The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
AdamTJ
Bismarck- I am by no means anti-American, in fact, I actually rather like your country, so bear in mind this is not random America bashing.

I read about this story in the Times the other day, it was alongside another article about a 17 year old black guy who received (originally) 10 years for getting a blow job from a 15 year old white girl in Georgia. He was convicted under some loop-hole designed for paedeophiles, and it was argued that white boys in a similar situation had got off (thus demonstrating that there is still unquestioningly strong racism in the South).

I believe this drinking incident occurred in Virginia (I may be wrong though), which is well-known (even in this country) for being ridiculously puritannical in its attitutudes towards drink. This is a simply staggering, utterly indefensible, draconian measure. From what I read, the parents were actually being responsible because they decided to supervise the kids in order that they didn't drink and drive (which is actually quite admirable, and something that is genuinely reckless and dangerous).

But hey, it's the culture in the state isn't it. I'm just glad I don't live in Virginia.


That had far more to do with leftover southern racism than with stupid laws. It goes back to the time when blacks who went out with whites were lynched. Luckily, a judge reversed that ruling and the guy should be free soon.

The kids shouldn't drink and drive regardless of whether they have alcohol at home. At act of irresponsibility does not justify another. Now I admit that a 2-year sentence seems harsh, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some extenuating circumstances involved that we're not aware of. If there aren't, this will get struck down by a higher court for being a cruel and unusual punishment. And by the way, how would those kids drink and drive? The driving age is above 16 just about everywhere...
Just random trivia: the Supreme Court case that banned interracial marriage laws regarded a white man and black woman who lived in Virginia but had to go to Washington DC to get married. The case was called Loving v. Virginia--Loving was their last name. Classic :biggrin:
Reply 42
Bismarck
That makes absolutely no sense. It's illegal to give alcohol to minors. The parents gave alcohol to minors. You can argue about the size of the sentence, but I don't see how you can deny that the parents were clearly in the wrong.


Depends what you mean by "wrong"... legally - yes. But the Law itself is moronic, and the sentence is even moreso.

This "it's the law of the land" thing only goes so far in a debate about the merits of the result.

The notion of depriving a child of his parents for two years because of the "harm" visited to him/her due to underage drinking in this instance is ironic beyond belief.
jcoatz
That's probably because America puts more money into research than europeans do... and yes thats an unqualified claim, I'll find a source...

edit:
American firms spend around $200 billion on R&D annually

The current EU budget for R&D is €24 billion

annd american's are much more giving when it comes to giving back to their universities... see here or here which in turn helps their research...

all of which has nothing to do with whether the average american is more intelligent or not


So you are arguing that Europeans are smarter, but don't believe in spending money on R&D or their universities? That doesn't sound too bright to me :smile:
Reply 44
Bismarck
That makes absolutely no sense. It's illegal to give alcohol to minors. The parents gave alcohol to minors. You can argue about the size of the sentence, but I don't see how you can deny that the parents were clearly in the wrong.

Of course you can deny they were in the wrong! Whether it was illegal or not is another matter. You're making the classic error of thinking "illegal = wrong". The law does not dictate right and wrong, right and wrong define the law. In this case I happen to think the parents' actions were right, and that the law is ridiculous.
Reply 45
Worzo
Of course you can deny they were in the wrong! Whether it was illegal or not is another matter. You're making the classic error of thinking "illegal = wrong". The law does not dictate right and wrong, right and wrong define the law. In this case I happen to think the parents' actions were right, and that the law is ridiculous.


So you want to make it legal for 16-year-olds to get drunk?
Reply 46
Heartbreaker
As it says, no one was hurt. And yes, sorry it isnt in California, but the drinking age is kind of set federally, as you will know.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/84433


No it isn't. Well, not strictly anyway. Any State can set its own drinking age. The only problem is that federal road funding is witheld from those States that won't comply with the (misnamed) National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 which means that all States stick to the 21 year limit.
Made in the USA
So you are arguing that Europeans are smarter, but don't believe in spending money on R&D or their universities? That doesn't sound too bright to me :smile:


I'm not saying that europeans are smarter, i'm saying that the giving of money to R&D doesn't make the average member of a nation smarter, and therefore has no relevance in this debate!

mizzy87
It is legal for adults to buy alcohol for children over four to drink in the home.


So you can be 5 and drink on private land... not sure how it'd be different because it was labelled a party. Its still on private land... and yes i know that thats british law, but surely its something similar for private land in america?!

Is it because they were supplying the alcohol to minors? because in that case my mates parents have bin 'supplying' me with alcohol at friends houses for years. the odd wine/beer etc.
Reply 48

No it isn't. Well, not strictly anyway. Any State can set its own drinking age. The only problem is that federal road funding is witheld from those States that won't comply with the (misnamed) National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 which means that all States stick to the 21 year limit.


Yep, thats why. :smile: I remember my physics teacher telling us it was practically forced but not actually, just couldn't remember the specifics. Thats why I said "kind of"

So you want to make it legal for 16-year-olds to get drunk?

Yes

British Law

It is legal for adults to buy alcohol for children over four to drink in the home.


Do our American friends think that is immoral or not?
Reply 49
Bismarck
So you want to make it legal for 16-year-olds to get drunk?

It's legal for 16-year-olds to get pregnant, which is arguably a more life-destroying occurance at that age than getting drunk. If you're going to put the age for consumption of alcohol at 21 then you should probably put the age of consent at 21 aswell. Unless, of course, you think someone who you deem responsible enough to raise a child is not responsible enough to be trusted with alcohol. Is that what you think?

I generally agree with a lot of what you say, Bis, but I just don't understand your argument here.
Reply 50
Worzo
It's legal for 16-year-olds to get pregnant, which is arguably a more life-destroying occurance at that age than getting drunk. If you're going to put the age for consumption of alcohol at 21 then you should probably put the age of consent at 21 aswell. Unless, of course, you think someone who you deem responsible enough to raise a child is not responsible enough to be trusted with alcohol. Is that what you think?

I generally agree with a lot of what you say, Bis, but I just don't understand your argument here.


The reason the age is 21 is because 21-year-olds will give alcohol to their slightly younger friends. If you make it 18, then the 18-year-olds will give it to their younger friends. So the worst you can expect a 21-year-old to do is to give alcohol to an 18-year-old (since they'd both be in college). If you lower the drinking age to 16 or 18, you're going to end up with 13-year-olds being given alcohol. And if it was practical, I'd keep 16-year-olds from getting pregnant too. But you can't keep people from having sex.
Reply 51
Bismarck
The reason the age is 21 is because 21-year-olds will give alcohol to their slightly younger friends. If you make it 18, then the 18-year-olds will give it to their younger friends. So the worst you can expect a 21-year-old to do is to give alcohol to an 18-year-old (since they'd both be in college). If you lower the drinking age to 16 or 18, you're going to end up with 13-year-olds being given alcohol.

Firstly, I don't think that's the reason at all. However, in any case, your argument supports a law for the age of purchase of alcohol being 21, which I don't have too much of a problem with; the law prohibiting consumption is what I find ridiculous, and you haven't offered any argument as to why it should be illegal for a 13-year-old to consume alcohol.

And if it was practical, I'd keep 16-year-olds from getting pregnant too.

You seem to want to remove all decisions from young people until some arbitrary age, by which time they will have no experience of making difficult judgements, and be more likely to make the wrong decision. Of course, there must be an age by which a person is legally deemed capable to make these decisions. Ask anyone these days, and they put that age at somewhere between 16 and 18. Young people are better informed and more mature than they were 50 years ago: the 21 age is outdated.
Reply 52
Worzo
Firstly, I don't think that's the reason at all. However, in any case, your argument supports a law for the age of purchase of alcohol being 21, which I don't have too much of a problem with; the law prohibiting consumption is what I find ridiculous, and you haven't offered any argument as to why it should be illegal for a 13-year-old to consume alcohol.


Because they're not legally responsible for their actions (along with being immature in general). What happens if a 13-year-old gets drunk and harms himself or someone else? Who do you blame?

You seem to want to remove all decisions from young people until some arbitrary age, by which time they will have no experience of making difficult judgements, and be more likely to make the wrong decision. Of course, there must be an age by which a person is legally deemed capable to make these decisions. Ask anyone these days, and they put that age at somewhere between 16 and 18. Young people are better informed and more mature than they were 50 years ago: the 21 age is outdated.


In a liberal society, I wouldn't care what these people do to themselves. But with our welfare state, them getting knocked up at 16 means that I will be forced to pay their welfare check for the rest of their lives. If their idiocy directly harms me, I should have a right to limit their ability to be idiots.
Reply 53
Heartbreaker
Yep, thats why. :smile:


Do our American friends think that is immoral or not?


Alcohol is a drug, just like Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, or Weed.

You shouldn't give any of these to someone under 18, as they can not provide legal responsibility for themselves. Unless you are a doctor, and can take responsibility for them.

It's an issue of responsibility, that's the main "moral" issue.

Is this punishment way over the top? Yeah, and it will probably get reversed...that's why it's in the news.

Should have been maybe 30 days in jail, and 3 years probabtion. (typically)

In the other case of the 17 year old getting a hummer... Ithought the original sentencing judge was BLACK...and one of the people trying to appeal it was white ...Jimmy Carter...

Again, never should have been sentanced, some judge being a "moral authority" and going way too far...
Reply 54
Heartbreaker
Fair enough if that was a one off, as admittedly they aren't great. but the fact that the US is routinely near the bottom of developed countries isnt a great sign. Do you think on average Americans are as intelligent as Europeans?

Meh, Id normally go for France, but yeah it must. :p:

Id attack any country which made a ruling that ridiculous.


Intelligence and general knowledge are different things. The later will make it appear you have a higher IQ.
I think the key thing that most people are missing here is that the parents were letting their kids have a party with alcohol. I doubt they would have gotten in such trouble if they were merely serving their own children alcohol in their home. However, when you open something up to other peoples' children, it's not a shocker to see that someone gave an anonymous tip. It was probably from a parent who found out what was on the agenda, and didn't allow their child to go/the child wasn't invited. Or, someone who wasn't invited to the party called in the tip.

While the sentence is a bit much, the parents should have known better than to serve alcohol to minors at a party. That's just begging to be arrested.
Reply 56
Bismarck
Because they're not legally responsible for their actions (along with being immature in general). What happens if a 13-year-old gets drunk and harms himself or someone else? Who do you blame?

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the UK - I'm not sure what it is in the USA, but I'd be surprised if it's older than 12. So, people this age are perfectly accountable for their actions. And where's the evidence that a 13-year-old is any more likely to cause harm than an 21-year-old under the influence?

But with our welfare state, them getting knocked up at 16 means that I will be forced to pay their welfare check for the rest of their lives...If their idiocy directly harms me, I should have a right to limit their ability to be idiots.

Once you decide that you will provide a welfare state, this does not then give you the right to start limiting people's freedoms with the justification that it will cost you less. If you don't like the cost, then you shouldn't be supporting a welfare state. The welfare state is supposed to provode a minimum standard of living to everyone, no matter what their circumstances are. Society has agreed that it doesn't care who they are or what they have done, but they will not starve or freeze to death.
Reply 57
Worzo
Once you decide that you will provide a welfare state, this does not then give you the right to start limiting people's freedoms with the justification that it will cost you less. If you don't like the cost, then you shouldn't be supporting a welfare state. The welfare state is supposed to provode a minimum standard of living to everyone, no matter what their circumstances are. Society has agreed that it doesn't care who they are or what they have done, but they will not starve or freeze to death.


This is really rather an odd argument. - That once you decide to have "a welfare state" you are prohibited from circumscribing those rights in any way?

I can but ask - why?

Society is perfectly entitled to set the extents of the welfare state as they see fit.

Of course, if you choose to define "welfare state" as a system that has no limits in regard to the benefits that it gives, then sure, I suppose your approach works. But that's mere tautology... it's not any sort of argument against such limits.
Reply 58
Worzo
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the UK - I'm not sure what it is in the USA, but I'd be surprised if it's older than 12. So, people this age are perfectly accountable for their actions. And where's the evidence that a 13-year-old is any more likely to cause harm than an 21-year-old under the influence?


Are you honestly claiming that a 13-year-old is as capable of acting rationally when drunk as a 21-year-old? And you'd have to be delusional to think that if a 13-year-old gets drunk and ends up hurting himself that there would be no lawsuit involved.

Once you decide that you will provide a welfare state, this does not then give you the right to start limiting people's freedoms with the justification that it will cost you less. If you don't like the cost, then you shouldn't be supporting a welfare state. The welfare state is supposed to provode a minimum standard of living to everyone, no matter what their circumstances are. Society has agreed that it doesn't care who they are or what they have done, but they will not starve or freeze to death.


I don't support the welfare state. It exists, however, and there's nothing I can do about that. That means I have to work within the framework of a welfare state. And that entails limiting people's ability to do things that cost me money.
Reply 59
Bismarck
Are you honestly claiming that a 13-year-old is as capable of acting rationally when drunk as a 21-year-old?

It depends on the level of drunkeness. A 13-year-old slightly under the influence would probably be less controlled than a 21-year-old in the same state, this is true. But in my experience, as alcohol levels are increased, a 13-year-old gets giggly and just goes to sleep, whereas the 21-year-old is capable of other things.

Bismarck
And you'd have to be delusional to think that if a 13-year-old gets drunk and ends up hurting himself that there would be no lawsuit involved.

I didn't say there would be no lawsuit. I said that the 13-year-old would be criminally responsible for his actions, so he would be to blame, whether drunk or not. If it could be proved that an adult failed in his duty of care towards the child, then I suspect the adult would take some blame, but the acts of a child drinking alcohol and allowing a child to drink alcohol should not, in themselves, be illegal. In the same way, allowing a child to drive a motor vehicle on private land is not illegal, but if the child injures themselves, it might be proved that the adult responsible did not take reasonable precautions to ensure the child's safety.

In any case, the point is that I disagree with a law preventing the consumption of alcohol on the basis that the consequential negative effects you suggest are far outweighed by the benefits of introducing minors to alcohol in a controlled manner; continental Europe is a prime example, where alcohol-related problems are much less common than in the USA.

I don't support the welfare state.

Interesting. O/T, I know, but you don't support state health provision or unemployment benefits?

Latest