<p>Well the PA cops sure are leaving Penn alone!</p>
<p>“Well the PA cops sure are leaving Penn alone”!
yeah…but not penn state. The ivies are generally very relaxed about this stuff.</p>
<p>last year, PSU handed out over 850 UA drinking citations.
Automatic loss of licence for three months.
I think most Ivies hand out about 20 per year.</p>
<p>In MA - 1st DUI - if you refuse breathalizer - automatic 3 months suspension and will get ticket - not that easy to get out of - and still may loose liscense if found guilty at your court appearance - 2nd DUI - 2-3 year suspension of liscense - lots of fines and expenses involved and legal fees.</p>
<p>MA, NC and VA have all recently toughened up on the DUI punishments - especially for state residents</p>
<p>I’ve obviously just joined this forum. I want to first say this thread has been a fascinating read. I want to compliment you folks for carrying on such a peaceful discussion on a pretty charged issue. With very few exceptions, everybody who has posted in this thread has been very civil while taking opposite positions, that’s rare.</p>
<p>To the original poster (if you’re still peeking in on this thread), I can respect your position on the issue. I don’t think it matters that you don’t offer your son alcohol until he’s legal, what matters is that you’ve provided a responsible role model.</p>
<p>On the issue of whether someone drinking under 21 is wrong in general, I’ve always had the theory that a person has a certain amount of “stupid” in them and they are going to get it out of their system at the earliest opportunity. The actual quantity of stupid varies depending on the person, but I don’t think someone is inherently more responsible the day they turn 21.</p>
<p>It really is fascinating to see the “alcohol is the evil devil-water that ruins lives” crowd make their assertions. I lean more to the “big macs are the evil devil-bread that ruin lives” way of thinking. The thing is: in America, it’s OK to criticize someone for drinking, but criticizing a 5’ woman for weighing 400 pounds is considered insensitive. Personally, if an alcoholic doesn’t hit me or anyone else with a car and if the round person doesn’t fall on anyone, I think they have every right to do whatever they want with their bodies.</p>
<p>That’s the advantage of living in Georgia. In a small town, social outlets are pretty much limited to bars and church. We have developed an understanding. Those who think alcohol is evil “party” at church. Those who don’t think alcohol is evil party at bars (even a lot who don’t drink at all). This works out for everybody. They don’t want to change us, because then they would need to find someone else to feel superior to, and we don’t want to change them 'cause then the lines for the pool tables would be longer ;)</p>
<p>Drunk in Public- In the local newspaper today. Santa Barbara County (Home to Univ California Santa Barbara) is getting tougher on drinking. They have decided to no longer allow under 21 charged with public intoxication to plea down to a lessor offense amd take an alcohol abuse awareness class.
After doing so for the last few years they have seen zero evidence that it is working. Now the outcome will be suspending drivers licenses for a year and a criminal record.
The public Defenders office and local defense attorneys are not happy. They feel it will clog up an already congested court system. Since many will fight the charge to try to not lose their licences.
The county felt that under the old policy parents paid the price of the course and their children continued to party. Last year alone the District Attorneys office filed 1600 cases of public intoxication in just the south county alone. Which is where UCSB is located.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s pretty funny right there lol</p>
<p>
I’ll certainly agree with the first part of your theory. As long as you do not contend that that “stupid” is an excuse. But, unfortunately, UA drinkers do not tend to simply get the “stupid” out of their system early. It becomes a common behavior.</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying about the behavior pattern. I think a lot of that goes back to the addictive personality as I think of it, the disease as some think of it. </p>
<p>My point is: Think back 150 years, people were treated like adults when they were 14 or 15. They got married, worked, and raised families successfully. They certainly didn’t act like 14 year olds would act today if you dropped them in the same situations.</p>
<p>I was just trying to say I think people will react to independence a certain way regardless of when that independence is granted. While I understand the development of maturity, I think we, as a society, actually ■■■■■■ that development by not holding young people to the same degree of responsibility that previous generations did.</p>
<p>^Definitely agree.</p>
<p>Most of you have said that the drinking age does not apply in the privacy of your own home. I’d assume that the only reason underage drinking is tolerated at Ivies is because a lot of the drinking takes place at frat houses, and since that’s where the Greeks live, they are free to serve alcohol in that house. I think it might be a stretch, but that’s ok.</p>
<p>sam12six, that’s a huge generalization. It all depends on the person. Some people are more mature than others. Some people can handle responsibility better. It’s about the newfound freedom that you get as a freshman in college. Some people take it too far, some people don’t. Some people just can’t find the common ground between maturity, responsibility, and freedom. The mature thing would be to uphold your responsibility to yourself to not take the freedom too far because doing so can get you in trouble.</p>
<p>megsy1990: No, the Ivies are more lax about drinking because they are more trusting of their students/less willing to upset all the trust fund babies, depending on your point of view.</p>
<p>Your legal argument about Greek houses being allowed alcohol serving because it’s “their house” is actually not just a stretch, it’s wrong. 
The “in your own home” exemption is in essentially all states (I think Hawaii is the exception) tied to a family (parental) relationship, not to the location itself - or tied to both together.</p>
<p>The underage drinking citation -> suspension of license punishment *<strong><em>es me off. I mean, it’s probably very effective, but *</em></strong>es me off, because unless you assume that one automatically drives after they drink when underage, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. And before anyone says “who cares, it is a deterrent”, instituting a 10-year minimum jail sentence for jaywalking would be a deterrent too… it’s a slippery slope. ;)</p>
<p>sam12six: Great point about the hamburger thing. I made the point earlier in the thread, in a roundabout way, actually. America is so much more disfunctionally related to their alcohol (in terms of judging those who use it, loving it, hating it at the same time, and making it absurdly restricted even for responsible users) than anything else (except marijuana) that it astounds me.</p>
<p>Quick question to those who are justifying the drinking age: </p>
<p>We know that fatty, sugary food is addictive (physiologically in a sense, psychologically certainly), ■■■■■■■ growth and development and has major health effects when abused. Why is there not a minimum age for fast food consumption?</p>
<p>Once you justify why there is no minimum age, please explain why the arguments you made against a minimum fast food age would not apply to alcohol.</p>
<p>Anyone see “super size me?” Poor Morgan almost died after one month of ingesting wonderful fare from the golden arches. I guess you could make an argument that burgers and fries are just as toxic as alcohol.<br>
I think the drinking age should be 18. Voting, getting married, fighting in a war - all OK - but not a Bud Light?
I also think taking away driving licenses for UA drinking is just crazy. Who ever thought this one up? Did it ever dawn on those lawmakers that we’re encourging these kids to get behind the wheel instead of walk after drinking? PA can be a crazy place…especially in spots where this law is strictly enforced.<br>
I do however support toughening up those DUI laws. I have no tolerance for this offense…get tough.</p>
<p>The drinking age SHOULD be 18, but that’s just one of the many faults of modern day American “Democracy”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fast food isn’t good for you. But last I checked, fast food and greasy food does not IMPAIR you like alcohol!</p>
<p>Alcohol is a horrible institution that kills thousands of people every year. There is no justification for its existance besides confused hedonistic beliefs that it will “loosen you up”, which often leads to acts later regretted. If introduced to alcohol before maturity, people may learn to associate the social stimulation of a party with the dangerous, lethal toxin know as alcohol. It should be driven out of the home. Responsible parents should never model alcohol use, and should abstain completely in the presence of their children.</p>
<p>Two members of my high school class have died due to drinking, and many other have ruined their reputations and lives. Alcohol is SERIOUS business, not some light little indulgence. It produces horror, stupidity, and irresponsibility. There is no such thing as responsible underage drinking, and even drinking after age 21 is foolish in any amount. Temperence is a virtue.</p>
<p>if it solders your capillaries together it will.</p>
<p>megsy- the drinking at my son’s Ivy occurs in the dorms, on the lawn, in the frat houses, in the street, in the alleys, wherever two or more gather. They compare fake IDs when they move in as freshmen.
I guess this particular school is lax on drinking because it is a smaller problem than people getting robbed and murdered.</p>
<p>I didn’t read all the posts, so sure this was discussed.</p>
<p>But let the kid drink. It’s legal to have a drink in those situations.</p>
<p>It’s in your own house, under your supervision and with your permission. Unless you are letting him get violently drunk and do something dumb (like drive), it is actually completely LEGAL to let him have a glass of one or two with dinner. Or a beer while watching football.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s it? Bit of a weak argument - caffeine in large quantities impairs you, nicotine in large quantities impairs you, etc., yet alcohol is the one with the high minimum age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally, our first “I abstain, I am more moral than you!” person. Yay. Was waiting for someone to come in on that high horse.</p>
<p>Alcohol is not a dangerous, lethal toxin. It is a chemical, like any other. It has effects on the body, like any other drug. It has its benefits (and don’t even try to deny that, because you’ll look [more] stupid - alcohol in moderation has been definitively shown to decrease cardiovascular disease risks), and it has its risks. Just like any other drug.</p>
<p>There is no inherent immorality to alcohol. There is no inherent morality to abstaining completely. There may be more or less morality or immorality associated with various behaviors surrounding alcohol consumption. But your universal maxims are over-generalized, based on no evidence, and entirely incorrect.</p>