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.
A law proscribing simple possession would face serious constitutional challenge.
Sure maybe in the US 80 years ago, the laws were different, but we are talking about today.
And I for one would vote to give any member of the military the right to consume alcohol, problem is we cannot selectively allow people of one group to do something w/o allowing others to do the same.
No illegal under 21 will be effected by this law.
This law only effects the law abiding citizen.
Which the government of Arizona seems damn well determined to shrink to a number equaling zero.
True the underage component will decline, but in the past, when it was 18 there was a huge uptick in the number of drunk driving incidents.
Lower the drinking age but greatly increase the penalties for drunk driving. The heck with taking the license - make the fine 10,000 for the first offense and 50K for 2nd along with a mandatory jail time of 30 days minimum - stop all the ARD programs and all that - just hammer them. Eventually, after about 75K in fines they offender won't have a home, nor a car, nor a job, nor the money to get drunk and drive.
Our problem is we tend to look at drunk driving as a sickness rather than a serious crime.
And who knew in our nations capital ...........
There are clubs that are allowed to admit minors where alcohol is served when "live music venues" are brought in. Apparently there is no requirement that the minor be with an adult and in some clubs, alcohol is served to minors -- big surprise!!!
An article in the Outlook section of the Wapo Sunday edition by Marc Fisher talks about the clubs, and how city officials are afraid to take any action because it either hurts the clubs or some parents from the suburbs would complain.
OB
The world is going crazy, or what?
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 lived in Germany for 8 years. I have seen Germans of all ages get seriously polluted! In fact; I've seen Europeans from many different nations get really wasted.
Why not just allow anyone of military age to consume alcohol?
If a person is old enough to walk into a recruiting office and commit themselves to 2 or 3 years of (potentially deadly) service to their country, they are certainly old enough to walk into a bar and have a few beers.
I think that went out with bell bottom pants.
I remember a Saturday night back in 1970, we got stopped three times by the police, each time we had to dump out our beer before we were sent merrily on our way. Boy, was that an expensive night!
They also xenophobically stereotype the USA and Americans.
That's what happened to me and my friends back in 1980. We got the message.
The problem is that if you made penalties for drinking and driving that severe, no one would ever do it, and then what would all the defensive driving schools, probation officers, and substance abuse lecturers do?
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.