. And we can even drive as fast as we want to in most places, drunk or not :)
I still kinda doubt that we have many more alcohol related deaths here. If someone's able to correct me on that, feel free.
I still think it's kinda odd to label someone who's eligible to vote or who could be a soldier in iraq a "kid" when talking about his legal status towards alcohol consumption.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Mora before you judge americans too much, remember that finland also has one of the highest drinking related murder levels in the world.
People get drunk -> they kill. No guns needed, just an axe to the neighbours head is enough.
Yes I know that. We also have one of the most strickest alcohol laws in the world! And look where it got us... You don't have to go very much south to see that liberal alcohol laws and crime don't go hand in hand.
About the only thing we have done right is the fight against drinking and driving, which is very low when compared to alcohol abuse. and we can thank education received in school for that.
-
Originally posted by Redwing
I still think it's kinda odd to label someone who's eligible to vote or who could be a soldier in iraq a "kid" when talking about his legal status towards alcohol consumption.
an age old arguement here.
-
Originally posted by rpm
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.
Unbudgeted revenue. States and municipalities live for that. It is a ready and reliable source of easily squandered and grafted income. It's not only associated with DMV, can anyone say building permits, fishing licenses hunting licenses, alarm permits etc. ad nauseum.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
If you are interested enough, google it and see how many fewer children die on our roads since it went into effect.
How many fewer would be killed if the drinking age was 25? How many fewer if the interstate speed limit was 40? How many fewer if the driving age was 18, or 21?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
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. :rolleyes: 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.
I suppose the Department of Public Safety isn't a part of law enforcement? I've never said they falsify DWI's, just that they have become addicted to the income. Nice try at belittling me. I'm not proud of getting a DWI, I should have recieved one years earlier than I did. I would like to see more prevention in place for public safety. Is prevention wrong?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
None of the money goes to the Law Enforcement side.
Are you sure?
Not according to dui.com, but this may be a state by state dependant breakdown, as certainly the penalties vary. I didn't read into enough to find out, just stopped when I saw what I considered 'law enforcement' type agencies getting a percentage. Some of it quite a bit actually. Maybe Peace Officers aren't coppers or something, I thought it was a fancy word for them though. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but aren't Public Procecuters under the same ideal as law enforcement?
% .38 - FISH AND GAME
PRESERVATION
FUND ($5.00)
22.12 - RESTITUTION FUND($260)
27.15 - PEACE OFFICER TRAINING
FUND ($320)
29.73 - DRIVER TRAINING PENALTY
ASSESSMENT FUND( $340)
9.12 - CORRECTIONS TRAINING
FUND ($106)
.90 - LOCAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
TRAINING FUND ($11)
10.00 - VICTIM-WITNESS ASSISTANCE
FUND($118)
-
RPM,
Prevention is an individual responsibility. Havern't you learned that yet? Using Government as a nanny was tried and that experiment failed, fortunately IMO.
-
Get government out of the extremely profitable nanny business by all means. I'm for it. That's why factory installed breathalizers would be a very good thing. It would keep drunk drivers off the road, free up police to patrol more and do less paperwork, and last but not least save lives and property. What's the problem?
You said anyone could bypass the system. That is true. I say if they are caught doing so it should be a felony. Again, what's the problem?
Maybe you think you have the right to drink and drive, and endanger innocent people. You might think you can handle yourself better than the other guy behind the wheel after a few beers. You are dead wrong, period.
You want to drink? That's cool. You want to drink and get behind the wheel? That's not cool.
-
RPM,
I agree with what you said about the drinking and driving part 100%. I've been hit by a drunk, fortunately all it cost me was money and time in getting my bike repaired. Like I said before, if the manufacturer could make it foolproof I'd have absolutely no problems with a breathalyzer in a car. How they could make it work for drugs as well I have no clue as a regular breathalyzer doesn't work there. There is a definate need for detection of drugs as an impairment to driving.
I'd love to see more felony sentencings for DUI but it won't happen. It's classified as a "victimless crime" by a lot of folks and there would be even more of a shortage of jail space. It pissed me off more than once to see a dui driver walk with a minimal fine and 4 hours served in jail at court when it took me almost that long to process him through the test etc. when he got arrested. Other factors play into it as well like the Dianna Ross case (from my own home town agency) where she got very preferential treatment by the court.
Prosecutors would dismiss the case for any reason they could find simply to clear the docket as the trials take a tremendous amount of time. If they didn't dismiss they'd plea down to reckless driving and the original DUI wouldn't get recorded on the offenders record. Several defense attorneys got fairly well off doing dui's almost exclusively. One of my favorite classes of sublife forms. :mad:
I honestly wish there was a way to stop them from driving like that but there isn't at this time. All that can be done is pick up the pieces from the wrecks, arrest the offender when possible and deal with the crap from the courts about the cases. It does get old real fast arresting the same flake more than once and watching as 2 of the 3 cases are plead away so they won't have to go to trial and only the minimal penalty for one offense is handed down.