http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/index.html

Why young people need to vote.....

quote:

Promoting Marijuana Use? Beer is actually harder for teens to buy than marijuana, according to a national survey of 1,000 individuals under the age of 21. The results are also supported by a study conducted several years ago among high school students. By imposing strong measures to prevent anyone under the age of 21 from consuming any alcohol, we may nintentionally be encouraging the use of more easily-obtainable marijuana. Source: The National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse VII: Teens, Parents and Siblings. Conducted by QEV Analytics Interviews for the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse For earlier study, see http://csdp.org/ads/children.htm/.

quote:

Report to Congress on Underage Drinking The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report to Congress on underage drinking indicates that current alcohol laws treat adults age 18, 19 and 20 as children. The Academy stresses that it is difficult to explain convincingly to anyone why alcohol is acceptable to those who have celebrated their 21st birthday but is not acceptable for those who haven‘t, The NAS also explains that the problem is exacerbated because the age of majority is higher for alcohol than it is for any other right or privilege defined by adulthood.” Source: National Academy of Sciences and National Institute of Medicine. Reducing Underage Drinking - A collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Institute of Medicine, 2003.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-05-2003 at 05:19

you have to be 21 to buy alcohol?!

you poor bastards

^^
Indeed. I don't even drink (well that much) and I can't go see Chris Fortier in my own town (I'm a 19y/o adult). I don't have a problem with a private establishment setting whatever age limits they want. My problem is with the law and the neoprohibitionist zealots who lobby for these harsh laws. I doubt my opinion would change even if I were 30 years old.

quote:

Protecting the Innocent It is common practice for desigmated drivers and other abstainers under the age of 21 to be arrested and charged with illegal possession of alcohol when a party is raided. This practice discourages designated drivers and, in so doing, unintntionallly promotes drunk driving and related tragedies that can result. The practice both violates individual rights and is counterproductive, a bad combination for public policy. Now, a Montana state legislator, Jesse Leslovich, has proposed legislation to amend the state's underage drinking law to give non-drinking partygoers immunity when police arrest the drinkers. The bill wouldn't permit police to charge someone with underage possession just because that person is in the company of others who have been consuming alcohol. "We should not be punishing those who are obeying the law," sais Laslovich. That seems reasonable, but not to some alcohol activists. For example, one activist objected that the law would make it hard for police to prove who was drinking and who was not when a party is raided. His solution -- let's continue to define all of those present, including designated drivers, as guilty. That makes enforcement much easier. Yes, ignoring guilt or innocence certainly would make law enforcement easier. In addition to making mere association with drinkers by young people a crime, alcohol activists heavily promote involuntary alcohol tests for young people, censorship of alcohol ads and similar jackboot actions. Our alcohol activists would find plenty of support from numerous dictators and tyrants, past and present. But who would want to live in such a police state? Unfortunately, no cost seems too high to many alcohol activists as they attempt to impose their alcohol-free utopia. Source: Young Lawmaker Wants to Change Underage Drinking Law. Helena, MT: Associated Pres, Jan. 14, 2003.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-05-2003 at 05:48

The stupidist thing I've ever read in my entire life:

quote:

8 Year Prison Sentence A husband and wife recently threw a birthday party for their son at their house and unwisely served some alcohol to the teens in attendance. The young people had a good time and fortunately no one was injured, got into an auto accident, or suffered any ill-effects. But the large party got loud enough for some neighbors to call the police. The parents were arrested and each was sentenced to eight years in prison.... a total of 16 years in prison for the couple. It is clearly both illegal and unwise to serve alcohol to anyone else's child, even with parental permission, snd even if the "child" is an adult under the age of 21. Source: Penalty should shock us sober (editorial). The Daily Progress (VA), 2-12-03.

FFS

Why are the marijuana laws often less harsh than alcohol laws?

I'll never understand.

GG Virginia.


p.s I'll contact the ACLU about this case

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-05-2003 at 13:26

"8 Year Prison Sentence"
omfg. that is a law similar to having your hands amputated for shoplifting.

i think it's an unwritten law with police in aus. that if you get caught with alcohol under 15, your parents get a phonecall, over 15 no one gives a shit

i'm curious to know the sociocultural effects of legalised marijuana and the youth in holland:

quote:

The age minimum to purchase marijuana or hashish (a drug made from hemp) is 18, and the daily limit is 5 grams (.2 ounces), which is the equivalent of about five joints. The goal is to try to keep young people in particular away from the criminal drug environment that may get them involved with the harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. All Holland is doing is acting on pharmacological evidence that in terms of its acute and long-term affects, marijuana is a remarkably benign drug. http://www.masscann.org/News/articl...8_29_2001_a.htm

i think all countries should follow their lead

The biggest obstacles are large well funded neoprohibition groups in the US.

That's not to mention the lawmakers:

quote:

Congressional DWIs It appears that dozens of members of Congress each and every year escape DWI arrests by invoking their congressional priviledge of immunity (Article one, Section 6). The priviledge was originally provided over 200 years ago to protect members of Congress from politically-motivated arrests made in an effort to prevent then from voting or otherwise performing their official duties. The priviledge of immunity serves no useful purpose today and is an affront to law-abiding citizens. There are many pressures that could be applied to discourage it outrageous misuse. For example, the use of the priviledge by a senator or representative from a state could be used to lower that states score used by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in calculating the state's annual "grade." Unfortunately, MADD insists on remaining completely silent on the issue. Apparently, the organization, which receives massive taxpayer funding from Congress, doesn't want to ruffle feathers and jeopardize a rich source of income.

Hypocrites.

Let's not forget Bush who drank and drugged himself stupid when he was younger (and has a criminal record for drunk driving). LOL I remember the scandal with his daughters 'underage drinking' and most of the rest of the world was like, "So what?" I actually went to high school with them, but didn't know them.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-05-2003 at 06:27

actually if your looking for blame to place on why the drug laws are as such, your better off critizing the Drug Cartels, and the Pharmesuticals then the "neoprohibtionist" if your looking up a tree to bark conspiracy...

quote:

Originally posted by tathi you have to be 21 to buy alcohol?! you poor bastards

Thats why I've moved to the UK.

___________________
PLTA Forums

You moved to the UK just for the drinkin'?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ The stupidist thing I've ever read in my entire life: FFS Why are the penalties for marijuana use harsher than their alcohol laws? I'll never understand. GG Virginia.

LOL sorry.

I meant to say this:

Why are the marijuana laws often less harsh than alcohol laws?

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-05-2003 at 08:16

actually this sort of connects to this debate; I am taking a class here this semster (Pyschology of Advertising) which is being conducted by a professor who actually has studied the effects of the USA's antidrug campagin, and found that it actually promotes illegal drug use then prevent it as intended (this is what he did his graduate thesis on, and it got him to do the circut on the TV news shows).

quote:

actually if your looking for blame to place on why the drug laws are as such, your better off critizing the Drug Cartels, and the Pharmesuticals then the "neoprohibtionist" if your looking up a tree to bark conspiracy...

i was talking to a psychiatrist on the weekend (not as a client :P) about a very similar concept. He believed drug laws are dogmatic and hypocritical and explained the dangers of legally available SSRI drugs etc. I also heard a rare side effect of valium is complete permanant loss of all bodily skin, soon followed by death, i assume by dehydration and infection, not the most glamorous way to die..

Interesting article:

quote:

http://tuberose.com/Drugs.html Street drugs kill only 10% as many people every year, as legal, prescription drugs (6-times more than those Americans killed in the Vietnam War). Americans are dying, one every three to five minutes, from the effects of FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs, used as directed!

quote:

Trail Blazers forward Randolph pleads guilty to underaged drinking September 26, 2003 MARION, Ind. (AP) - Portland Trail Blazers forward Zach Randolph pleaded guilty Friday in his home town to a charge of underaged drinking. Randolph was 20 when he was arrested over the Memorial Day weekend in 2002 after city police stopped the sport utility vehicle he was driving because it matched the description of one they were seeking. Police said Randolph's blood-alcohol content was less than half the state's legal limit to drive of 0.08 per cent. Randolph, who is now 21, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour count of possession of alcohol by a minor and was fined $1 US by Judge Thomas Hunt and ordered to pay $134 in court costs. He also will serve up to 60 days of informal probation, meaning he does not have to report to a probation officer and can leave the state. Grant County Prosecutor James Luttrull Jr. said the agreement with Randolph was in line with what other defendants would have received. "I simply wanted him to acknowledge his wrongdoing and plead guilty," Luttrull said. "I had several people asking me to dismiss the case, but I didn't want to do that. On the other hand, just because he's Zach Randolph doesn't mean he should get a $500 fine." Randolph attended the hearing, accompanied by a few family members and his lawyer. The judge went through the procedure quickly, wrapping up in just a few minutes. The six-foot-nine Randolph was a first-round pick of the Trail Blazers in the 2001 NBA draft after he played just one season at Michigan State. He averaged 8.4 points and 4.5 rebounds for Portland last season.

LOL. $1 is quite a bit less than 8 years in prison...


That judge's heart is in the right place.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/