Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that he was away in college and that she was home. If you are a parent , you know that you cannot be everywhere all the time.
I am a parent, but I was also once a teenager... only 13 years ago! I haven't forgotten the lengths that I and others my age would go to in order to get drunk, high, whatever people were into. I didn't grow up with permissive parents with respect to drinking and neither did my friends. Did this mean we didn't drink? No, we just did dumb things like hang out in parks, the woods, bars that didn't card, houses of friends whose parents were away, etc. A social host law would not have prevented me or those that I knew from having a single drink, nor would it have, if investigated, lead to the prosecution of a single adult.
Setting aside any disagreements with the drinking age itself (surprise, I support lowering it), this is just a bad law. The application of it to things like college parties is just another example of how a possibly well-intentioned law can be twisted by law enforcement to throw the book at relatively innocent people.
Are people so far removed from what it is like to be a kid as to suggest that an 18 year old in a college apartment should call the cops on, say, a 20-year-old friend of his roommate's if he brings a six pack of beer over to watch a game? Did you know that the way the law reads, that 18 year old can be criminally charged if he does not?
This doesn't relate directly to the social-host law question but it does to the recurring theme in this thread of what the legal age for things should be:
Currently the law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under 19. Do those of you who favor lowering the drinking age to 18 also favor lowering the tobacco-purchasing age to 18 as well? Why or why not?
Does the substance in question make a difference to how you feel about the age limits on both of these laws?
Someone who sells an underage person cigarettes is definitely contributing to that person damaging his own health (no one questions that cigarettes cause lung cancer). Damage to other people is limited to the possibility of secondhand smoke effects (and thankfully we now have some good strong no-smoking laws for public places) depending of course on the circumstances where the underage person ends up smoking and whether others remove themselves from the vicinity which of course they have the power to do.
Someone who serves alcohol to an underage person is possibly contributing to some damage to the person's health (or maybe not) but the potential for damage to others if a drunk under-21 gets into a car and causes an accident is a very serious concern.
Should the two substances be considered of equal potential harm to an underage user? Of equal potential harm to innocent bystanders? Just wondering if those who want the drinking age lowered to 18 also feel that cigarettes should be freely available to 18 year olds as well.
Personally, I think that anyone who gives a high powered car to someone under the age of 21 is putting the kid and everyone else around in more danger than if you let them drink beer in the basement. Every year some 21 year old brat plows into someone doing 100 MPH because daddy let him drive the Porsche.
That being said, I see a lot of area for overzealous prosecution in this law. It's over the top.
That being said, I see a lot of area for overzealous prosecution in this law. It's over the top.
One could argue overzealous law enforcement is a result of police compensation - the feeling that they have to justify their salaries.
I think the law is well intentioned and I agree that parents should not be sponsoring their kids drinking parties. That said, some intelligence must be used when enforcing this law, and going after college students is just ridiculous. I feel for the person who got the ticket, but now you know not to be host... let someone else have that job and you don't have to worry about who comes to your party!
I am a 21 year old college student who came home for the summer.
Last weekend, I had about 15 people in my backyard, we were drinking(one 30 pack for 15 people) but we had also set up a volleyball net and were playing a volleyball tournament against each other. You can imagine my surprise when two cops entered my yard at about 1am and, rather than IDing anyone, telling us to keep the noise down, or simply saying they got a complaint, they simply announced "Party's over!" When I showed the officer my ID and informed him we were over 21 and were simply playing volleyball in my yard, he threatened to write me up for violation of the social host law, and then he threatened to write up my parents, who were not home at the time, for the same violation. Seeing how my birthday is in March, its rather obvious that some of my friends, being born the same year as me, are not all 21 yet, but is this justification for a host law violation because my friends were in my backyard with me at 1am playing volleyball? I'd also like to point out that the cops IDed no one but me and were going on sole assumption that the guests were under 21.
This law just might be the stupidest law ever enacted in this county and the fact that cops are willing to enforce it at the house of a 21 year old who is playing volleyball with his friends, and enforce it to the kid's parents who were not home, just materializes the pure havoc this law creates.
Most likely one of your neighbors complained to the cops, and that was the easiest way for them to respond. They took the gamble (and a good one, by your own admission) that there had to be at least someone under 21 present for them to play that card. Had you guys all presented ID showing 21+, I'm sure they would have then resorted to "you guys are going to have to keep it quiet or I'll write you up for noise violation."
"The Nassau social host law, which County Executive Thomas Suozzi is expected to sign at a ceremony today, would make it a crime for adults to allow anyone under 21 to drink alcohol. The penalties range from a $250 fine for a first offense up to $1,000 and jail time for a third.
Parents may serve alcohol to their own children, or to underaged guests during religious observances, according to the measure."
I think this is an excellent law and wish that Suffolk County would put one into place also.
I've seen and heard of too many parties where underage drinking was not only allowed but encouraged by the adults at the "host" home.
Some might say "if the kids are too young to drive, or aren't going to drive, what's the harm?". I say, plenty, and good for Nassau for saying that adults should be held responsible for allowing anyone else's kids (meaning under the legal age) to drink while in their home.
Normally I'm against any law attempting to regulate behavior in a private citizen's home, but I'm all for this one.
Your thoughts?
Considering it is already illegal for someone to drink while being underage, the government has already "regulated behavior."
The rub here is what does it mean to "allow." If I go on a trip and leave my 17 year old son at home, if he drinks from my unlocked booze cabinet, have I implicitly "allowed" this to happen?
Think about the benefits of this law. A family with three kids leaves their two younger tweens with their 18 year old daughter as they visit grandma to make sure she is eating well. While there, 18 year old Sally gets drunk with two friends. One friend drives home and gets in a wreck. Mom and Dad go to prison, leaving three children in the foster system.
I am a 21 year old college student who came home for the summer.
Last weekend, I had about 15 people in my backyard, we were drinking(one 30 pack for 15 people) but we had also set up a volleyball net and were playing a volleyball tournament against each other. You can imagine my surprise when two cops entered my yard at about 1am and, rather than IDing anyone, telling us to keep the noise down, or simply saying they got a complaint, they simply announced "Party's over!" When I showed the officer my ID and informed him we were over 21 and were simply playing volleyball in my yard, he threatened to write me up for violation of the social host law, and then he threatened to write up my parents, who were not home at the time, for the same violation. Seeing how my birthday is in March, its rather obvious that some of my friends, being born the same year as me, are not all 21 yet, but is this justification for a host law violation because my friends were in my backyard with me at 1am playing volleyball? I'd also like to point out that the cops IDed no one but me and were going on sole assumption that the guests were under 21.
This law just might be the stupidest law ever enacted in this county and the fact that cops are willing to enforce it at the house of a 21 year old who is playing volleyball with his friends, and enforce it to the kid's parents who were not home, just materializes the pure havoc this law creates.
Cops are people too. As such, they can make assumptions about the age of people. By your own admission, their assumption was right.
Threatening the social host law was probably a way to scare you. Again, it looked like it worked. You didn't call their bluff, probably because you didn't want to go to jail or get a ticket. Had you given wristbands to everyone and ID'd, you might have had the chutzpah enough to tell the cops where they could go. But you didn't, and you blinked.
Listen, how much concern were you exhibiting for people like me driving home at 1:30 am on a Saturday night. You know, the Joe 6-pack driving home from a family visit with my kid. One of your drunk buddies kills my son, and you get 5 years in a prison and a career giving anti-drinking speeches to fraternity kids for the rest of your life.
I think your little volleyball party with beer was a bad idea, and that you were irresponsible.
Considering it is already illegal for someone to drink while being underage, the government has already "regulated behavior."
The rub here is what does it mean to "allow." If I go on a trip and leave my 17 year old son at home, if he drinks from my unlocked booze cabinet, have I implicitly "allowed" this to happen?
Think about the benefits of this law. A family with three kids leaves their two younger tweens with their 18 year old daughter as they visit grandma to make sure she is eating well. While there, 18 year old Sally gets drunk with two friends. One friend drives home and gets in a wreck. Mom and Dad go to prison, leaving three children in the foster system.
Sounds great.
wow...a little dramatic are we? The law applies to hosts that knowingly permit minors to drink. It would not apply in the scenario you described.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your point is dumb
