NC House OKs Bill to Pull Licenses for Giving Booze to Minors

[NFS4]

This should be interesting 🙂

Raleigh ? The state House on Thursday passed a bill that would revoke the driver's license of anyone convicted of supplying alcohol to minors.

Lawmakers approved the proposal by a 105-7 vote. It faces a final reading Monday before heading to the Senate.

State Rep. Ty Harrell, D-Wake, sponsored the bill, saying the state needs to be tougher on people who illegally provide beer, wine or liquor to teens.

Under the legislation, people found guilty of giving alcohol to minors would lose their driver's license for a year. But they would be allowed to apply for a restricted license to commute to work or school.

The proposal comes in the wake of alcohol-related accidents that killed several Wakefield High School students in the past 15 months. Some family members of the deceased Wakefield High students were at the General Assembly Thursday to support the bill.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/1424656

 

[DainBramaged]

So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

 

[coldmeat]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Oh ya, I forgot the age in the US was 21...

I was able to drink when I was 18 because Quebec was a 20 min drive from my house.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Intentionally breaking the law like giving alcohol to a minor is not the proper way of protesting or disagreeing with it.

Refusing to move to the back of a bus or a woman voting when only men are allowed to? That's valid way of protesting.

Putting a minor in harm's way because they feel like getting nice and juiced up? That's a poor excuse for a protest and really just selfish.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this decision... I really don't care... but I waited until I was 21 to drink and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

I don't see why they stopped at something quite so disconnected to the offense. Why not force them to register as sex offenders while you're at it?

:roll:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Intentionally breaking the law like giving alcohol to a minor is not the proper way of protesting or disagreeing with it.

Refusing to move to the back of a bus or a woman voting when only men are allowed to? That's valid way of protesting.

Putting a minor in harm's way because they feel like getting nice and juiced up? That's a poor excuse for a protest and really just selfish.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this decision... I really don't care... but I waited until I was 21 to drink and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself.

I see nothing wrong with allowing your children to have a glass of wine with dinner. Would you call that getting them "nice and juiced up?" In fact, I'd support efforts to change the drinking age from 21 to 10 years old, provided that in the case of minors consuming alcoholic beverages, a non-drunk adult was supervising.

In fact, that seems to make far more sense: teach children to drink responsibly while they're still in the care of their parents. Instead, we seem to feel that the best time to start drinking coincides with the time that most young adults are finally independent for the first time. That leads to either children sneaking around behind their parents backs to drink (i.e. traveling to somewhere else... in a car??) else starting to drink at a time when no one is around to supervise their use.

In fact, with a lack of adult supervision, it leads to statements just like you made, Injury, statements which indicate that many people don't even realize that you can drink responsibly. i.e. your statement: "It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself. " Obviously, you see the purpose of alcohol is to "get drunk."

Now, people with the same mind-set are making new laws, the consequences of which are that even more people will go out, be independent, and start experimenting with alcohol without "adult" supervision. It's short-sighted and isn't going to have the effect I think the legislators think it'll have.

Instead, junior is allowed to go off to war, serve for 2 1/2 years in Iraq, killing insurgents, then come home to North Carolina on leave. During that leave, he has a brewski with his dad. If caught, Dad now loses his driver's license for 1 year. This is absolutely idiotic.

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
snip

Ahh the voice of reason.

I wish more people in this country put actual thought into issues like this. Knee-jerk reactions are destroying our country.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

I was told the drinking age was reverted to 21 when drunk driving deaths skyrocketed, is this true? It was mentioned by my history teacher, who was in his sixties(ish), so I figure he'd be right, but I've never heard it from anywhere else.

 

[imported_weadjust]

What is the punishment for an adult that doesn't drive or have a license?

 

[destrekor]

technically, depending on state law (such as here in Ohio), a legal guardian can give their child alcohol if the adult orders the alcohol and hands it to the child. in a place of business, this is up to the establishment to permit or deny. family owned businesses tend not to have as much of an issue, bars and sports pubs tend to not allow it (at least in Toledo that tended to be the case). In the home, the parent can hand the child a beverage all night long.

with that in mind, how will Ohio's law be handled in a situation like this? I'm assuming parents handing a beverage to their child is going to be different than an adult buying and handing fifth's and cases of beer to minors, right?

and why the driver's license? that seems like a very draconian measure, and rather screwed up in my opinion.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I disagree completely with drinking. It's obvious there are no benefits to it. Studies sway either way but the fact that has never changed is that it harms you. Therefore what value does it play? I choose not to drink and won't have any in my household. Should my child decide to that's their decision but they'll always understand that along with smoking it will never be allowed on my property.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I see nothing wrong with allowing your children to have a glass of wine with dinner. Would you call that getting them "nice and juiced up?" In fact, I'd support efforts to change the drinking age from 21 to 10 years old, provided that in the case of minors consuming alcoholic beverages, a non-drunk adult was supervising.

In fact, that seems to make far more sense: teach children to drink responsibly while they're still in the care of their parents. Instead, we seem to feel that the best time to start drinking coincides with the time that most young adults are finally independent for the first time. That leads to either children sneaking around behind their parents backs to drink (i.e. traveling to somewhere else... in a car??) else starting to drink at a time when no one is around to supervise their use.

In fact, with a lack of adult supervision, it leads to statements just like you made, Injury, statements which indicate that many people don't even realize that you can drink responsibly. i.e. your statement: "It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself. " Obviously, you see the purpose of alcohol is to "get drunk."

Now, people with the same mind-set are making new laws, the consequences of which are that even more people will go out, be independent, and start experimenting with alcohol without "adult" supervision. It's short-sighted and isn't going to have the effect I think the legislators think it'll have.

Instead, junior is allowed to go off to war, serve for 2 1/2 years in Iraq, killing insurgents, then come home to North Carolina on leave. During that leave, he has a brewski with his dad. If caught, Dad now loses his driver's license for 1 year. This is absolutely idiotic.

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

DrPizza for President! No, seriously. That's a reasonable post if I've ever seen one, and I agree with it.

 

[pstylesss]

Take away the persons drivers license? You mean one of the things that enables the adults of America to be productive citizens? That penalty is ridiculous.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Take away the persons drivers license? You mean one of the things that enables the adults of America to be productive citizens? That penalty is ridiculous.

Gotta hit 'em where it hurts, in the wallet

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I disagree completely with drinking. It's obvious there are no benefits to it. Studies sway either way but the fact that has never changed is that it harms you. Therefore what value does it play? I choose not to drink and won't have any in my household. Should my child decide to that's their decision but they'll always understand that along with smoking it will never be allowed on my property.

Red wine has heart benefits and is chock full of anti-oxidants. Moderate amounts of alcohol tend to be not bad for you at all, and in some cases have positive effects.

On the other hand large amounts and chronic alcoholism are obviously bad...

The main reason alcohol is seen as a bad thing is because of the Puritan-istic belief that alcohol is evil, leads to irresponsibility, etc. Therefore, we make an artificially high drinking age. What we don't realize is that a drinking age of 21 means that everyone has to sneak alcohol behind their parents' backs (very common in high school and ubiquitous in college). Instead of the responsibility for teaching responsible drinking behavior being in the parents' jurisdiction, we cover our eyes and "see no evil". We let the kids figure it out on their own, which means getting plastered every weekend. Ever wonder why American college students tend to binge drink much more than European or even Canadian students?

I turn 21 this month but am easily mistaken as being a high schooler. It'll be amusing to go to stores and buy alcohol...

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I disagree completely with drinking. It's obvious there are no benefits to it. Studies sway either way but the fact that has never changed is that it harms you. Therefore what value does it play? I choose not to drink and won't have any in my household. Should my child decide to that's their decision but they'll always understand that along with smoking it will never be allowed on my property.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3968.php

Just the first one I found. I'm sure I can easily find many more like it.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I disagree completely with drinking. It's obvious there are no benefits to it. Studies sway either way but the fact that has never changed is that it harms you. Therefore what value does it play? I choose not to drink and won't have any in my household. Should my child decide to that's their decision but they'll always understand that along with smoking it will never be allowed on my property.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3968.php

Just the first one I found. I'm sure I can easily find many more like it.

As I had said, studies sway either way but something that can't be escaped is the fact that drinking aspirin is like taking Tylenol, it doesn't matter what quantities you take it in it partially damages you. But again like Tylenol, it doesn't matter what some people are faced with, they'll take it anyways. So it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I've chosen not to. As such, I hold the right to disallow any such activities on my property. Anyone else is free to do as they wish, but on my property I rule 😛

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Intentionally breaking the law like giving alcohol to a minor is not the proper way of protesting or disagreeing with it.

Refusing to move to the back of a bus or a woman voting when only men are allowed to? That's valid way of protesting.

Putting a minor in harm's way because they feel like getting nice and juiced up? That's a poor excuse for a protest and really just selfish.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this decision... I really don't care... but I waited until I was 21 to drink and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself.

I see nothing wrong with allowing your children to have a glass of wine with dinner. Would you call that getting them "nice and juiced up?" In fact, I'd support efforts to change the drinking age from 21 to 10 years old, provided that in the case of minors consuming alcoholic beverages, a non-drunk adult was supervising.

In fact, that seems to make far more sense: teach children to drink responsibly while they're still in the care of their parents. Instead, we seem to feel that the best time to start drinking coincides with the time that most young adults are finally independent for the first time. That leads to either children sneaking around behind their parents backs to drink (i.e. traveling to somewhere else... in a car??) else starting to drink at a time when no one is around to supervise their use.

In fact, with a lack of adult supervision, it leads to statements just like you made, Injury, statements which indicate that many people don't even realize that you can drink responsibly. i.e. your statement: "It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself. " Obviously, you see the purpose of alcohol is to "get drunk."

Now, people with the same mind-set are making new laws, the consequences of which are that even more people will go out, be independent, and start experimenting with alcohol without "adult" supervision. It's short-sighted and isn't going to have the effect I think the legislators think it'll have.

Instead, junior is allowed to go off to war, serve for 2 1/2 years in Iraq, killing insurgents, then come home to North Carolina on leave. During that leave, he has a brewski with his dad. If caught, Dad now loses his driver's license for 1 year. This is absolutely idiotic.

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

i agree that parents should be allowed to give their kids alcohol in their own homes. i don't see how alcohol is any different from tobacco in the sense that you have to wait until an arbitrary age to purchase it legally for yourself. clearly enough people care about that, but they need to grow a pair, learn some personal responsibility, and deal with the law IMO. granted i'm in the minority of 20 y/o's (i really don't care about turning 21 that much, and my 21st birthday will not consist of massive barhopping).

however, the only flaw that is absolutely BS with your argument, IMO, is the kid coming home from war and not being able to drink. his ability to drink has nothing to do with his rights as a citizen and his eligibility to go to war. that's why 18 year olds were given the right to vote in the first place - if they are being sent to fight by the president, they should have every right to be able to choose who is going to be their president.

with all that said, i agree that the NC law is dumb.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Intentionally breaking the law like giving alcohol to a minor is not the proper way of protesting or disagreeing with it.

Refusing to move to the back of a bus or a woman voting when only men are allowed to? That's valid way of protesting.

Putting a minor in harm's way because they feel like getting nice and juiced up? That's a poor excuse for a protest and really just selfish.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this decision... I really don't care... but I waited until I was 21 to drink and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself.

I see nothing wrong with allowing your children to have a glass of wine with dinner. Would you call that getting them "nice and juiced up?" In fact, I'd support efforts to change the drinking age from 21 to 10 years old, provided that in the case of minors consuming alcoholic beverages, a non-drunk adult was supervising.

In fact, that seems to make far more sense: teach children to drink responsibly while they're still in the care of their parents. Instead, we seem to feel that the best time to start drinking coincides with the time that most young adults are finally independent for the first time. That leads to either children sneaking around behind their parents backs to drink (i.e. traveling to somewhere else... in a car??) else starting to drink at a time when no one is around to supervise their use.

In fact, with a lack of adult supervision, it leads to statements just like you made, Injury, statements which indicate that many people don't even realize that you can drink responsibly. i.e. your statement: "It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself. " Obviously, you see the purpose of alcohol is to "get drunk."

Now, people with the same mind-set are making new laws, the consequences of which are that even more people will go out, be independent, and start experimenting with alcohol without "adult" supervision. It's short-sighted and isn't going to have the effect I think the legislators think it'll have.

Instead, junior is allowed to go off to war, serve for 2 1/2 years in Iraq, killing insurgents, then come home to North Carolina on leave. During that leave, he has a brewski with his dad. If caught, Dad now loses his driver's license for 1 year. This is absolutely idiotic.

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

:thumbsup:

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

I was told the drinking age was reverted to 21 when drunk driving deaths skyrocketed, is this true? It was mentioned by my history teacher, who was in his sixties(ish), so I figure he'd be right, but I've never heard it from anywhere else.

Correct ... teenage drunk-driving deaths went down dramaticaly right after the drinking age was raised back to 21 in the 25 states that had lowered it to 18.

I'm sure this won't be a popular statement on this board, but nevertheless its true.

 

[se7en]

I live in NC so all I can say is

HHEEELLL YEEAAAHHH

Im down with registering them as sex offenders too dug. Lets make it happen!

Now if they only had something like this for cigarettes too we would be in buisness.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Exactly! There is something so magical about alcohol that the consumption of it requires you to be 21 while trivial tasks like voting for the leaders of the country, serving in the military, and entering into contracts are ok at 18. Blame the baby boomers for this one, we fought to get the age lowered to 18, had kids, and turned into giant hypocrites by raising it back to 21 since it no longer affected us.

 

[PokerGuy]

Great post DrPizza, that makes a lot of sense.

thecoolnessrune, there are lots and lots of studies that show alcohol (specific types of alcoholic drinks anyway) can be beneficial to your health. Your "black and white" approach doesn't make any sense. What the heck is this "partially damages you" nonsense?

Clearly, anything done to excess is a bad thing, small amounts of red wine (for example) have health benefits and help reduce the risk of heart disease. The key is "moderation", not "oh no, it's teh evil, it must banned from anywhere near me!".

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

I was told the drinking age was reverted to 21 when drunk driving deaths skyrocketed, is this true? It was mentioned by my history teacher, who was in his sixties(ish), so I figure he'd be right, but I've never heard it from anywhere else.

Correct ... teenage drunk-driving deaths went down dramaticaly right after the drinking age was raised back to 21 in the 25 states that had lowered it to 18.

I'm sure this won't be a popular statement on this board, but nevertheless its true.

Right. For the last 80 or so years most of the country (all since 1984) has had a drinking age of 21. Only for a brief period of about 10 years (about 1972-1983) did half of the states adopt an age of 18. It was raised again because alcohol-related crashes and deaths among the 18-20 age group rose. Once they raised the age to 21 again alcohol-involved crashes immediately went back down in this age group.

The pairing of voting age and drinking age is purely artificial. The two are not related any more than are the driving age and the hunting age or the age of consent and the age for marriage.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
So rather than addressing the artificially high age of legal drinking, they decide to make stiffer and more draconian legislation to punish those that disagree with them and their beliefs.

Intentionally breaking the law like giving alcohol to a minor is not the proper way of protesting or disagreeing with it.

Refusing to move to the back of a bus or a woman voting when only men are allowed to? That's valid way of protesting.

Putting a minor in harm's way because they feel like getting nice and juiced up? That's a poor excuse for a protest and really just selfish.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this decision... I really don't care... but I waited until I was 21 to drink and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself.

I see nothing wrong with allowing your children to have a glass of wine with dinner. Would you call that getting them "nice and juiced up?" In fact, I'd support efforts to change the drinking age from 21 to 10 years old, provided that in the case of minors consuming alcoholic beverages, a non-drunk adult was supervising.

In fact, that seems to make far more sense: teach children to drink responsibly while they're still in the care of their parents. Instead, we seem to feel that the best time to start drinking coincides with the time that most young adults are finally independent for the first time. That leads to either children sneaking around behind their parents backs to drink (i.e. traveling to somewhere else... in a car??) else starting to drink at a time when no one is around to supervise their use.

In fact, with a lack of adult supervision, it leads to statements just like you made, Injury, statements which indicate that many people don't even realize that you can drink responsibly. i.e. your statement: "It was cool for a couple of years but now it's just expensive and an easy way to make a fool of yourself. " Obviously, you see the purpose of alcohol is to "get drunk."

Now, people with the same mind-set are making new laws, the consequences of which are that even more people will go out, be independent, and start experimenting with alcohol without "adult" supervision. It's short-sighted and isn't going to have the effect I think the legislators think it'll have.

Instead, junior is allowed to go off to war, serve for 2 1/2 years in Iraq, killing insurgents, then come home to North Carolina on leave. During that leave, he has a brewski with his dad. If caught, Dad now loses his driver's license for 1 year. This is absolutely idiotic.

There are no physiological reasons to wait until the age of 21 to drink. We need to teach people to consume alcohol responsibly while they're still under their parent's supervision, rather than foster a culture where the purpose of alcohol is to get shit-faced. That's not to say that it's completely irresponsible to plan on getting shit-faced; just that at least now, there's a parent to take away the keys before someone goes out. I grew up when the drinking age was 18. Plenty of kids had "cool" parents (for lack of a better word from the kids perspective.) Kids were allowed to drink at their house, *as long as the parents in charge had verbal permission directly from the other teens parents.* In hindsight, they weren't just "cool"; they were intelligent. The kids stayed at home and didn't have to drive all over to sneak around with alcohol.

Most state's laws allow for minors to drink when served by their parents in the comfort of their own home. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with some 21 year old buying beer for a bunch of high school kids.

The problem with your last paragraph is that requires too much parental responsibility that we just flat out lack in America. If TV doesn't teach a kid, most kids aren't gonna know. Something tells me that the vast majority of the situations isn't dad letting his kid have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner. I fully agree that drinking shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is... but... well... IT IS! What you say makes sense, but it is just idealist thoughts that only address what people wish it would be like and ignore the truth of our society.