Originally Posted By Mr X >>"Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws. Raising the MLDA, such as from 18 to 21, decreases crash-related outcomes a median of 16% for the targeted age groups".<< Make alcohol outright illegal and you'd improve your stats even more. Obviously there are pros and cons. But the fact is alcohol is easily obtainable by 18-19-20 year olds, and the fact that it is "forbidden", I think, only fosters the idea of binge drinking and overindulging. I live in Japan, where the legal drinking age is 20 but it is hardly relevant because I've seen a 15 year old get served without question at the Hard Rock Cafe. Not to mention the fact that they have vending machines everywhere anyway, so anyone who wants alcohol can get it. But, I've seen much less "gotta drink", "hurry up", "let's get wasted quick" from Japanese youths (I used to teach high school aged kids so I know plenty of them) compared to those in America. Personally, I agree with Clint on this one. If you want to argue serving a 15 year old in your home or something, okay I understand the whole "corruption of minors" thing and all that BUT...if someone who is an ADULT, 18, 22, or 55, happens to be drinking in anyones home and decides to irresponsibly drive, that's THEIR crime and noone elses. Sorry. I do think that falls under "sue happy", and it's very typical of American thinking.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But, I've seen much less "gotta drink", "hurry up", "let's get wasted quick" from Japanese youths (I used to teach high school aged kids so I know plenty of them) compared to those in America< I believe that is much more cultural than legal drinking age related. in Japan your chances of being murdered by a gun are .02 in 100,000. In the US it is 3.72 of 100,000 - 186 times higher -- does that have anything to do with the age they can purchase firearms ? No. A lot of societal factors play into that. Also the average yearly deaths from drunk driving in Japan are under 1,000 ( 1/20th what they are here ) - yet the population is not that much under 1/2. Why is that ? maybe because of very strict drunk driving rules also? "The Inoues began a crusade to get drunk drivers off the road, collecting 374,000 signatures on a petition to toughen Japan's penalties. On Nov. 28, 2001, the anniversary of the accident, the Diet, or parliament, passed a law imposing a maximum prison term of 15 years for the crime of dangerous driving resulting in death. In June the following year, the government also stiffened the penalties for drunk driving, raising the maximum fine to $4,200. And last week, a Tokyo District Court judge awarded the Inoues a record $2.1 million in a civil suit they filed against the truck driver, 59, and his employer, the Kochi Tsuun trucking company. The defendants were ordered to make the payment in annual installments on the anniversary of the daughters' deaths."
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 dad55, that story is beyond one of the saddest I have read about on LP. When will people realize alcohol and drugs mixed with driving can end in a horrifc way. ///the driver was 26 who decided to drive them home while blind drunk/// So why not blame that person fully?? I know the answer. Because it goes back to what I said before. We live in a time where it is in fashion to go after everyone who was NOT directly involved. And if you got some cash or holdings or even the illusion of money then you will be pursued by the sue happy jerks and their pirrana lawyers. That is why I have taken precautuions against that type of blood sucking leach behavior.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <BUT...if someone who is an ADULT, 18, 22, or 55, happens to be drinking in anyones home and decides to irresponsibly drive, that's THEIR crime and noone elses. < again, you are entitled to how you feel, as I am. All I know is that if someone got drunk at my house and I let them drive home and they were killed, or killed some other innocent people, yes I would feel somewhat responsible. The Crime portion of it is a whole other issue -- unless of course the drinkers were underaged...then there can be consequences.....sue happy nation or not. a good sum up here in a college newpaper re: hosting drinking parties where some may be underage <a href="http://www.niagara.edu/parents/documents/june2006campuslink.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.niagara.edu/parents /documents/june2006campuslink.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <dad55, that story is beyond one of the saddest I have read about on LP. When will people realize alcohol and drugs mixed with driving can end in a horrifc way. ///the driver was 26 who decided to drive them home while blind drunk/// So why not blame that person fully?? I know the answer. Because it goes back to what I said before. We live in a time where it is in fashion to go after everyone who was NOT directly involved. And if you got some cash or holdings or even the illusion of money then you will be pursued by the sue happy jerks and their pirrana lawyers. That is why I have taken precautuions against that type of blood sucking leach behavior.< you had to be at the wakes to get the full impact -- it was brutal. The driver will be held mainly responsible - however the adult that provided the alcohol to all involved ( and remember here all the rest of the drinkers are 15 and under - and not able to purchase or drink anywhere, anyhow legally )- was the homeowner. His defense, he was new to the area and he wanted to be the cool parent so his kid could be popular - seriously the answer given. So in that case I believe he was 'drirectly' involved -- he had total control over all that occurred right up until and including letting them all pile in the car at 2 AM with a drunk relative. I know what you are saying but I believe there are degrees of involvement and different circumstances that have to be taken into consideration each time. I am no more desirous of a sue ahppy country than you, but in cases like this one people have to understand there are sometimes consequences for things one does
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ btw neither the driver nor the home owner have 'money' - they are seeking serious jail time to prevent them from being repeat offenders.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>186 times higher -- does that have anything to do with the age they can purchase firearms ?<<< Of course it has something to do with it. Firearms are illegal in Japan. Do you think it's a coincidence that violent crime is very low? As for the drinking thing being societal or whatever, I agree. We Americans have created a drinking culture if you will, which is only exacerbated by sending kids off to college at 18 "as adults" but forbidding them to drink. It's a binge way of thinking, which simply doesn't exist in Japan. And their laws reflect that. You brought up tough drunk driving laws, and that's a good point. The point IS, it's about DRIVING DRUNK, and not whether or not it's okay for a 17 year old to drink a beer. You will never see Japanese police, NEVER, harrassing a kid for underage drinking. Or, for that matter, harrassing any drinkers at all (how many people in America have had run-ins with cops for having a beer on the street or appearing "too drunk"). So, there you have it. Punish the crime severely (the drunk driving), and leave everything else alone. I can guarantee you, in Japan if you tried to sue a homeowner for serving alcohol (even to a minor) which resulted in drunk driving or even death, nothing would happen. They would say "it was the drivers fault, obviously". Again, that's just an offshoot of the American sue-happy style. It's one of the more "justifyable" ways of looking at suing, but still it all comes down to "who is responsible, and how much can we get for it?".
Originally Posted By Mr X >>I know what you are saying but I believe there are degrees of involvement and different circumstances that have to be taken into consideration each time.<< I agree with this. Just so you know, VBDad, I'm not taking issue with your particular case, but just commenting on things in general. In the case of Clint, I don't see anything wrong with him having his adult relatives over to hang. Plenty of people do it. And as long as he is not directly serving minors or making beer runs or whatever, I don't think he's doing anything wrong (this paragraph should serve as a disclaimer...that's the "official" word and what he should stick to...even though personally I don't even really think it's a bad thing if he offers his nephew a beer but that's just me).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I know some people, and I can sort of understand the reasoning, who think "it was they're fault, so I've done nothing wrong" and would keep the polish and the money. The fact is, in that case you didn't do anything "wrong", and there can be no consequences...for you. But when you think about it, if the guy had a short drawer by handing out an extra $20, he might have to pay out of pocket. Or, if he'd had trouble before, he could even get fired over it. >>> Who taught you that one, Mr X? <<< I had that happen recently, actually, and had a bit of a moral dilemma about it. It was a lottery ticket thing too, and I was given 10 bucks too much. When I realized it 5 minutes later, I was like "cool. an extra 10 bucks!", but my concience got the best of me and I returned to the ticket window to return the money. >>> I know of someone that cashed a check at their bank. On the way out of the branch, they were counting their money, and discovered that they had been given $20 too much. He want back to the teller and said "I think you made a mistake in counting my money." The teller said "Sir, we don't make mistakes." He then said "Well, then I guess I must be mistaken that you gave me $20 too much" and started to turn around. The manager overheard this and intervened (he wasn't going to really leave with it, but wanted to see what they'd do).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< How about the cheap ones out there who plan out ahead and buy a suit, dress or piece of clothing knowing full well in advance that they are going to return it to the retailer after using it for a specific funtion or date. These people are completely ///satisfied/// with the product or item but yet they return them anyway.>>> <<< No, it's not theft, it's fraud. Is it a crime? Depends on the store policy. If they have a "money back for any reason within 30 days", then no. That's the stores fault for having such a liberal return policy. >>> Some stores have changed their policy for exactly this reason. I recently bought something at Radio Shack and the clerk made a special effort to point out on the receipt that although they have a 30-day return policy on most items, the particular item I purchased was not covered by this because of past abuse and was not returnable.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<< I know some people, and I can sort of understand the reasoning, who think "it was they're fault, so I've done nothing wrong" and would keep the polish and the money. The fact is, in that case you didn't do anything "wrong", and there can be no consequences...for you. But when you think about it, if the guy had a short drawer by handing out an extra $20, he might have to pay out of pocket. Or, if he'd had trouble before, he could even get fired over it. >>> Who taught you that one, Mr X?*** Um, was it something we discussed? I'd say I probably taught myself, since I was a cashier in high school (McDonalds) and I learned how much of a hard time managers like to give employees who come up short. But as far as the "morals" of it...I dunno. Just bugs me if I don't I suppose. Jesus taught me?
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 "So you think drinking and sex is wrong??. You must be one boring person and I am glad you are not my neighbor." No, I think it is wrong for you to provide the opportunity for that to underage children. My state drinking age is 21. And if it's done in your house, legally you are responsible for their actions.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 "Some stores have changed their policy for exactly this reason. I recently bought something at Radio Shack and the clerk made a special effort to point out on the receipt that although they have a 30-day return policy on most items, the particular item I purchased was not covered by this because of past abuse and was not returnable" Is that legal?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You brought up tough drunk driving laws, and that's a good point. The point IS, it's about DRIVING DRUNK, and not whether or not it's okay for a 17 year old to drink a beer< while it's not 100% of my point, it is about 90% - yes you are correct.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Or, for that matter, harrassing any drinkers at all (how many people in America have had run-ins with cops for having a beer on the street or appearing "too drunk"). < there are other off shoots for those who are ' too drunk' like assaults for those who suddenly have a sense of enboldment because they have 1/4 alcohol in their veins -- so there still needs to be some watch for that. People tend to do far more stupid things when totally wasted
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 I feel there's a big difference between offering your underage child or underage relative a drink in your home, and in providing booze for an underage group of kids.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>And if it's done in your house, legally you are responsible for their actions.<< I don't buy that crap. If they're 18 or older, they're adults. And responsible for their own actions. Not the homeowner. >>My state drinking age is 21.<< There is no more state specific drinking age, I think. It's 21 across the boards, as far as I know.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>there are other off shoots for those who are ' too drunk' like assaults for those who suddenly have a sense of enboldment because they have 1/4 alcohol in their veins -- so there still needs to be some watch for that. People tend to do far more stupid things when totally wasted<< Once again, VBDad, we are about 90% on the same page. SURE, the police should be concerned with people acting out of control, agressively or whatever. THAT would fall under behavior...bad behavior, which could lead to worse. BUT, for a cop to generally harass someone JUST because they happen to be 21 years of age and walking down the street with a beer? Stupid policy...and it gives the cops room to abuse their position, imo. I remember going to Hawaii on a package tour from Japan, and one of the most SHOCKING bits of info the Japanese tourists recieved was... YOU CAN'T DRINK BEER ON THE BEACH. (seriously...there were gasps of surprise and shock, and disappointment I daresay) It's a stupid rule. Very American. And these funny rules just don't seem to be stopping the REAL assaults and the REAL drunk driving and all the rest. Why not punish the CRIME, rather than the POSSIBLE CAUSE OF? That's the way I see it. And I see it work really nicely in Japan (trust me, if you commit a crime here, you're going to be VERY VERY sorry...but until that point, believe it or not things are much relaxed and free compared to America).
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 Something just occured to me about that terrible story of 6 dead from driving drunk. Again, why is the ///cool parent/// so damn culpible here?? He supplied alcohol to 14 and 15 year olds which is a bit young to drink I feel. But the 14 and 15 year olds did not drive so why go after the ///cool parent/// so harshly. Giving alcohol out to teens is not a big deal, I am not saying that it is fine either, I am just saying that it is not a BIG offense unless they cut out of there drunk as a skunk and drove home or walked home and passed out in the street somewhere,,, then we got problems, real problems. So once again the teens who drank did not drive so why mess with the parent so aggressively. Now, the 26 year old driver is the one who should be held accountable. In this story supplying youths the alcohol had nothing to do with their deaths.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 And dad55, I feel what you are saying so don't think I am taking it lightly. I just can't imagine seeing coffins lined up with young ones in there. That would haunt me forever. Such a sad story for all.
