Hehe. Classic! (probation revoked due to internet evidence)

[Ben E Lou]

Hey kiddies, here's a hint. If you're going to break the law, get caught, then violate your probation, DON'T CELEBRATE AND GLORIFY IT ON THE INTERNET WHILE MENTIONING THE JUDGE BY NAME!!!


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060128/METRO/601280349/1003&template=printart

Teens draw jail time from judge targeted on Web site

Caught drinking at their prom, they got probation, then made profane references to judge on site that celebrates drinking

Associated Press /

January 28, 2006
TROY -- A judge who sentenced three teenagers to probation for being drunk at their high school prom had them jailed after he saw them drinking and ridiculing him on a Web site one of them created.

"I told them, 'If you think this gives me any pleasure, you're wrong,'" Oakland County District Judge Michael Martone said after sentencing the last of the girls, Amanda Senopole, to 10 days in jail last week.

"You know, it's just a crying shame. I work my butt off trying to help kids like this, trying to figure out what works. And then they do things like this."

Senopole and eight other Troy Athens High School students were caught drinking at their prom last May. They were arraigned before Martone on misdemeanor charges of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Martone, who had appeared at Athens High days before the prom to warn graduating seniors against drinking, sentenced the students to probation, fines, court costs, community service and alcohol-education classes. As a condition of their probation, he ordered them not to drink and to avoid places where alcohol is served or consumed.

Several months later, Martone was looking on the Internet for a news release on one of the many alcohol prevention programs he has promoted during his 13 years on the bench. He entered his own name into a search engine and came to a site belonging to Mary Meerschaert, one of the Athens students he had sentenced.

His computer screen showed Meerschaert, Senopole and some of the other students who had appeared before him in court -- making obscene gestures, chugging shots of Jagermeister liqueur, posing with beer cans stacked nearly to the ceiling and vomiting into toilets.

The Web site's headline included an abbreviated obscenity directed toward the judge.

Meerschaert, by now enrolled at Michigan State University, had used a digital camera to create an Internet photo gallery with students appearing passed out and couples playing a drinking game among its more than 400 images. Many of the picture captions were profane and directed at Martone.

The gallery also showed Senopole, Meerschaert's roommate, and another co-defendant in the prom incident, Rachel Stesney -- enrolled at the University of Detroit Mercy -- drinking at parties at Michigan State.

"They made a mockery of the legal system," Martone said. "I had to do something."

The judge showed the Web site to police and probation officers. It became legal evidence for charging the three women with contempt of court "for disobeying my direct order not to consume alcohol," Martone said.

Meerschaert and Stesney appeared before Martone on Dec. 23. Meerschaert admitted that her Web site did use profanity aimed at Martone, and that she had a drinking problem.

He sentenced her to 30 days in the Oakland County Jail, then sentenced Stesney to 15 days. They shared a cell during Christmas and New Year's Day.

Senopole appeared before Martone last week, telling him: "I have a new roommate now. She doesn't drink." She also said she earned a 3.6 grade-point average in the fall at Michigan State, and pledged she would introduce her dormitory to an alcohol education program.

Martone doubled Senopole's hours of community service, to 100, but gave her less jail time than Meerschaert and Stesney -- 10 days -- and let her serve them one at a time, on weekends, "so it doesn't interrupt your studies."

Of the nine students who drank before the prom, two others also have served jail time for later alcohol infractions.

Cheryl Stesney would not let her daughter comment. Martone, she said, "let his anger get out of control. He was just so hurt and embarrassed by that Web site."

Meerschaert's mother, Polly, agreed. "I do feel this is all about vengeance. I won't say my daughter didn't make a mistake. But the minute it became personal, the judge should've removed himself," she said.

"Judge Martone's a fair man," Senopole's father, Tom, said outside the courtroom last week. " ... She was just in the wrong crowd, wrong time, wrong place."

[Butter]

The judge "let his anger get out of control"? I would say the kids are lucky they got off with as little time as they did.

File this one under "teenagers today are indeed bigger dicks than when I was a kid".

[sachmo71]

The most amazing part of the story is that the one girl made a 3.6. I want proof.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

The most amazing part of the story is that the one girl made a 3.6. I want proof.

I am quite certain her lawyer would not have let her claim that in court without proof in hand.

[panerd]

Anyone else not totally believe the judge's story? I feel no sympathy at all for the moronic kids, but I also don't buy that he happened to stumble onto this site while searching for something else. I guess I am just cynical after working with a couple of crazy teachers who used to monitor websites to find out what kids were saying about them. It seems like the judge would have to really go out of his way to find this site.

[Klinglerware]

A 3.6 is doable. A lot of people can function at a high level even while they abuse alcohol. Unless you are working a full-time job at the same time, there is a lot more downtime in college than in the real world. You can certainly still do well in school while binge-drinking on weekends.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by panerd

It seems like the judge would have to really go out of his way to find this site.

Not really. Doing a search on one's own name is fairly common. My wife stumbled across an old thread on this board while doing a search on her maiden name once. I've had kids and parents that didn't know it was there stumble across my YL web site doing searches on their names. I was looking for some info that my father-in-law had done on the effects of spanking, and ran across a web site for a camp that he attended 50+ years ago. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

BOTTOM LINE: If you're not willing to face the consequences of someone finding something on the 'net, the LAST thing you would want to do would be to list their name.

[Ben E Lou]

ON THE RECORD: 'I don't have a good answer for you. I was really angry'

A court transcript of Mary Meerschaert's hearing before Judge Michael Martone reveals this exchange:


Martone, reviewing her letter, which asks for leniency: You say you felt betrayed by the judicial system. You say you felt bitter, so you decided to post some Web shots.


Meerschaert: Yes.


Martone: I would like to know what "F U Martone" stands for.


Meerschaert : It's not what you think. It's not angry. It's not...


Martone: Remember what I said about being honest?


Meerschaert: Yes.


Martone: I would like to know.


Meerschaert: I, I don't have a good answer for you. I was really angry, and...


Martone, viewing the Web site on his laptop computer: Then if we go down to some of these photos, I find them very interesting. That one that is dedicated to me, and it looks like you're standing in front of a City of Troy sign that was stolen.


Meerschaert: It wasn't stolen, your honor.


Martone: Oh, the City of Troy has signs in dorm rooms at MSU? ... Because you have an alcohol problem, you're going to make a Web site and mock the system?


Meerschaert: That's not what I intended.


After many exchanges, Meerschaert finally admitted that words and symbols on her Web site were, indeed, profanity aimed at Martone. But she insisted the photos overstated her drinking.


Martone replied sarcastically: Oh, you're posing. You're posing with a drink in your hand. ... Drinking a Jagermeister in front of that sign and dedicating it to me?


Meerschaert, near tears, said:Your honor, I'm really sorry. I know I need help. I'm doing a ton of community service.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by panerd

Anyone else not totally believe the judge's story? I feel no sympathy at all for the moronic kids, but I also don't buy that he happened to stumble onto this site while searching for something else. I guess I am just cynical after working with a couple of crazy teachers who used to monitor websites to find out what kids were saying about them. It seems like the judge would have to really go out of his way to find this site.

You're kidding, right?

Not that it matters, you know. You make it sound like the judge did something wrong by finding this website, whether he stumbled on it or went looking for it. Even if you are right, and he went out of his way to look for it, he did nothing wrong. That's what the criminal justice system is supposed to do - look for people breaking the law and catch them. Thats why I believe the judge's story, he has no reason to lie. If he heard about this website and went looking for it, the kids are just as guilty of drinking while underage, breaking probation and contempt of court.

SkyDog has it right, don't make it easy for someone to find something you don't want them to see by posting their name on it on the internet. In fact, I would suggest that you don't post pictures of yourself committing any crime - whether or not you agree with the law making it a crime, and are really angry that you got punished for getting caught - on the internet.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Not really. Doing a search on one's own name is fairly common. My wife stumbled across an old thread on this board while doing a search on her maiden name once. I've had kids and parents that didn't know it was there stumble across my YL web site doing searches on their names. I was looking for some info that my father-in-law had done on the effects of spanking, and ran across a web site for a camp that he attended 50+ years ago. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

BOTTOM LINE: If you're not willing to face the consequences of someone finding something on the 'net, the LAST thing you would want to do would be to list their name.

Believe me, I know what you are saying. And I totally agree with your bottom line, the kids are morons. But I still think the judge was looking for 'dirt'. I just don't buy that he needed to type his name into a search engine. If I type my name and school into Yahoo using Mr. instead of my first name I get all sorts of results. But I would probably only do something like that if I wanted to find out what somebody is writing about me.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You're kidding, right?

Not that it matters, you know. You make it sound like the judge did something wrong by finding this website, whether he stumbled on it or went looking for it. Even if you are right, and he went out of his way to look for it, he did nothing wrong. That's what the criminal justice system is supposed to do - look for people breaking the law and catch them. Thats why I believe the judge's story, he has no reason to lie. If he heard about this website and went looking for it, the kids are just as guilty of drinking while underage, breaking probation and contempt of court.

SkyDog has it right, don't make it easy for someone to find something you don't want them to see by posting their name on it on the internet. In fact, I would suggest that you don't post pictures of yourself committing any crime - whether or not you agree with the law making it a crime, and are really angry that you got punished for getting caught - on the internet.

Not trying to blame the judge for anything. I just think he was trying to nail the kids and would have more respect for him if he said that then the reason he stated. Believe me, I don't defend the kids one bit.

[jeff061]

I think the judge just did a search on his name, found a site and got pissed. The "looking for dirt" idea is a stretch. I kind of doubt those twits were any more important to him than any other sentencing he does.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not trying to blame the judge for anything. I just think he was trying to nail the kids and would have more respect for him if he said that then the reason he stated. Believe me, I don't defend the kids one bit.

Sorry, I took your comments to mean you thought the kids got screwed.

The reason I take the judge's comments at face value - he's got no real reason to lie. If he'd said that someone alerted him to this site, and he went looking for it, there'd be no reason for him not to say that's how he found it.

I also don't think he was trying to "nail" the kids. I think he gave them less than the maximum punishment each time. If he were truly trying to nail them, I think he could have been far more brutal.

So, I guess the answer to your question "Anyone else not believe the judge's story" would be, no

[Coder]

I just get a little annoyed at this though, but obviously it's the law.. I have a really hard time acknowledging that they have a "drinking problem" because they party during the weekend. I also have a hard time coping with the fact that being drunk when you're 18 is a court-matter in the first case.

The legal drinking age in Sweden is 18. Kids caught drinking before that age are not subject to being prosecuted or whatever, they're simply taken home to their parents and are punished enough by the embarassing situation.

The site was obviously moronic, but it's quite obvious that they took the "best" pictures they could find to enhance the effect. The Judge's actions feel a bit, what's the word, as if he's using his powers to avenge a personal insult. I would agree with the parent above who says that he should have handed the case over to someone else.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I kind of doubt those twits were any more important to him than any other sentencing he does.

Bingo. The guy has been a judge for 13 years, and has been in Oakland County--a middle-to-upper-middle-class haven, it would appear--for at least 8. I'm sure he's sentenced plenty of underage drinkers over the years.

[jeff061]

I also have a hard time coping with the fact that being drunk when you're 18 is a court-matter in the first case.

The legal drinking age in Sweden is 18. Kids caught drinking before that age are not subject to being prosecuted or whatever, they're simply taken home to their parents and are punished enough by the embarassing situation.

This isn't Sweden? I mean I wouldn't 't be upset if they did what you want(unless they were driving around), but it's still the law.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Not really. Doing a search on one's own name is fairly common. My wife stumbled across an old thread on this board while doing a search on her maiden name once. I've had kids and parents that didn't know it was there stumble across my YL web site doing searches on their names. I was looking for some info that my father-in-law had done on the effects of spanking, and ran across a web site for a camp that he attended 50+ years ago. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

BOTTOM LINE: If you're not willing to face the consequences of someone finding something on the 'net, the LAST thing you would want to do would be to list their name.

Agreed. One of my co-workers told me to do a search on my name the other day, because they all had. I was surprised to see quite a few references about myself. Of course, there were plenty of references to people who shared my name as well.

From the facts in the story, I applaud the judge's actions.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by jeff061

This isn't Sweden? I mean I wouldn't 't be upset if they did what you want(unless they were driving around), but it's still the law.

I know it isn't.. I just think it's too harsh. I fail to see what they're learning by being jailed for drinking alcohol.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Coder

I just get a little annoyed at this though, but obviously it's the law.. I have a really hard time acknowledging that they have a "drinking problem" because they party during the weekend. I also have a hard time coping with the fact that being drunk when you're 18 is a court-matter in the first case.

The legal drinking age in Sweden is 18. Kids caught drinking before that age are not subject to being prosecuted or whatever, they're simply taken home to their parents and are punished enough by the embarassing situation.

The site was obviously moronic, but it's quite obvious that they took the "best" pictures they could find to enhance the effect. The Judge's actions feel a bit, what's the word, as if he's using his powers to avenge a personal insult. I would agree with the parent above who says that he should have handed the case over to someone else.

I actually agree with you in that I don't have a problem with 18 years olds drinking. I don't feel that the law is fair on that issue. But, since we have made it illegal, we have to enforce the law, and these kids broke the law. Another fact is that what they went to jail for was not drinking per se, but breaking the terms of their punishment/disobeying a judge. In this country, we tend to be lenient on people first offense of just about anything, giving people a chance to prove that they made a mistake, were not repeat offenders, etcl These kids totally borked that chance, and were proud of it to the point of wanting to flaunt it to the whole world.

Also, the initial offense here appears to be drinking at the prom. I think regardless of the age of students (or their parents or guests) drinking at school property or functions is inappropriate and should be illegal.

As for leaving punishment of people under 18 to their parents, I think the quality of parenting in the cases of much underage crime prevents that from being effective in the US.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But, since we have made it illegal, we have to enforce the law, and these kids broke the law.

I won't argue with you there. Laws are laws and should be enforced. My post was more a way to express my thoughts on what I consider a way too harsh punishment.

[kcchief19]

I see your drunken teenagers and raise you a drug dealer with business cards

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/13709979.htm

Business card offering 1quick hit' leads to drug arrest

LEAVENWORTH, Kan. - The business cards got a response, but surely not what their owner had in mind when he had them printed up.

They came to the attention of Leavenworth police, who used them to make a drug arrest last week.

Sylvester J. Williams, 21, of Leavenworth, was charged Monday with possessing crack cocaine with the intent to sell it, Maj. Patrick Kitchens of the Leavenworth Police Department said.

Kitchens said Williams remained in custody Wednesday on $75,000 bond.

He said police had heard for some time that Williams had been selling drugs in the area. "Then we heard that he was handing out business cards," the officer said. "In the course of our investigation we were fortunate to come up with one, and we gave him a call."

Kitchens said the business card had an image of what appeared to be an alarm clock being hit by a boxing glove and said: "For a quick hit on time call the boss."

"When he answered, we agreed to buy some crack from him, we went up there, and we arrested him," Kitchens said.

The arrest was made Friday.

"It makes our job considerably easier when they advertise and let us know where to get ahold of them," Kitchens said.

[Eaglesfan27]

Someone already posted this story about the drugdealer (maybe it was Skydog?)

[stevew]

They shared a cell during Christmas and New Year's Day.

And then late one night when they couldn't sleep.......

This is how the Cinemax genre of prison movies start, or so I've heard.


Anyways, these kids are idiots, and its a good lesson for them to learn that you gotta be somewhat respectful of people in positions of authority, even if you dont particularly like them.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Someone already posted this story about the drugdealer (maybe it was Skydog?)

I *know* I posted it, but I sure can't find it right now.

[tarcone]

whats sad is the fact that the parents of 2 of the girls are blaming the judge......does anyone see a connection between the girls posting the website and the parents lack of teaching their girls to take responsibility for their actions?

[lungs]

Probation for underage drinking? Jesus. That's dumb.

I know I had to attend court mandated alcohol counseling (AODA) a few times for my 'transgressions'. What a joke. The only reason I was there was so I didn't get my license taken away. Hell, my university even paid for it.

Of course the first time I lied through my teeth and said I didn't drink too much. Then I showed up the second time and was more truthful. Of course when it came time to make my plan of action, the only plan of action I had was to turn 21 in a few months and then I wouldn't have to go to that crap.

Lo and behold I turned 21 and haven't been in trouble since. It's pretty simple after that... don't drive drunk and don't fight and you won't get into trouble.

A lot of this court mandated crap is stupid. Probation for underage drinking? License revocation for underage drinking? How dumb is that when the circumstances of the violation don't involve driving.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lungs

I believe that the consequences for breaking the law should not inconvenience me.

Fixed.

[JediKooter]

Some of those parents need to understand what PAROLE VIOLATION means. Their perfect daughters violated parole and got thrown in jail, why is that surprising? It's not personal, it's business.

[NoMyths]

Re: the Leavenworth drug dealer

I'm actually shocked that the Leavenworth PD bothered...guess it was too egregious to ignore. Terrible drug problems in town, and the police rarely seem to do much about it.

Then again, we're talking about the same department that doesn't have its own photo processing, and farms out all of their photos to One Hour processing at Wal-Mart (or at least did, sez me, who spent a summer processing such).

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Fixed.

I know this was intended to be a funny smart ass comment but you are pretty darn close to how I feel.

I would change it to: I will choose the path of least inconvenience when I've been caught breaking a DUMB law.

When offered a chance between losing my license or listening to some lady tell me that I'm a drunk, I'll choose the latter. Even though she'd be repeating information I'm already aware of.

I don't blame the judges in any of my cases. I don't know the circumstances of the actual first case and why these girls ended up on probation. If probation was part of the minimum punishment, then there really isn't a whole hell of a lot the judge can do.

Usually judges aren't the problem. I've never dealt with an unreasonable judge. Actually, I've never seen anybody in the state of Wisconsin given more than the minimum sentence for underage drinking. Some counties are harsher than others and most municipalities are very lenient in the dollar amount of the fine for early offenses.

It's these other things that legislators force judges to impose on top of simple fines by appeasing the descendants of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and certain groups that had very noble intentions in their beginnings but have gone above and beyond the scope upon which they were founded and now act as if they won't stop short of re-instituting prohibition.

My solution is simple... 19 year old drinking age and no more than a fine. Offer AODA counseling for those that wish it but don't force unwilling participants like myself into them with the threat of taking my license away for a non-driving related offense.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Some of those parents need to understand what PAROLE VIOLATION means. Their perfect daughters violated parole and got thrown in jail, why is that surprising? It's not personal, it's business.

If I'm not mistaken,

Parole violation means you've violated the conditions of being released from prison.

Probation violation means you've violated the conditions set by a judge so you wouldn't have to go to prison/jail (there are differences between prison and jail).

I believe you got your words mixed up.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by lungs

My solution is simple... 19 year old drinking age and no more than a fine. Offer AODA counseling for those that wish it but don't force unwilling participants like myself into them with the threat of taking my license away for a non-driving related offense.

Right, so those with unlimited means can drink all they want with no real accounting for it. Good plan.

If you are underage, what exactly can they take away from you if you are repeatedly breaking the law? License seems like a pretty good start. Obviously the counseling isn't exactly getting the desired response (an make it elective? How many would attend then exactly?), as it is quickly ignored. Might as well get straight to something that gets attention.

Also, if you think that teenagers who are breaking the law to begin with are going to all of a sudden become responsible while they are drunk, I think you have too high an opinion of the average teenager. Heck, adults don't even have that part down.

[cuervo72]

Dola - that "solution" doesn't accomplish anything, besides letting everybody drink as they please.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Dola - that "solution" doesn't accomplish anything, besides letting everybody drink as they please.

I think that's what he was shooting for.

[cuervo72]

Yep, pretty much.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Coder

I know it isn't.. I just think it's too harsh. I fail to see what they're learning by being jailed for drinking alcohol.

They were jailed for failing to follow simple court orders and violating their probation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Dola - that "solution" doesn't accomplish anything, besides letting everybody drink as they please.

And the irony of this statement coming from someone named "cuervo"

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Anyone else not totally believe the judge's story? I feel no sympathy at all for the moronic kids, but I also don't buy that he happened to stumble onto this site while searching for something else. I guess I am just cynical after working with a couple of crazy teachers who used to monitor websites to find out what kids were saying about them. It seems like the judge would have to really go out of his way to find this site.

If you're dumb enough to post it to the internet, you're dumb enough to get it read by someone. We're not talking about illegal wire taps or something. It's on the internet- you know, that thing where practically anyone can go and post something stupid. Doesn't mean you don't have to take some responsibility for what you put there.

There's a fuzzy grey area when posting with a screen name, for instance. But if you're dumb enough to post your name, the judge's name, or both, you're kindof asking for it. It's like leaving your diary with your name and address in the middle of Times Square.

SI

[sterlingice]

More nuggets from another story about this incident:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...0321/1001/NEWS

She also said her fall grade point average at MSU had been 3.6. She pledged to Martone that she would introduce her dormitory to the alcohol-education program B.R.A.D., named after Brad McCue, the student from Clarkston who died at MSU in 1998 after drinking 24 shots of liquor.

24 (?!?) shots?!?

After the photos, Meerschaert climbed into a white Hummer limo with 17 friends, including her soccer teammate Rachel Stesney and Amanda Senopole, whose grade point average was just a fraction lower than Meerschaert's.

Hummer limos are the stupidest thing ever. Ok, so that really isn't relevant to anything here.

"The concession was that Mary could have her stole just to take home, so that we could take her picture in her full cap and gown. But she had to turn it back in and she could not wear it across the stage at Masonic Temple," said Polly Meerschaert.

Their graduation is at the Masonic Temple? Cool! Again, not really relevant.

More than 400 digital photos showed some students appearing passed out, others using special tubes to gulp beer, couples playing a drinking game called "beer pong," inebriated girls sitting on toilets -- all of it tagged with captions, many of them profane and aimed at Martone.

To a post from before, it sounds like while he took the ones that best proved his point there were quite a few to choose from so it's not an isolated one.

SI

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the irony of this statement coming from someone named "cuervo"

SI

Oh, hadn't thought of that. I guess I should be a good enough authority though, si?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Right, so those with unlimited means can drink all they want with no real accounting for it. Good plan.

If you are underage, what exactly can they take away from you if you are repeatedly breaking the law? License seems like a pretty good start. Obviously the counseling isn't exactly getting the desired response (an make it elective? How many would attend then exactly?), as it is quickly ignored. Might as well get straight to something that gets attention.

Also, if you think that teenagers who are breaking the law to begin with are going to all of a sudden become responsible while they are drunk, I think you have too high an opinion of the average teenager. Heck, adults don't even have that part down.

You lump teenagers into one big category like I'm talking about giving 13 and 14 year olds the right to drink. I'm talking about giving 19 and 20 year olds the chance to drink much like most of the rest of the civilized world does.

If that step were taken, then you can forget about anything else I've said in this thread. I simply do not see why a 19 or 20 year old that is not driving drunk or breaking the law in any other way should be fined for drinking. Obviously a magic light doesn't turn on when you're 21 either, as you said. So why deny legal adults?

The best argument people seem to come up with is that it's the law and deal with it. OK, deal with it. But that doesn't stop the law from being asinine.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by lungs

You lump teenagers into one big category like I'm talking about giving 13 and 14 year olds the right to drink. I'm talking about giving 19 and 20 year olds the chance to drink much like most of the rest of the civilized world does.

If that step were taken, then you can forget about anything else I've said in this thread. I simply do not see why a 19 or 20 year old that is not driving drunk or breaking the law in any other way should be fined for drinking. Obviously a magic light doesn't turn on when you're 21 either, as you said. So why deny legal adults?

The best argument people seem to come up with is that it's the law and deal with it. OK, deal with it. But that doesn't stop the law from being asinine.

Perhaps the states/feds/cities/whoever made up the "assinine" law to in some way get it through the stone-rimmed heads of said 19 and 20 yr olds that they should'nt BE DRINKING because they're IDIOTS and get into TROUBLE when doing so.

Sorry, but your whole argument is immature, juvinile, and without supporting data.
The "I don't like this law so its obviously assinine" angle is petty and self indulgent.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Perhaps the states/feds/cities/whoever made up the "assinine" law to in some way get it through the stone-rimmed heads of said 19 and 20 yr olds that they should'nt BE DRINKING because they're IDIOTS and get into TROUBLE when doing so.

Sorry, but your whole argument is immature, juvinile, and without supporting data.
The "I don't like this law so its obviously assinine" angle is petty and self indulgent.

Actually the Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds thus the states were blackmailed into it.

And if they're causing trouble when they are drunk... then ARREST THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING. How hard is that? Alcohol may be the fuel for the fire but if you are worried about drunken idiots then you might as well ban alcohol all together.

Does turning 21 magically turn a light on and people stop acting like idiots? There will always be drunken idiots and age does not make one damn difference.

If you were arguing against alcohol altogether I'd understand. I don't see how wanting legal adults to have the legal privileges of other adults is immature and "juvinile".

Obviously this country must be enlightened on this issue and the rest of the world.

Some examples:
UK: age 5 in private with parental consent and 16 or 18, depending on the circumstances.
Switzerland: No legal drinking age, 14-16 for beer and wine, 18 for spirits.
Malaysia: 21 (except sale to Muslims and consumption by Muslims is illegal)
Japan: 20
Egypt: 21
India: varies state to state 18-25
Rest of the World: Usually 16-18

This is supposed to be a state issue and would be if the Federal government would stay the hell out of the business of the states. That way all those states with dry counties (what an absolutely foreign concept here in Wisconsin where you can find a tavern in the middle of nowhere) or whatever could keep their laws if they wish.

[Desnudo]

I'm a firm believer that the drinking age is a dumb law. However, the real core of the discussion here should center around the stupidity exhibited by girls. I think they got what they deserved.

[Ragone]

If the drinking age was to be reduced.. I can GUARENTEE there would be a giant upswing in not only dui's.. but dui fatalities.. Do you want to take the chance that one of those is one of your loved ones? I think not

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by lungs

You lump teenagers into one big category like I'm talking about giving 13 and 14 year olds the right to drink. I'm talking about giving 19 and 20 year olds the chance to drink much like most of the rest of the civilized world does.

If that step were taken, then you can forget about anything else I've said in this thread. I simply do not see why a 19 or 20 year old that is not driving drunk or breaking the law in any other way should be fined for drinking. Obviously a magic light doesn't turn on when you're 21 either, as you said. So why deny legal adults?

The best argument people seem to come up with is that it's the law and deal with it. OK, deal with it. But that doesn't stop the law from being asinine.

You're right about the law denying people who are legally adults in every other way the right to consume a legally available product not making sense. If the powers that be want to make the legal age of adulthood in this country 21, then fine. But if people can vote, register for the secret service, and have full legal rights in everything not involving alcohol, it baffles me how people can think its right to deny them that.

But to argue that people should not be punished for breaking a stupid law is even more assinine. The minute we let people decide which laws apply to them and which do not, we lose the ability to prosecute any criminal. They simply tell the judge that law is stupid, and they're outside hailing a cab. Doesn't work.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ragone

If the drinking age was to be reduced.. I can GUARENTEE there would be a giant upswing in not only dui's.. but dui fatalities.. Do you want to take the chance that one of those is one of your loved ones? I think not

That is why you make DUI laws strict. Sweden has a lower drinking age, but the BAC limit for driving is breathtakingly strict: .02. American authorities tend to half-ass their enforcement of DUI laws compared to the Europeans, especially once it gets to the legal system.

While age limits on consumption can be very difficult to enforce, stricter drunk-driving laws and enforcement can make a difference.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ragone

If the drinking age was to be reduced.. I can GUARENTEE there would be a giant upswing in not only dui's.. but dui fatalities.. Do you want to take the chance that one of those is one of your loved ones? I think not

Yes, yes I do.

You are trading personal freedom for safety, a trade I am not willing to make. There are lots of other trades of freedom for safety we could make. For example, the streets would be much safer were we to institute martial law and a national mandatory curfew. Which of those would you endure make to keep your family safer? You probably see these as ridiculous examples. To me, they are no more ridiculous than, and natural extensions of, denying any rights to adult citizens of this nation.

[Drake]

I think we should ban all forms of alcohol, starting with cuervo.


:P

[Drake]

The lack of a tongue-sticking-out smiley kills me.