OT: Cops Target the Underage, Drinking or Not

[Logan]

Saw this article on a band's message board that I check out regularly. Thought it would be interesting to debate whether or not what these cops are doing is actually the right thing. Enjoy...

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129026,00.html

Cops Target the Underage, Drinking or Not
Sunday, August 15, 2004

NAPERVILLE, Ill. — Jennifer Gilligan says she wasn't drinking at the party and didn't know other underage people were.

But when Naperville (search) Police pulled up, the 20-year-old and more than a dozen others were ticketed, not for underage drinking, but for simply being at a party where their peers had alcohol.

"I was very upset because I don't drink," Gilligan said.

She isn't the only one complaining about the Chicago suburb's unusual ordinance. So are parents who say they teach their children to be responsible and stay away from alcohol until they reach the legal drinking age of 21 — no matter what their friends are doing. They say police are punishing the wrong group.

It's become such a contentious issue, police have stopped publicizing the names of those ticketed and the city has called for a public hearing in September.

"The ticket is bogus because it gives kids a ticket for choosing not to drink," said RuthAnn Wood, whose 18-year-old son was cited at a graduation party in May but later found not guilty.


Garrison Wood's citation was one of more than 100 police wrote in the first six months of the year under the new ordinance targeting people under 21 who aren't drinking, but who are with underage peers who are. Those cited must appear in court and can be fined $35 and ordered to perform 20 hours of community service.

Naperville, a community of 135,000 named last year by Money Magazine (search) as one of the nation's most desirable places to live, already prohibited minors from attending drinking parties. Last year, the City Council changed the wording to create a specific ordinance to ticket minors at the parties who aren't drinking.

"We're trying to be involved in the situation and recognize the tragic and sometimes horrific outcomes of these underage parties," said Naperville police Lt. Dave Hilderbrand. "We're trying to take a bit more of an ambitious step."

In 20 years of researching problems associated with underage drinking, James Mosher, a research attorney at the nonprofit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, said he hadn't heard of a law like it anywhere else in the country.

Mosher questioned the law's effectiveness — "You don't want to punish young people who have made the decision not to drink," he said — and its legality.

"I think there is a fundamental constitutional problem with it," Mosher said. "I can certainly appreciate the police wanting to have this. But the idea that you have to leave a place because someone is committing a crime and you are not, is fundamentally unfair."

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

Mayor George Pradel said it's the job of city officials to protect the community. "We love our young people, and we want them to have a clear understanding that it's against the law (to drink) and they shouldn't be there," Pradel said.

"It's a deterrent, because young people know if they go to a beer party, they'll have to appear in court."

But RuthAnn Wood said Naperville has gone too far in its commitment to promote a high quality of life. "They have to have perfect, perfect, perfect, and these teenagers are just a thorn in their sides," she said.

[rkmsuf]

I don't like it. I don't like these passages

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

Mayor George Pradel said it's the job of city officials to protect the community. "We love our young people, and we want them to have a clear understanding that it's against the law (to drink) and they shouldn't be there," Pradel said.

[JeeberD]

Utter bullshit.

[bigdawg2003]

Funny story

About last September, there was an off campus party near my school (Southwestern University) that was advertised over our campus e-mail system. The email specifically mentioned that there would be alcohol and that everybody was welcome. Keep in mind that all the faculty and school administration has access to this email system. I decided that I would keep my distance from this party since I put the odds of it getting busted at around 99.9%. Sure enough, I hear from people the next day that it got busted. A girl I knew was at the party and was drinking and when the cops found her, she said she had been making out with a guy who had been drinking. Amazingly, this worked and she didn't get an MIP. Something tells me if a guy had said he had been making out with a girl who was drinking, he'd still get an MIP. Anyways, I thought it was a pretty funny, if not completely relevant anecdote (thanks alf)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

I believe that sums the situation up perfectly.

[rkmsuf]

Who is running this town? John Lithgow?

[Alf]

anecdote, but pretty funny bigdawg

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe that sums the situation up perfectly.

How is that? There kids are being punished because they were not drinking but other kids were. Sounds to me like the parents did there job, are you not supposed to let your kids leave the house until they are 21??

[Blackadar]

Utter stupidity.

Let's punish the ones who AREN'T doing anything wrong. That'll teach 'em!

This is even dumber:

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

Aren't 20 year olds considered adults? Why blame parents at this stage?

I love how in these articles they talk about "children under 21 years of age", yet they can:

1. Go to jail, and have been able to, for about 4-9 years, depending on the crime.
2. Go into the military and fight in wars
3. Vote
4. Drive
5. Quit school
6. Have sex.

etc....

[Cuckoo]

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

I agree with this completely. An 18 year old, however, is not a minor and should be able to attend any party he/she wishes. If they are not drinking, they should not be ticketed. Sounds simple to me.

*Edited for clarity.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Utter stupidity.

Let's punish the ones who AREN'T doing anything wrong. That'll teach 'em!

This is even dumber:

Naperville's city attorney, Frank Cuneo, said minors don't belong at parties with alcohol. "If parents did their jobs, we wouldn't need this ordinance," he said.

Aren't 20 year olds considered adults? Why blame parents at this stage?

I love how in these articles they talk about "children under 21 years of age", yet they can:

1. Go to jail, and have been able to, for about 4-9 years, depending on the crime.
2. Go into the military and fight in wars
3. Vote
4. Drive
5. Quit school
6. Have sex.
etc....

Excellent post. But hey, who cares if its a stupid law not only in theory, but that it discourages good behavior in practice. Its a law so we should blindly defend it, eh?

[Castlerock]

Jennifer Gilligan says she wasn't drinking at the party and didn't know other underage people were.

If she says she didn't know that there were underage drinkers, I think she is lying.

"The ticket is bogus because it gives kids a ticket for choosing not to drink," said RuthAnn Wood, whose 18-year-old son was cited at a graduation party in May but later found not guilty.

Not true. It gives them a ticket for being present where a crime is occuring.

I don't think I support this ordinance but the above reasons are bogus.

[JeeberD]

Don't we have an FOFCer or two in Naperville?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

Not true. It gives them a ticket for being present where a crime is occuring.

I don't think I support this ordinance but the above reasons are bogus.

So by your reasoning, if someone holds up a convenience store while I'm there, I deserve a ticket?

If two cars behind me or next to me get in a wreck, I deserve a ticket?

Bzzt. Wrong. No.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Don't we have an FOFCer or two in Naperville?

I know we have one, and one of my close friends lives in Naperville as well. I myself used to live about 10 miles away from the town.

[Logan]

The message board I read this from was oarfans.com (OAR=Of A Revolution, one of my favorite bands). Anyway, their biggest followings are in Maryland (where the majority of the band is from) and the Ohio/Illinois area (where they went to school and started out playing). A few people who post on that board are actually from the town where this law is enforced, and gave their thoughts on it. For the record, this has been in effect for years...not exactly a breaking news story. I C & P'd some of their thoughts on the law...

Awesome, I love my city.

It's a guilt by association law. It sucked a lot in high school, because if you went to a party to be someone's DD and the party got busted, you got screwed. In all honesty though, I like the law. Kids are getting away with way too much around here, and if that helps keep them in check, why the hell not. Although half the time the parents pay the ticket and let their kid drink at home though.

1st off, this isn't new...I've lived in Naperville 26 years (my whole life) and when I was in high school the same rules applied...anyone who went to parties always would be scared about just being there...plus you have the whole "athletic code" at the high schools, which basically said you shouldn't be around booze at all...

Secondly, Naperville parents are ridiculous. They all think they're kids are perfect, and anytime they do anything wrong, the fight it, sue, and through money around to rid there kids of the wrong doing.


I read the article rather quickly, but the girl is 20? And at a party with underage drinkers? but she didn't know they were underage? Did she remember that SHE herself was underage? Get a clue...know the situation...I'm not saying I love Naperville as much as everyone else who lives here, or that the Police are so great...but you have to recognize the situation..

"The ticket is bogus because it gives kids a ticket for choosing not to drink," said RuthAnn Wood, whose 18-year-old son was cited at a graduation party in May but later found not guilty.

No it doesn't. It's giving your son a ticket for not using common sense.

Obviously most of you on this board know me and my lack of drinking, but that does not play into my opinion. I've been in the same situation as this girl and all the other dudes, but I knew that if I chose to be around the beer I was running the risk of getting "caught"...

half the time the parents are the ones buying the beer anyway, how come that's not talked about? Mrs. Wood's son was at a graduation party with beer? HS graduation? It just makes no sense, agree with 21 being the drinking age or not, it's the law...

same law in my hometown, its bullshit. I dont care to get to into, but ive given it alot of thought, and concluded that it doesnt help eliminate underage drinking, and only conrtibutes to more DUIs, more officer injuries, and is just a general waste of time for the police, who are supposed to be protecting us by fighting real crime.

Its teachign the kids the lesson because they shouldn't be at an underage party to begin with. Here are my reasons why this is good:

1) How many kids experiment with alcohol for the first time at a HS party...so, even though they went in thinkng they wouldn't drink, they are influenced to. Keep it away from the kids until they get into college.....at least you're going to walk home when you are in college....HS kids are morons. I can see people beign pissed about cops doing this at a college, but this is HS....I would do the same thing.

2) From the cops perspective, you have a party with 100 people, alcohol all over the place, 25 kids are saying they didn't drink, 25 kids are trying to escape, the other 50 are wasted. Its not right for a kid to hide behind the excuse of "Well, i wasn't drinking!!"....you think the cops should weed through all the kids and give them breathalizers....much easier to tell the kids to stay away from parties with alcohol or they'll get tickets....parents wouldn't argue with that.

3) Kids are idiots.

[Surtt]

So....
If I'm having a beer watching the football game, my daughter can get a minor for being in the same house?
Or do I need a bunch of my friends over?

[JeeberD]

"at least you're going to walk home when you are in college."

What? People don't drive to parties in college? Yeah, right...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

"at least you're going to walk home when you are in college."

What? People don't drive to parties in college? Yeah, right...

For the record, the guy who posted that entry gets consistently ripped on by the entire board for being a complete jerkoff. The thread over there has basically turned into a flamewar between him and one other guy.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

"at least you're going to walk home when you are in college."

What? People don't drive to parties in college? Yeah, right...

I knew a guy that got ticketed for riding a bike under the influence one night on campus.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

So by your reasoning, if someone holds up a convenience store while I'm there, I deserve a ticket?

If two cars behind me or next to me get in a wreck, I deserve a ticket?

Bzzt. Wrong. No.

No. If you re-read my post, you will see that I said that I do not support this ordinance. I am pointing out a bogus argument in the article. The girl did not get a ticket for choosing not to drink. She got a ticket for being present where a crime is occuring. In my opinion, this debate has little to do with underage drinking.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Surtt

So....
If I'm having a beer watching the football game, my daughter can get a minor for being in the same house?
Or do I need a bunch of my friends over?

No, there needs to be underage drinking going on not just drinking. If everyone is 21 and drinking and nobody is under 21, my interpretation is that it is ok.

Now if you underage son was drinking while watching the game then your daughter could also be ticketed.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

No. If you re-read my post, you will see that I said that I do not support this ordinance. I am pointing out a bogus argument in the article. The girl did not get a ticket for choosing not to drink. She got a ticket for being present where a crime is occuring. In my opinion, this debate has little to do with underage drinking.

Pardon, then. Interpreted it more as a 'the excuses given are bogus, you did do wrong, tough shit' deal.

[sooner333]

I think its a bad rule just because of the Designated Driver aspect. By scaring away all of the non-drunk people from the inevitable beer-drinking party in high school or the early years of college, you are risking a lot more DUI's, which are more harmful to the community at-large.

I was once at one of these parties where the cops came (albeit, not in Naperville) and it was in a gated community. The officer basically said that we should have kept it quiet, but he was a kid once and it was harder for him to get away with it because his dad was a cop as well. But, he said we needed to leave with someone who was sober or stay there because they would be at the gate checking to see who was drunk and who was not and they would give tickets.

If the law is for safety, then I think it should be handled in that way. Let the parents punish the going to the party part.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think its a bad rule just because of the Designated Driver aspect. By scaring away all of the non-drunk people from the inevitable beer-drinking party in high school or the early years of college, you are risking a lot more DUI's, which are more harmful to the community at-large.

Exactly, and that's my biggest (of many) problems with this law.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think its a bad rule just because of the Designated Driver aspect. By scaring away all of the non-drunk people from the inevitable beer-drinking party in high school or the early years of college, you are risking a lot more DUI's, which are more harmful to the community at-large.

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that NOT being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

What about that?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

Right but they are alive crime committers.

Naperville will be the only place in America to abolish underage drinking completely and make a decent chunk of change in fines. It's a win/win.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

I think that you have a point, but you have to weigh whether its worse to not have designated drivers and an increase in drunken driving, or the other way around. Because we all know the parties will happen anyway...believe me, I know.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Naperville will be the only place in America to abolish underage drinking completely...

That will never happen...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

That will never happen...

darn, I thought they had a real shot.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

Has anyone known that many people who were underage drinkers that actually decided "I am not going to drink because I dont have a designated driver"? Hell, I don't know that many adults who make that conscious decision(unfortunately). I think this law will drive away just the kind of people who would make that decision. The rest are gonna risk this ticket as much as they would risk their lives and others lives by being in a car driven by someone intoxicated.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think that you have a point, but you have to weigh whether its worse to not have designated drivers and an increase in drunken driving, or the other way around. Because we all know the parties will happen anyway...believe me, I know.

I agree that parties will happen anyway. My statement above isn't meant to be a value judgement on whether or not this law is a good thing, just as a guess as to why the law is there in the first place.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Has anyone known that many people who were underage drinkers that actually decided "I am not going to drink because I dont have a designated driver"?

Yes. I know (EDIT: and have known over the years) quite a few high school kids that flat-out won't drink without a D.D. I've sat in the student section at football games and watched them *beg* other kids to come to the post-game party to be their driver, or at least show up at a certain time to pick them up.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd venture a guess that this is the very reason for the law in the first place. Like it or not, you can't really get around the fact that being a Designated Driver for the underaged is helping enable/encourage someone to commit a crime.

But, the rationale for raising the federally mandated drinking age to the blatantly discriminatory 21 was to reduce drunk driving.

Besides, you noted libertarian thinkers should be against the 21-year old drinking age, since it is interfering with consenting adults wanting to conduct a business transaction.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree that parties will happen anyway. My statement above isn't meant to be a value judgement on whether or not this law is a good thing, just as a guess as to why the law is there in the first place.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. However, I think the ticket is there because Naperville got concerned when they got to a party and couldn't tell who had been drinking and who hadn't. They didn't or couldn't breathalize everyone, so they just decided to make this law so that it would be easier to get everyone at a party in trouble instead of painstakingly trying to figure out who was and wasn't drinking. This, however, makes it easier on the kids whose parents are outraged that their kid was given a ticket for not drinking.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But, the rationale for raising the federally mandated drinking age to the blatantly discriminatory 21 was to reduce drunk driving.

Besides, you noted libertarian thinkers should be against the 21-year old drinking age, since it is interfering with consenting adults wanting to conduct a business transaction.

When did I say I was in favor of the 21-year-old drinking age? Whether I'm in favor of it or not, it currently *is* the law, and that makes those who break it criminals, therefore leading to my statement that a D.D. for a high school party is helping enable and encourage criminal behavior.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sooner333

However, I think the ticket is there because Naperville got concerned when they got to a party and couldn't tell who had been drinking and who hadn't.

Well, if THAT is the reason, then the lawmakers are nimrods, and the law enforcement agencies that pushed for such a law need to get their act together.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, if THAT is the reason, then the lawmakers are nimrods, and the law enforcement agencies that pushed for such a law need to get their act together.

That has to be the reason Ben. I am sure you have been around enough teen parties/drinking (pix pls, k thx) to know how quickly they can all get rid of evidence they have been drinking (barring of course, BAC). I am sure cops bust parties all the time where they cannot file charges - because by the time they get to the house from the car, everyone there has dropped their drinks and grown a set of wings.

That brings up an important point. I wonder how many of these angels are lying not only about knowing that drinking was going on, but drinking themselves.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That has to be the reason Ben. I am sure you have been around enough teen parties/drinking (pix pls, k thx) to know how quickly they can all get rid of evidence they have been drinking (barring of course, BAC). I am sure cops bust parties all the time where they cannot file charges - because by the time they get to the house from the car, everyone there has dropped their drinks and grown a set of wings.

Well, I would submit to you that the average copped doesn't *really* care that much about teen drinking when he goes to bust up a party, considering that (in all likelihood) the vast majority of cops were underaged drinkers themselves. The very reason that it gets a 'wink' from a lot of parents and other adults is the "I-did-it-and-I-turned-out-alright" mentality.

That brings up an important point. I wonder how many of these angels are lying not only about knowing that drinking was going on, but drinking themselves.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say "most of them." Of the kids I know that drink regularly (i.e. most of the kids I know), I'd guess that their parents are divided pretty evenly into three camps:

1. those who strongly suspect it or flat-out know it, and come under the "I-did-it-and-I-turned-out-alright" description
2. those who suspect it, don't like it, but are afraid of confronting their kid because their kid might not like them
3. those whose kid has the wool pulled over their eyes

The times I am most tempted to break confidentiality and tell parents the real deal is when I see those in camp #3, and the kids are flat-out arrogant around their peers about how they get away with it.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Yes. I know (EDIT: and have known over the years) quite a few high school kids that flat-out won't drink without a D.D. I've sat in the student section at football games and watched them *beg* other kids to come to the post-game party to be their driver, or at least show up at a certain time to pick them up.

Well then you've known some really good kids. I have known people of that age like that too, but I've known far, far more that wouldn't worry about that sorta thing at the onset. I have also lived in a few cities and cultures with huge drinking cultures though, and that could also make a difference.

[Z²+]

While my example does not technically fall under the legal system, it still deals with the same problem. At our university, there is a policy in the residence halls that we refer to as "Knowingly Present" in the presence of alcohol. Simply stated, if an alcohol violation is occurring in a dorm room/suite, everyone in the room is documented as being part of the siutation and eventually meets with the sanctioning committee. An an RA for 3 years, I've been forced to implement this policy numerous times, despite my reservations about its fairness. From my experience, those who were found by the sanctioning committee to be guilty of being knowingly present in the presence of alcohol have received much, much lighter sanctions than those found guilty of actually committing the alcohol offense.

If i hear loud music and enter a dorm room, and find 3 people to be drinking underage, university policy is for to document those 3 people, as well as the one trying to study in the corner and the one asleep in the other bed. Rationale for this policy, as it has been explained to me several times by university officials, is to force our residents to make responsible decisions and to leave a situation that is breaking the university code of conduct (to which I often reply, this is the student's room, and he should have to leave just because his roommate is being inconsiderate and drinking in his presence?). At that point, the standard line is get is "The resident will not be documented or sanctioned if he leaves the situation and informs you about the code (alcohol) violations. He/she can then return to the room as soon as the situation is documented and controlled." Riiiiight.

The things we do for free room and board...

edited for poor grammar

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by henry296

No, there needs to be underage drinking going on not just drinking. If everyone is 21 and drinking and nobody is under 21, my interpretation is that it is ok.

Now if you underage son was drinking while watching the game then your daughter could also be ticketed.

Not to be all lawyerly, but I believe if you give your kids the alcohol, you are responsible for them and thus they wouldn't get a ticket provided they didn't do anything illegal after drinking (i.e. operating a vehicle). So these crazy examples don't work.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Yes. I know (EDIT: and have known over the years) quite a few high school kids that flat-out won't drink without a D.D. I've sat in the student section at football games and watched them *beg* other kids to come to the post-game party to be their driver, or at least show up at a certain time to pick them up.

Wow, that's odd. I've never know anyone like that before. Then again, I don't hang out with drinkers much, but when I do, I pretty much get the pleasure of driving (the non queasy looking) people home.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Z²+

If i hear loud music and enter a dorm room, and find 3 people to be drinking underage, university policy is for to document those 3 people, as well as the one trying to study in the corner and the one asleep in the other bed. Rationale for this policy, as it has been explained to me several times by university officials, is to force our residents to make responsible decisions and to leave a situation that is breaking the university code of conduct (to which I often reply, this is the student's room, and he should have to leave just because his roommate is being inconsiderate and drinking in his presence?). At that point, the standard line is get is "The resident will not be documented or sanctioned if he leaves the situation and informs you about the code (alcohol) violations. He/she can then return to the room as soon as the situation is documented and controlled." Riiiiight.

Two notes on this. Obviously, the roommate cannot narc on the the drinker every time they drink or else they will create an unstable living situation so I can see where you are coming from. Then again, typically in our dorms, our RAs were mostly of the mindset of "drink when I can't see you because then neither of us gets in trouble but hide it when I have to be around because then I have to write you up".

Secondly, the first part of your paragraph sounds farfetched. If someone is asleep in the room, they can always beg off on, well, the fact that they were asleep and I doubt the res halls can do anything. But, secondly, no one in their right mind is studying (sleeping is possible but unlikely) in a room with loud music playing and people drinking. Usually we saw those people out in the lobby or they went to the library or something, if someone had to study while everyone else was just hanging out and making a lot of noise. I had a pretty quiet roommate so it wasn't an issue for me, but for those that had the loud roommates, they were typically out in the lobby doing homework or maybe in the study rooms (tho, those were typically used by, um, couples, judging by the noises there).

SI

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wow, that's odd. I've never know anyone like that before. Then again, I don't hang out with drinkers much, but when I do, I pretty much get the pleasure of driving (the non queasy looking) people home.

SI

I agree that it is odd. It is something I just started observing in the last 5-8 years, too. Perhaps it is that the kids in the Tucker/Northlake community in some ways "grow up" (I use quotations intentionally there. They're not necessarily mature, just sort of "worldly.") faster than kids in other communities I've been in. For example, this summer on our middle school trip we shared a bus with kids from another community, and both their leaders and mine noted a pretty wide gulf in the kids in terms of the things they talked about, music they were interested in, etc. At any rate, I've overheard that conversation quite a few times, and I've also seen a few "friendships" break up when the non-drinker finally gets to the point of suspecting that his or her "friends" that drink are really just using them as week-in, week-out designated driver.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

3. those whose kid has the wool pulled over their eyes

The times I am most tempted to break confidentiality and tell parents the real deal is when I see those in camp #3, and the kids are flat-out arrogant around their peers about how they get away with it.

You would have hated me in high school. Not only did I have the wool over my parent's eyes, it was over the teachers and many of my peers. You know the saying "It's always the quiet ones."? Well, I was VERY quiet in high school.

Originally Posted by stirlingice

Then again, typically in our dorms, our RAs were mostly of the mindset of "drink when I can't see you because then neither of us gets in trouble but hide it when I have to be around because then I have to write you up".

I had an RA who told us "As long as I don't see it or hear it, it didn't happen." I had some great RA's. (I know some of you fascists wouldn't think so, but I do. )

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Obviously, the roommate cannot narc on the the drinker every time they drink or else they will create an unstable living situation so I can see where you are coming from. Then again, typically in our dorms, our RAs were mostly of the mindset of "drink when I can't see you because then neither of us gets in trouble but hide it when I have to be around because then I have to write you up".

For the most part, our staff is of the same mindset as well. No one likes the "out to get everyone" fun police RAs, and we all remember that we were residents in the past as well, and still may discretely break some code-of-conduct policies ourselves. Common sense is key; what you do behind your door in the quiet privacy of your room, I will never know. But when you make me aware of your violations through such behaviors as being overly loud, drinking with doors open, etc., I have to respond to the situation.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Secondly, the first part of your paragraph sounds farfetched. If someone is asleep in the room, they can always beg off on, well, the fact that they were asleep and I doubt the res halls can do anything. But, secondly, no one in their right mind is studying (sleeping is possible but unlikely) in a room with loud music playing and people drinking. Usually we saw those people out in the lobby or they went to the library or something, if someone had to study while everyone else was just hanging out and making a lot of noise.

You make perfect logical sense. But as we all know, college students can not always be logically explained. I have encountered numerous situations where students were "knowingly present" (although maybe the studying example was a poor choice). A prime example from last year is a large madden tournament with 10 or so people. We were called to the room because of a noise complaint from their neighbors, and found several bottles of hard liquor inside. I could plainly tell from facial expressions and speech patterns which students who were drinking and which were not (or at least those who hadn't yet reached the point of exhibiting visible signs of intoxication), but we had to document everyone in the room none-the-less. What really bothered me about that particular situation is that one of the residents in the room was already under residence hall probation for an earlier (non-alcohol related) offense, and the director permanently removed him from the hall for being "knowingly present" (although like I said, he could very well have been drinking and simply not looked intoxicated - one positive of this rule is that it doesn't force me to make the call as to whether someone was drinking or not, since I am not professionally trained in this skill).
The department simply said, in so many words, " You signed a contract to obey these rules while living in the dorms, you know full well they were drinking underage in that room, and you chose to ignore the violations and stay knowingly present with the alcohol."

We had a student die in the dorms 2 years ago from alcohol poisoning, and the parents attempted to blame the university for not handling the situation properly. I'm not sure the outcome of the case or if it is still in litigation , but the department has really, really made a focus of cracking down on alcohol offenses.

Long story, for what its worth.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Logan

For the record, the guy who posted that entry gets consistently ripped on by the entire board for being a complete jerkoff. The thread over there has basically turned into a flamewar between him and one other guy.

JeeberD is a Jerkoff?