i've been drinking in bars since i was 16 years old... of course 18 was legal age here in newyork at the time. 21 is just plain stooopid.
Posted on 02/19/2007 2:43:06 PM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX — People who insist on drinking before they turn 21 could end up walking.
Legislation awaiting a House vote would automatically suspend the licenses of minors who are found guilty of possession of alcohol. A first offense would mean 90 days without driving privileges; subsequent violations would require suspension for at least six months — and possibly up to two years.
And that's just for having alcohol anywhere. Minors who have been drinking and driving already face a mandatory two-year license loss.
Current laws on minors in possession of alcohol cover only those younger than 18. The law allows, but does not require, a judge to suspend a license for up to two years. HB 2064 would eliminate any discretion: You drink, you get caught, and you walk.
Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, said there already are laws that make it a crime for adults to give beer, wine or liquor to those not old enough to drink.
Offenders can be given up to six months in jail. This bill, she said, deals with the other half of the problem.
The legislation is actively being pushed by Diageo, a California-based company that produces several brands of liquor, wine and beer. The legislation would provide the most effective deterrent ever for teens, lobbyist Jay Kaprosy said.
"The license is something that is valued by the individual, the underage drinker," he said.
The approval of this measure is only one of the moves by lawmakers concerning teen drivers. The state Senate also gave preliminary approval to legislation that would place additional limits on new motorists, whether or not they have been in possession of alcohol.
SB 1347 would spell out that 16 - and 17-year-old drivers could not have more than one passenger in the vehicle for the first six months they have driver's licenses. That restriction, which would take effect on July 1, 2008, is based on testimony from AAA Arizona that shows a direct correlation between the number of teens in a vehicle and the likelihood of accidents.
Exceptions would be provided for shuttling siblings.
During that same six months, the new teen drivers could not be on the road between midnight and 5 a.m. unless accompanied by a parent. That would not apply, however, if the teen were going to or from work, a school-sponsored activity or a sanctioned religious activity, or in case of emergency.
Violators of either provision would be subject to a $75 fine. They also would have another 30 days added to that six-month window of restricted driving. A second violation would mean a $100 fine and 60 extra days under the special rules. And a third would result in the license being suspended for 30 days.
Lawmakers inserted a provision barring officers from stopping a vehicle solely because they believe a new teen driver is violating either provision: A citation could be issued only if the car or truck was stopped for some other reason.
SB 1347, which will go to the House for consideration after a final Senate vote, also requires at least 30 hours of supervised driver training before a teen can even get a license, a five-hour increase from current rules. That can be done by a trained instructor or a parent.
What ever happened to just having to pour your beer out?
How convenient for them.
How are they suppose to deal with the other half of the problem then?
Oh, what a tangled web THEY weave....
Yes, while licking the drool off of their chops.
Major faux pas on the part of the Legislature. Change it from alcohol to marijuana, and all the naysayers would gladly sign on.
That doesn't create a political legacy, silly!
Correct. Sorry.
I'm not so sure about that.
Would you want your 16 year old daughter getting drunk at a bar and the law permitting it?
Things like "they do it in Europe" only make sense in Europe, where the law is based on culture, tradition and a different mind set. You simply cannot uproot selective European laws and place them in the USA and state that it "makes more sense".
AMEN!
The law already usurps permissibility to a minor.
This legislative action just takes the responsibility of discipline and upbringing away from the parents and places in in the hands of unfamiliars to the minor.
"...Would you want your 16 year old daughter getting drunk at a bar.."
The point is: THEY DON'T! Beer and wine are just beverages, not something to get wasted on. The Germans think we're really screwed up because we won't let a young person have a beer, but we will give them a deadly machine at age 16! Smooth talker is right. The Europeans ARE more sensible on this issue.
i've been drinking in bars since i was 16 years old... of course 18 was legal age here in newyork at the time. 21 is just plain stooopid.
I stand by what I said. It is more sensible in Europe, because it is Europe and an entirely different culture.
For us to match their laws, by changing our law, w/o changing our cultural mind set, would be lunacy.
Just because it works there does not mean it will work here.
Now if we tried to phase it in, I would support that. One possible start would be to change the law to make 19 the legal age for everything: voting, driving, drinking, Military Service etc. Try that for 10-15 years and then consider further changes (such as lowering the drinking age for soft alcohol to 17).
Oh I really want to be like Europe!
You know,I think rape isn't a crime in Sweden
Euthanasia's not a crime in Switzerland
They pay women to have babies in Germany
france paid Saddam to starve his people
Wow Europe - isn't that the place most of us ran from?
How's the tap water over there?
And which of those things have anything to do with their attitudes towards drinking? It isn't possible to have worse policies and attitudes in most areas but be better in a handful?
Reflexive euro bashing is fun, but the wrong way to arrive upon sensible policy.
I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn. We all drank wine (not enough to get a buzz) with dinner even as children.
The drinking age in New York was 18; that makes more sense. That's the voting age; there are 18 year olds fighting and dying in Iraq.
I grew up in Brooklyn also, so know exactly what you're talking about and totally agree with you. I was well over 21 and no longer living there when they phased in the 21 drinking age.
I would have no real argument against 18 being the age for everything either. But if we are considering a phase in to transition from a 21 year old drinking age to a 16 year old age, then 19 makes sense, as many 18 year olds are still in high school (at least a lot more then the 19 year olds).
I find it absolutely obscene that a young man can go fight for our country, but cannot buy a beer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.