surely you jest? They're SPECIAL! Laws they make don't apply to them.
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.
Ah... another plan to increase the number of insured drivers.
How do you mean?
I assume you meant uninsured.
The Nanny State.
While driving home from the dentist today I heard an ad on our local classical music station from a "public interest" group that wants the Vermont legislature to outlaw idling your car. This is to protect the environment and ensure that children breathe purer air.
The ad solicted contributions for their lobbying efforts. I'll bet they get some, too.
How did I ever survive....?
A drinking age of 21 is ridiculous. It just places booze on a pedestal and makes our kids go nuts come high school and college. In Europe where they have more sensible drinking ages and attitudes towards drinking you don't see anywhere near as many kids going off the deep end. It just isn't that big a deal when you've been having a glass of wine at dinner since age 10 and can go to the pub to grab a beer and watch a football match from 16.
(Scratching my head).
Aren't all minors younger then 18?
Illegals will not be affected...
They seem to want to cover to age 21.
Driving since I was 14. Good thing the nanny state wasn't around as much back then...I'd of had a bumpersticker out of the front of my grill, one that looked like today's dhimmicrat.
Very true indeed. And these kids won't stop driving anyway, just uninsured and driving revoked. Taking a license only works on 25% of offenders. (I've seen that stat somewhere before)
And in Europe: Prostitution is legal (they keep their whores in glass windowed booths for public display), Sex between a 16 year old girl and a 26 year old man is OK, you can buy Marijuana at Drive up windows and smoke hash in designated 'coffee houses'.
Just because they do it in Europe, does not make it right.
uh,... yeah!
Lower the drinking age, and most of these "underage" offenses will decline.
I think we need four terms (legally speaking) in regards to the ages of the young:
Children -- those younger than 14
Minors -- 14 to 17
Youths -- 18 to 20
Adults -- 21 +
Does this mean that from now on legislators will lose their seat if caught drinking and driving?
surely you jest? They're SPECIAL! Laws they make don't apply to them.
"Just because they do it in Europe, does not make it right."
Of course and thats an absolute strawman argument. They don't have everything right and we in the US are better when it comes to most policies. Drinking is an exception. They have a much more sensible policy regarding drinking.
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.