<p>When ever some one in authority makes an example of some one, there is an injustice done.</p>
<p>These kinds of cases, and cases of underage drinking in general, are inevitable because of the absurd hypocrisy of our society with respect to drinking. While we make a big deal about underage drinking with enforcement, putting people in jail, school program after school program, at the same time drinking in general is accepted and glamorized. Adult characters in movies and on TV typically drink, and often get drunk, frequently with no significant negative consequences. Newspapers have wine columns. Political and cultural leaders drink. Teenagers are smart enough to realize that there is no magical change that occurs at age 21 that turns drinking from some horrible “bad decision” into something that is perfectly OK and even admirable.</p>
<p>I think one solution is to lower the drinking age for beer and wine to 18 (with limits on alcohol content), which would at least convey the idea that drinking is an adult activity that needs a transitional phase. The other is to try to stop sending mixed messages about drinking in general.</p>
<p>“The mother in the case WAS remorseful during the original trials; she only came across otherwise when the outrageously long sentences were handed down.”</p>
<p>It didn’t even have to go to trial, and she likely didn’t have to spend even a single day in jail. Bad legal advice, coupled with an air of self-importance that made her believe she was above the law. Quite typical among drugpushers.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. I am very much against parents who justify helping kids break the law. </p>
<p>If the parents so disagree with the law about alcohol, then they should lobby to change it instead of allowing underaged kids to drink in their homes.</p>
<p>While the sentence was very harsh, I think it will scare many parents and teens into complying with the law. Knowing how our legal service works, I also would bet money that the parents won’t serve a long sentence.</p>
<p>
No drug pushers involved here.</p>
<p>
12,000,000 illegal immigrants also seem to feel that they are above the law, and that doesn’t seem to bother too many people on this forum.</p>
<p>One cannot pick and choose which laws are worth upholding.</p>
<p>Alcohol is a drug, so people who break the law by giving alcohol to minors could be considered drug pushers.</p>
<p>I also know that although most people believe otherwise, most of the people who use illegal drugs are well off people who are employed and typically live in the suburbs. I would not be surprised if people who think the way of keeping their teens safe is to host a party where underaged drinking is allowed also are people who use street drugs. That last statement was not aimed at anyone in particular on CC, but at parents who in real life are hosting parties in which alcohol is served to minors.</p>
<p>There are many educated, middle class and affluent people who think that the laws shouldn’t apply to them: That includes laws about underaged drinking as well as laws about the use of substances like cocaine.</p>
<p>I’m no supporter of adults providing underage kids with alcohol, NSM. Please refer to my earlier posts on this same thread. I am, however, opposed to those who are VERY inconsistent in their views of lawbreakers. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. And making an example of ONE, while giving amnesty to 12,000,000 (a percentage of whom are also violent criminals) offends my sensibilities.</p>
<p>Btw, Ritalin is a drug too. Do you consider a doctor who provides Ritalin to a very young child to appease parents who have neglected to discipline said child a “drug pusher” too? Also, were those parents selling that alcohol and profiting financially from those kids they served alcohol to?</p>
<p>okay…I’m late to this one. But someone clear me up on something. The way I read the article, it seems the parents did accept the prosecutor’s deal; but the judge rejected the deal and threw the book a them. After an appeal, when the prosecutor’s deal was no longer on the table, the sentence was reduced by another judge. Am I getting this right?</p>
<p>On the drinking thing. We’ve been there. Parents providing booze at parties is very common in our area. Frankly, I think there is some misguided notion among these parents that ‘cool parents who provide booze’ = ‘popular kids’. Why some parents are so desperate for their kids to be popular in high school could be a whole 'nother thread…lol!</p>
<p>Personally, our philosophy is this: We tell our kids underage drinking is illegal and consequences can be harsh and far-reaching. That it just isn’t worth it and they should want to be law-abiding citizens. But, if they are in a situation where they, or a friend, needs assistance, they are to call home and get that assistance. So far, we have good results with this approach. My d and a few of her group are not drinkers…others in the group do drink. They look out for each other… and while I don’t think our attitude is considered ‘cool’, I think the kids respect us.</p>
<p>And we have our strategy tested. While in high school, my d attended an off-campus overnight cheerleading function where the host parents provided the kids cases of hard liquor and beer (and where the football team was allowed to stay overnight with the girls). The parents collected everyone’s carkeys when they arrived at the party, which I presume was their attempt at responsibility. It was supposed to be a Varsity function, but JV girls as young as 15 were there as well. My d opted to leave, literally as soon as she arrived, when she saw all the booze and the host dad asked for her keys. Others opted not to attend because they heard there was going to be booze. I remember thinking ‘how dare these parents override the choices my husband and I have made about our kids and alcohol’, but also feeling so relieved our parenting strategy had survived the test. </p>
<p>In the Virginia case…to prosecute or not? I think you have to…I do think it is a deterrent and step in the right direction. I don’t think an 8 year sentence is appropriate. I see some trying to draw some sort of comparison between the prosecution of illegal immigrants to the prosecution of these parents. As far as I know, we do prosecute, detain and deport illegal immigrants guilty of crimes including the crime of entering the country illegally. Those here who support amnesty are supporting a change in the immigration laws, not advocating breaking the existing laws. And those who oppose amnesty and advocate strict enforcement of the current immigration laws surely should not have a problem with strict application of laws regarding underage drinking and corruption of minors.</p>
<p>"Btw, Ritalin is a drug too. Do you consider a doctor who provides Ritalin to a very young child to appease parents who have neglected to discipline said child a “drug pusher” too? "</p>
<p>If there is no medical reason for the prescription, I consider such a doctor unethical and a law violator just as would be the case of a doctor who prescribed a narcotic for an adult who was a drug addict whose only reason for “needing” the drug was the person’s addiction.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I have been prescribed Adderal for ADD. I took it for a while, and then stopped taking it because I prefer to handle my ADD through meditation and other methods that don’t involve drugs. If one really is ADD/ADHD and gets prescribed medication to address that, my experience is that the drug does not give one any kind of wonderful feeling that would lead to addiction. I just felt calmer and more focused. I didn’t feel euphroric. I had no craving to take the Adderal. Although my doctor said that I could take it every day, I chose to take it only when I was in situations requiring a lot of focus (such as when I had a very heavy travel schedule due to work). After I learned that meditation was helpful, I happily gave up the Adderal.</p>
<p>“Drug-pusher”
Alcohol is a drug of course, but so is Caffeine and also Taurine, things found in kids soft drinks every day. However Alcohol’s side effects differ greatly from the other two, one should be able to see differences. between ‘drugs’. The difference between a parent giving other kids weed or hasj is a whole other story than a parent giving his/her kid and friends a beer.
I wouldn’t permit this or let this off with a warning if i were that judge either, but suggesting an 8 year jail sentence for giving some kids a beer ? I don’t know if this was in the article but i would presume she handed out these ‘criminal’ beverages in the relative safety of her own home, and not in some dangerous urban environment. I also assume she gave everyone one or two beers, not conducting kegstands or handing out long island ice teas.
Community Service, a public apology and maybe a seminar of the dangers of alcohol to youths would definetly be in order. But jailtime ? </p>
<p>This is just an opinion of someone with completely different views than the rest of you so it seems, and i hope this doesn’t come over in a hostile way.</p>
<p>hi Groenveld…your pov is absolutely welcomed…especially coming from outside the States. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what the VA parents offered these kids to drink…but in our area what is common is not just beer, but vodka. The kids like to camouflage the vodka in Sonic slushes or water bottles and we have real problem with this sort of drinking going on even during classes. Couple that with our car culture and it’s a real problem.</p>
<p>First, Ritalin is not given to ‘very young’ children. It seems that you do not believe in ADHD. Many people do not. My D has it, but can’t take the medications because of side effects. Too bad, because they work very well. If I were to take Adderall or Ritalin, I’d feel speedy. My daughter feels quiet and tired, and falls asleep. People with real ADHD react differently to these drugs. It is a real disorder, which of course seems over diagnosed. It is not the result of parents who ‘neglected to discipline said child’. (I’m sure my D would agree, since her friends refer to me as “the pilgrim” because I’m strict)
Back to the issue at hand: Idmom, did you contact the parents who provided the liquor at that party? I would have, and I would have told them that if they ever gave my children alcohol again I’d call the authorities.</p>
<p>tanya- </p>
<p>Some parents actually reported the party to the school administration and it was a bit of stink for a while. The host parents were irate because they claimed they were being ‘very responsible’ and taking great care to guard the safety of our kids (okaaaay…). The school finally threw the hot potato away saying they couldn’t be responsible for behavior at off-campus events even though the cheerleading code of conduct requires this of them. </p>
<p>The next year, it happened again with a different set of host parents…but this time the cheerleaders made a drunken appearance at a school event that same evening. Public scrutiny caused all girls at the party to be dismissed from the cheer squad…and get this…the parents who provided the alcohol retained lawyers to sue to the district for kicking the girls off the squad. They claimed they were ‘unaware’ of the drinking in their home and no one had ‘proved’ the girls were drunk in public. I’m sure it was proactive measure on their part since they were facing the wrath (and possible lawyers) of all the other parents. </p>
<p>Bottom line…The district hates lawsuits and all girls were re-instated.</p>
<p>So one thing is for certain…doing something is better than doing nothing. Doing nothing just reinforces the behavior and some parents really do need a brick to fall on their heads.</p>
<p>Actually, tanyanubin, there was recently a situation in MA in which a 4 year old girl died as a result of an overdose of Ritalin and other drugs, including antipsychotics, that had been prescribed for her and which she started when she was under two years old! That physician, BTW, has been called a drug pusher in the press, and has had her license suspended pending hearings to revoke it. (I don’t want to get into a discussion of the medical validity of ADD or ADHD.</p>
<p>I also realize that alcohol is a very different animal than illegal drugs or misused prescription drugs. Upon reaching a certain age, it becomes a legal drug and has a place in the social and religious life in this country and others. I will admit that I break the law every year at our Passover seder - wine is an important part of the ritual, and I have for years allowed my child to sip some if she so desired. (She generally sticks to the grape juice). </p>
<p>We now know enough about teenage brain chemistry to realize that there is a huge difference between the 16 year old brain, the 18 year old brain and the 21 year old brain. While there is no “magic switch” that turns on the day you turn 21, it is clear that the brain matures greatly during those years, and that alcohol affects it differently. The law, however, does need to have a “bright line” demarcation between legal and illegal activity and that line was drawn at 21. Don’t like it? Work to change it. Break it, and be prepared to deal with consequences you may not like. (I agree that the penalty was too harsh, but there should definitely be a real penalty attached to this behavior.)</p>
<p>BTW, when I was in high school, the drinking age was lowered to 18. The argument was based on the fact of the Vietnam War: Kids old enough to be soldiers, kill & die should also be old enough to drink. That argument is now being made again - I wonder if the law will change?</p>
<p>" I don’t know if this was in the article but i would presume she handed out these ‘criminal’ beverages in the relative safety of her own home, and not in some dangerous urban environment. I also assume she gave everyone one or two beers, not conducting kegstands or handing out long island ice teas. "</p>
<p>I worked for 5 years in the substance abuse treatment and prevention field. Here’s what I think is likely based on my experiences treating more than 1,000 people with alcohol and drug problems.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The home may have been less safe than the typical urban environment. In addition to having the booze, there also may have been a variety of drugs present. After all, parents who can’t say “no” to their kids drinking underage in their home may also be the same kind of people who think it’s ok to smoke dope or to allow their kids to use drugs. Yes, there really are parents like that. I’ve heard of some parents in their 50s – educated people with good jobs – who smoke dope with their kids.</p></li>
<li><p>I have no reason to think that the parents just gave each kid a beer. And heck, if the kids want to drink to get drunk (which seems to be something that many young drinkers want to do), what would prevent the kids from doing exactly that, even sneaking some additional alcohol in. After all, the host parents are “cool,” so should be understanding.</p></li>
<li><p>I also think it’s likely that the parents were drinking along with the kids, and may have alcohol problems themselves. People who think that drinking alcohol is important for underaged kids are people who themselves probably started drinking at a young age, and may also be alcoholics (The younger one starts drinking, the greater one’s chances of becoming alcoholic) even if they are well respected, employed, etc.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have met many very well respected people with excellent educations, lovely homes, good jobs, who also were alcoholic – including being very out of control drinkers in the privacy of their homes.</p>
<p>I also have heard of well respected people in my community who thought it was fun to do things like play drinking games with their underaged teens and the teens’ friends.</p>
<p>Chedva–OMG! That doctor should be investigated. How awful for that poor tiny girl and her family. There are always idiots who abuse things, aren’t there? I agree that alcohol is a different situation than drugs as far as the law is concerned. And if a person wants to allow their own child to have wine with dinner, I don’t think anyone should object to that. I also agree that people who don’t like the 21 law should work to change it, not break it. I think the parents in question got the sentence they did because of giving alcohol to OTHER people’s kids. I think that was the crux of the matter. I was also in high school when the drinking age was 18, and totally delighted about it!
IDmom–sounds like your school system is as ignorant and arbitrary as ours is here. I feel for you. The whole cheer leader/ jock/ popular crowd sometimes seems to get preferential treatment. Sometimes I think that the administration is full of people who weren’t part of that crowd in highschool and are still impressed by it! lol</p>
<p>Northstarmom—I’ve got a very close friend who thinks nothing of going to her 19-year old son’s frat parties and getting wasted! She is also a mom who complains that her 17-year old son and his girlfriend are rolling around on the living room floor under a blanket ‘doing things’, and have been doing so for 2 years. People like this don’t realize that they are the parents and the kids are the kids…there’s a real shift in the balance of power in homes like that. I don’t think it would extend to my friend offering her kids’ friends alcohol, though. I sure hope not. Our kids don’t socialize, thank goodness.</p>
<p>" I think the parents in question got the sentence they did because of giving alcohol to OTHER people’s kids."</p>
<p>No, they got the sentence because they refused to work with prosecutor on a pre-trial release agreement under which they likely would never have spent even an hour in jail, and instead, deciding they were above the law, hired a good lawyer, figuring he’d get them off totally. </p>
<p>They guessed wrong. Now they pay. Happens to drugpushers all the time.</p>
<p>“The way I read the article, it seems the parents did accept the prosecutor’s deal; but the judge rejected the deal and threw the book a them.”</p>
<p>No, the prosecutor offered them something pre-charge (and likely before they engaged legal counsel.) Said the prosector, “I suggested an appropriate punishment but they chose to take the matter to the court instead of working with us.” It would have meant no trial, no court, no jail, less than $10k in costs. </p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments that the sentence was unreasonable, cruel or unusual, and it was clearly within the sentencing guidelines. Time to take responsibility.</p>
<p>ten characters</p>
<p>mini, </p>
<p>Are you sure that that was the case? I thought it went down more the way barrons suggested:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you think they refused to work with the prosecutor? Just a hunch, or something I missed in the articles?</p>