Do your under age kids drink w/you at home?

[wildwest450]

Grumpy I actually cite for going five over.

Dick of the year award. Good luck with a 5 over holding up in court.

 

[MalFet]

While each state may allow parents to be irresponsible, the federal government says the drinking age is 21. No state law supersedes federal law.

Not true, actually.

I assume you are referring to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984? Both the letter and the spirit here regulates the sale of alcohol only, and explicitly delegates decisions about private consumption to the individual states. Furthermore, the act does not actually legislate a national drinking age, but "encourages" the states to a uniform 21 through national highway apportionments. If a state wants to set the age at 18, for example, it would be explicitly allowed to do so, though it would lose 10% of its highway money from the feds.

You can think about the letter and the spirit of the law however you'd like, but as a LEO I'd hope you'd at least consider it your responsibility to know the contents of the laws you're talking about.

 

[shaff1101]

Just because it is law does not mean that it is right.

I believe the following is an Iowa law please let me know how much time I should spend in the klink for breaking this one.

Chapter 195.
Protection of Hop-Growing Interests.

Section 4. Size of boxes for picking hops.

The standard size for all boxes used in picking hops shall be 36 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 23 1/4 inches deep, inside measure.

 

[squirrelly]

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read on HBT. hands. down.

I'm starting to realize why HBT received the nomination it did from the BN at the awards show. It was comments like these.

 

[shaff1101]

You also may want to refer to the increase of alcoholism and crime during prohibition. When things are illegal is supports a black market and sparks interest. I would much rather have my kid drinking with me than on a dirt road somewhere.

 

[Rev2010]

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read on HBT. hands. down.

Not the dumbest thing I've read on here but I basically support the calling out of ridiculousness of the quoted statement.

Squirrelly, with all due respect I understand your mentality and respect for the law. But to be 100% undeterred from ever questioning it is rather defeatist. And to go further and call people irresponsible parents for not unwaveringly following federal law is rather rude and insulting.


Rev.

 

[squirrelly]

So I guess we only follow those laws which we agree with now, and disregard the rest?

I'm sorry I don't have that luxury, and as responsible adults/role models you shouldn't either. I agree some laws are frustrating and seem silly, but that doesn't mean we get to break them; we write our legislators and encourage them to change said laws. At least law abiding civilized people do.

 

[MalFet]

So I guess we only follow those laws which we agree with now, and disregard the rest?.

No, we follow the laws as they exist, not as we (incorrectly) imagine them to be.

 

[Rev2010]

So I guess we only follow those laws which we agree with now, and disregard the rest?

I'm sorry I don't have that luxury, and as responsible adults/role models you shouldn't either. I agree some laws are frustrating and seem silly, but that doesn't mean we get to break them; we write our legislators and encourage them to change said laws. At least law abiding civilized people do.

The fact that you are in law enforcement scares me. You obviously don't have the education for it - like the cops that mistakenly arrest topless women protesters here in NYC because they aren't educated about the law enough to know it's LEGAL!

Read the responses that have been posted. No one is taking about breaking laws exactly. Here's a quote from the Wiki page for the Federal Minimum Drinking Age Act, "While this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age, seven states and Washington D.C. extended its provisions into an outright ban. These states are: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. The minimum drinking age is a state law. However, most states still permit "underage" consumption of alcohol in some circumstances".

Get with understanding the thread and the law


Rev.

 

[doctorRobert]

Grumpy I actually cite for going five over. If its a residential and the posted speed limit is 25, if there is school in session it is 15. Going 5 over in that case results in a 55.00 cite. Same for construction zones, fines are doubled, so 5 over in a construction zone is usually automatically 150.00 cite. The chief and the city manager get quite upset if we let things like that go being that the state is broke.

With that being said, the military taught me some very important things, and one was I am not a lawyer. My job is to enforce the law as was written to the letter. So long as you go by the book, you can't go wrong. I don't enforce the spirit of the law, but rather the letter. I have seen a lot of people turned from NCOs into airmen, and berets disappear because of underage drinking, DUI, and providing to a minor. I use the same integrity and standards I learned in SF and apply them to the civilian world. The fact that I'm still reserve still holds me to the standards my wing commander set as well as core values. Alcohol offenses have a zero tolerance policy, and will result in article 15 in the least. This includes providing a "sip" to a minor.

While each state may allow parents to be irresponsible, the federal government says the drinking age is 21. No state law supersedes federal law.

If my chief learned I was supplying alcohol to a minor, in the very least it would be days on the beach, an IA opened, and probably my patches stripped with my career in law enforcement over.

Actually the federal drinking age is 18.
National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state has the option to have 18 as the drinking age, but federal funds for roads would be decreased.

And I'm glad I don't live near you. Police should not be out there to raise money by giving speeding tickets for 5mph. Policing like that gives a negative view of police, and creates and 'us vs them' mentality. I'm glad I live in a town where the police realize we are neighbors and I pay their salary. 5mph would get you nothing more than a warning, and still serve the purpose of reducing speeds in a school zone.

Also - isn't the margin of error on speedometers + radar detectors above 5mph? So those fines wouldnt hold up in court.

 

[bigbeergeek]

(shovels popcorn into mouth)

 

[Rev2010]

Actually the federal drinking age is 18.
National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state has the option to have 18 as the drinking age, but federal funds for roads would be decreased.

No, the page clearly states 21, but that states still have the option to set their own age but are penalized for going under 21.


Rev.

 

[doctorRobert]

No, the page clearly states 21, but that states still have the option to set their own age but are penalized for going under 21.


Rev.

No. You need to read that again. That law does NOT set any minimum drinking age by itself. But it's a mechanism to put financial pressure on the states to increase the drinking ages. So there is no federal law requiring 21, the law puts pressure on the states.

Even the second paragraph in the wiki recognizes it's not a complete under 21 ban. "While this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age, seven states and Washington D.C. extended its provisions into an outright ban. " So again, it's up to the states.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

Grumpy I actually cite for going five over.

i've actually filed complaints on over zealous cops on power trips. how many of those 5 over tickets actually hold up in front of a judge?

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read on HBT. hands. down.

pretty much!

Dick of the year award. Good luck with a 5 over holding up in court.

like i said, we civilians should file complaints on cops who do things like this. there's plenty of things to keep them busy, they need not bother with fake speeding tickets.

You also may want to refer to the increase of alcoholism and crime during prohibition. When things are illegal is supports a black market and sparks interest. I would much rather have my kid drinking with me than on a dirt road somewhere.

amazing point. trying to control people with needless regulation rarely keeps folks from doing what is 'illegal'.

So I guess we only follow those laws which we agree with now, and disregard the rest?

depends on the 'law'. there's a couple i can think of that would be silly to follow. like the speed limit thing, if traffic's flowing at 5 over the limit, i think its safer to go with traffic as opposed to being the slow vehicle that causes everyone to brake and make unnecessary lane changes.
on the subject that this thread is referring to, the law seems to agree that a minor can have a beer with his/her parents in the home.

 

[Marlowefire]

I'm surprised people have mentioned the law here and no one has yet quoted the irony of a 21 year old drinking age yet we can send 18 year old kids to fight wars and possibly be killed.

When I was growing up the only time I was allowed to have a drink was on New Years and maybe another special occasion or two. It was usually just a small glass of champagne or wine. When I was 16 I started drinking with friends, indoors within our houses hanging out. We never really did the drink in a park thing. We also never got into trouble and enjoyed ourselves, though of course there were a number of times we got plastered and sick.

My step father always told us, and my mother, that he doesn't mind if we drink in the house because he personally felt it was better than us drinking out in a park somewhere getting into trouble, and we respected him for that. I've traveled all over the world many times and I've been all over Europe many times as the wife and I have our favorites spots we go to. The 16 year old kids in Germany, for example, drinking beer are better behaved than most legal young adults that drink here.

Rev.

You can drink when you are 18. Join the military. You seriously think those kids who are serving in the armed forces don't have access to alcohol? That 21/18 argumen never made sense to me.

 

[Rev2010]

No. You need to read that again. That law does NOT set any minimum drinking age by itself. But it's a mechanism to put financial pressure on the states to increase the drinking ages. So there is no federal law requiring 21, the law puts pressure on the states.

I know that, I agree. But you'd said the federal age was 18 and that is incorrect.


Rev.

 

[Rev2010]

You can drink when you are 18. Join the military. You seriously think those kids who are serving in the armed forces don't have access to alcohol? That 21/18 argumen never made sense to me.

I know they drink, but legally they are not allowed to. If you don't find any irony in an 18 year old being sent to kill/be killed yet not legally being allowed to have a beer... well that's just.... lol.


Rev.

 

[WortMonger]

This makes perfect sense now why the county mounties couldn't do anything to us at HS graduation while on my friends land. They did however stop and bust anyone smelling of alcohol after leaving the land. I still am freaked out enough that I wouldn't want my children telling everyone their Dad lets them take sips of his beverage every now and then, but that wouldn't stop me from giving them one. Education now goes way further in prevention of law breaking later.

 

[bernerbrau]

Squirrely, federal law says that states without a minimum drinking age of 21 are ineligible for federal highway funding. No more.

 

[LTownLiquorPig]

So I guess we only follow those laws which we agree with now, and disregard the rest?

That's what I do. Same reason I don't see the point in following the dogma of one particular religion/sect. I take what works to make me the best person I can be. If my family and friends think I'm a pretty good person, I must be on the right track. I'm not too concerned with what legislators think about how I live my life. I pay my taxes, and I'd gladly pay more if they asked.

My moral compass has always (since I was 8 or 9) been based on "if I can't tell my parents (now my wife) about something I've done, then I probably shouldn't do it.

As far as underage drinking goes, I grew up with it, either with my parents at home, or them getting beer for me for elsewhere, or getting some grimey guy from the mall to get it for me. Which would you rather your kids do? If you're involved with the decision, the grimey guy that rips them off, or worse, never enters the equation.

My other argument against the drinking age laws is that kids who don't "know how to drink" get in trouble at university. In the last couple years there have been a couple cases of kids dying from alcohol poisoning and it's offshoots at local universities. The most recent case was this fall when, I kid you not, drank a 40oz of vodka in about an hour playing a drinking game. As soon as I heard the story my first thought was only someone who was never exposed to drinking would even think about drinking a 40 in an hour.

Sheltering kids doesn't help them make better decisions. Giving them the tools to make better decisions is what is needed.

 

[Rev2010]

Squirrely, federal law says that states without a minimum drinking age of 21 are ineligible for federal highway funding. No more.

Has it changed from a 10% reduction in highway funds?


Rev.

 

[doctorRobert]

I know that, I agree. But you'd said the federal age was 18 and that is incorrect.


Rev.

It is correct. What law says otherwise? Not that one.

 

[user 4295]

Grumpy I actually cite for going five over. If its a residential and the posted speed limit is 25, if there is school in session it is 15. Going 5 over in that case results in a 55.00 cite. Same for construction zones, fines are doubled, so 5 over in a construction zone is usually automatically 150.00 cite. The chief and the city manager get quite upset if we let things like that go being that the state is broke.

I'm a member of a family of police officers, and I can state emphatically that I'm glad I don't live in your town! None of the leo's in my family would EVER consider citing a motorist for going 5 over under any circumstances. First of all, the clerk magistrates would throw all the citations for 5 over out if the motorist contested them, and give an ear full to the officer for wasting his time and resources!

Second of all, an officer citing a motorist for 5 over is simply being a power hungry d!ck head, and that moving violations are issued for public safety, NOT REVENUE GENERATION! Your chief and city manager need to be fired and run out of town on a rail for the practice of citing motorists for revenue generation!

None of the officers in my family would even issue a citation for 20 over if the motorist was a town resident. A verbal or written warning yes, but not a fine! That's counterproductive to police/citizen relations, considering the residents pay your damn salary! If resident relations don't concern you then perhaps you don't have the temperament to be a leo and should find another profession, like maybe a prison guard!

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

I'm a member of a family of police officers, and I can state emphatically that I'm glad I don't live in your town! None of the leo's in my family would EVER consider citing a motorist for going 5 over under any circumstances. First of all, the clerk magistrates would throw all the citations for 5 over out if the motorist contested them, and give an ear full to the officer for wasting his time and resources!

Second of all, an officer citing a motorist for 5 over is simply being a power hungry d!ck head, and that moving violations are issued for public safety, NOT REVENUE GENERATION! Your chief and city manager need to be fired and run out of town on a rail for the practice of citing motorists for revenue generation!

None of the officers in my family would even issue a citation for 20 over if the motorist was a town resident. A verbal or written warning yes, but not a fine! That's counterproductive to police/citizen relations. If resident relations don't concern you then perhaps you don't have the temperament to be a leo and should find another profession, like maybe a prison guard!

well said! the world needs more police officers like you and yours and less 'cops' who think their job is harassing citizens and a$$kissing (creating revenue for) their employers. i know where i live, an officer wouldn't waste his or anyone else's time making a traffic stop for something so silly. but when you get out of the city, those guys will find any reason to make a stop and begin violating a citizen's rights seemingly for the sole purpose of bringing in $$ to the smaller towns and counties.

 

[doctorRobert]

I'm a member of a family of police officers, and I can state emphatically that I'm glad I don't live in your town! None of the leo's in my family would EVER consider citing a motorist for going 5 over under any circumstances. First of all, the clerk magistrates would throw all the citations for 5 over out if the motorist contested them, and give an ear full to the officer for wasting his time and resources!

Second of all, an officer citing a motorist for 5 over is simply being a power hungry d!ck head, and that moving violations are issued for public safety, NOT REVENUE GENERATION! Your chief and city manager need to be fired and run out of town on a rail for the practice of citing motorists for revenue generation!

None of the officers in my family would even issue a citation for 20 over if the motorist was a town resident. A verbal or written warning yes, but not a fine! That's counterproductive to police/citizen relations, considering the residents pay your damn salary! If resident relations don't concern you then perhaps you don't have the temperament to be a leo and should find another profession, like maybe a prison guard!

Where do you I live, I want to move there! Cops sometimes forget who pays their salary. This is why I enjoy living in a small town and not a city. Policing mentality is completely different (and should be).


Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands have 18 as the minimum drinking age. They are subject to federal law. This settles the federal drinking age law debate even for those who can't comprehend the wikipedia page.

 

[LTownLiquorPig]

well said! the world needs more police officers like you and yours and less 'cops' who think their job is harassing citizens and a$$kissing (creating revenue for) their employers. i know where i live, an officer wouldn't waste his or anyone else's time making a traffic stop for something so silly. but when you get out of the city, those guys will find any reason to make a stop and begin violating a citizen's rights seemingly for the sole purpose of bringing in $$ to the smaller towns and counties.

+1. Keeping on both topics in this thread, I grew up in a town with heavy handed cops. The rest of the county was policed by the RCMP. As teenagers, we quickly learned to drink outside of town limits if possible, because the town clowns would fine you and cause a stink, while the Mounties would make sure you got home safe.

Which was better, keeping kids walking around in town from party to party to home and drinking, or driving out in the woods somewhere, drinking around a fire, and driving home?

 

[Reno_eNVy]

I'm a member of a family of police officers, and I can state emphatically that I'm glad I don't live in your town! None of the leo's in my family would EVER consider citing a motorist for going 5 over under any circumstances. First of all, the clerk magistrates would throw all the citations for 5 over out if the motorist contested them, and give an ear full to the officer for wasting his time and resources!

Second of all, an officer citing a motorist for 5 over is simply being a power hungry d!ck head, and that moving violations are issued for public safety, NOT REVENUE GENERATION! Your chief and city manager need to be fired and run out of town on a rail for the practice of citing motorists for revenue generation!

None of the officers in my family would even issue a citation for 20 over if the motorist was a town resident. A verbal or written warning yes, but not a fine! That's counterproductive to police/citizen relations, considering the residents pay your damn salary! If resident relations don't concern you then perhaps you don't have the temperament to be a leo and should find another profession, like maybe a prison guard!

Could your family move to my neck of the woods? Or at least do a training seminar? We need more upstanding officers that treat the public like equals.

 

[C-Rider]

Wow, didn't know I'd start a heated discussion like this. But it is a good read.

Here on the freeway, Hawaii, the speed limit is a crazy 55. NO one drives 55. Traffic usually moves along at 60-65. I drive road conditions, not speed limits. I also watch the cars in front of me for break lights indicating a radar trap. I also blink my lights to the guys coming the other way is I pass a cop w/a radar gun in the other direction.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Wow, didn't know I'd start a heated discussion like this. But it is a good read.

Here on the freeway, Hawaii, the speed limit is a crazy 55. NO one drives 55. Traffic usually moves along at 60-65. I drive road conditions, not speed limits. I also watch the cars in front of me for break lights indicating a radar trap. I also blink my lights to the guys coming the other way is I pass a cop w/a radar gun in the other direction.

Oh god... that's one of the reasons I hate driving through Oregon: 55 on the freeway. It makes me want to rip my hair out. Also, can't pump your own gas.

 

[bernerbrau]

Has it changed from a 10% reduction in highway funds?


Rev.

Nope. Just my poor understanding of the law. Which was nevertheless closer than the understanding of the man sworn to enforce it.