Are you serious !? (in Off-topic)

If I'm not mistaken it's legal to buy a gun, smoke cigarettes, get married, and drive a car in Virginia all before it's legal to drink. On top of that a family can be broken apart so that a mother can spend 27 months in jail for letting her kids and some friends drink alcohol at the age of 16.

It just doesn't seem right to me...

This story just made the national news over here in the UK. Sure, you have to respect the law, but a jail sentence for this just seems a little out of proportion.

I dont understand why Americans can die for this country in war, but not drink with buddies when they come home.

Congratulations on moving beyond BBC links, dahling!

Please do put "BBC" into the dictionary, thank you.

Wow. Just wow.

So basically we should ignore those laws which seem wrong? Or just change them when we feel like it?

This "mother" full well knew serving alcohol to her kids and their friends was illegal. She knew that there may be a price to pay, and she paid it.

Not that some laws are not stupid. Like the one where the 17 year old was in jail for having sexual relations (the Bill Clinton style) with a 15 year old. Consensual.

But this was an adult that knew the drinking age is 21 as it has been for 22 years in America. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Perhaps if one of the kids she got drunk went outside and jumped in the pool, or took a car and drove it into a lightpole, your thinking would be quite different.

If it was my son who was at the party, and this "mother" served him beer and wine, I would 100% call for her head on a platter. It is not her right to decide it is proper to serve alcohol since perhaps "they were going to do it anyway".

While she clearly used poor judgment, broke the law and infuriated the parents of the other teens who were at her house...

Before blatantly breaking a law, as well as 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor', you might want to check with the parents of said minors before you do it.
Don't break a law unless you are prepared to suffer the consequences of doing so.

I think you miss my point Ranger.

I guess they may have ended up drunk, (which incidentally they didn't as they were all under the legal driving limit according to the news report I heard) left the party went home and picked up their legally owned firearm, lit a cigarette and shot their wife...

Don't drink beer though ! Mad is the only word I have for it.

I actually agree with the mother. I know full well that if teens want to drink their going to drink, and it's much better for them to be at home safe then out wandering the street.

the really sad thing is that we often let violent offenders or sexual predators out of our prison system to make room for these heinous criminals. even if it is following the letter of the law, our criminal justice system seems to need a big dose of logic and common sense. in the above example commnunity service would seem more appropriate than a jail term.

No Beee, I did not miss your point.

You miss mine.

What right does this mother have in giving other kids, not her own, alcohol?

Perhaps the parents of those other kids do not get a say in how their kids are being raised. These are underage (legal age) children that were given beer and wine by a person not their legal guardian. That alone is reprehensible.

She got exactly what she deserved.

SP,

Americans can die for their country and come home to drink. Military personal are allowed to drink at age 18.

No Ranger. She didn't get what she deserved and certainly her 16 year old kids didn't get what they deserved either given that they've now been robbed of their mother for the next 2 years. They have been punished every bit as much if not more than their mother. They're not old enough to drink so they shouldn't be old enough to have their mother taken away from them.

Also it's my thread so you've went off topic to make your point and still missed mine :p

I don't question the law, I do question the sentence and proportion considering all the other points I've made such as owning a firearm, smoking and driving.

It's madness and I won't be convinced otherwise. :)

"Also it's my thread so you've went off topic to make your point and still missed mine :p "

So to disagree with you in a thread, while staying on topic is going off topic? Please show me where I went off topic.

I type it again, I believe the punishment 100% fits the crime. Apparently so does the district attorney and the judges who gave her and upheld her sentence. Yes, the family is broken up, but the law is the law and she clearly and willfully broke it.

Since you brought it up:

It is not illegal to own a gun, to smoke or to drive between 18 and 21. However it is illegal to drink. Now the why? In America we are mostly a country of morons. I admit it. We cannot hold our liquor and drive. So the powers that be decided we can only do 1. Either have the right to drink or have the right to drive. They decided on driving over drinking. Something I personally agree with, yes. I have seen many a 18 year old in the ER due to drunk driving and lost a few people I knew from it due to a 18-20 year old driver. True, older people drink and drive but the statistics clearly show those 18-21 are at a higher proportion then other age groups.

If this is off topic, then please delete my post and do whatever you feel is the appropriate punishment.

it's the same in my state(nevada) im 18 and can go buy a gun, buy cigarettes, get married, have been driving since i was 16. but not legally able to drink

lol statistics, i got one for ya, the age group that is percentage wise accountable for the most accidents in traffic (not just cars, including motorcycles, bicycles, walking, etc) are the elderly above 65.

But then again statistics don't count when it comes to a 2 year sentence for a pouring liquor to underage kids.
Then again 16 is the legal drinking age (no hard liquor) in Holland so who is counting?
The sentence is a bit harsh, Americans, every thing they do is over the top.

oh, and this happens all the time in my town, except it is counted as a felony and the person only gets about a month in jail. IMO that is a better outcome, especially for a mom. (when someone gets a third 'contribution to minors' they then spend 1-5 years in jail)

god im glad im living in Europe

One reason to love the UK.

Minimum Drining Age;
5 (on private property with parental consent).

The legal age for drinking in one's home is 5 provided parental consent is given. Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless for medical reasons.

But some of the other european contires have no minimum drinking age what so ever...

Well I have a partial answer for the drinking only being allowed at 21 ! Didn't they find out that 21 is about the age were your habits are finished being set ? That way you end up with a lot fewer problems with the evil drink !

Oh and Ranger you are incorrect. I was in the Army at age 18 and you cannot drink on post until you are the legal age for that state. Which is 21 in most states. They used to serve to anyone, but that was changed over 10 years ago. So yes you can fight and die for the USA but not drink until 21.

Cylo,
That is not entirely true. But that would take this thread to a different place. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/f/faqdrinking.htm

So that just proved that only if you are on a base in a state or country where it is legal to drink under 21 and the base commander deems it ok that you can, but in states like Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, California and South Carolina where I was stationed it wasn't allowed. That's all I was saying.

Oh and on point with the post. jSorry Bee for going astray. I personally don't know one way or another. I can't condone giving alcohol to another persons child at all. You don't know that parents beliefs on that. I personally don't think it's right to give kids alcohol at all, but I'm not dumb enough to think kids won't drink if they really want to. So I can understand why some parents would rather them do it at home then go elsewhere to do it and have to find a way home.

The sentence in light of what other people get for doing things I feel are a lot worse, it's kinda crazy in that regard, but I do think she deserved some type of punishment. I feel maybe a public service type sentence with helping people injured by drunk drivers or something would have been better than 27months. Somehow showing her why she shouldn't do it instead of just sending her to jail and ruining the life of her and her children.

Cylo,

But one has to agree that a 27 month sentence with all the press it has garnered is quite a deterrent to anyone else who is stupid enough to give a neighbor's kids alcohol and/or drugs.

As I stated before, if I was one of the parents of one of the kids given the beer, I would think 27 months was too light a sentence.

alcohol and/or drugs

Ah drugs, i was wondering when it came to this topic.
And rofl at slashundhack "they find out that 21 is about the age were your habits are finished being set?" Is this what Americans really believe?
When was this proven? During the dry spell 1920 till 1933?

Lol now its making sence, smoking is allowed at 18? No smoking isn't a habit, not something you can take up one day and leave the other. Lol

I say start em young let them experience a good hangover and they will think twice of drinking.
Example: Look at me i started with a beer when i was 15, i did some weed when i was 17. Not like (now 24) I am living on the streets and im an alcoholic and im doing all sorts of drugs, and I don't have an education because all that alcohol and drugs i did when i was young messed up my brains :)

The drinking age is based on how exceedingly destructive alcohol is to a growing system, even in small doses. Of all alcohol consumed, 25% goes immediately to the brain, and has a strong tendency to disintegrate gray matter. When it touches the liver, it causes permanent scarring damage. When it encounters developing cells, it erodes the growth process. One ounce of alcohol given to a minor has a much larger effect than you want to believe.

To your point, G, what *I'm* hearing is that the age requirement on smoking and owning firearms is too low.

I must be the only bona fide Libra in the bunch... Goodness!

Both sides have valid points. I agree with Ranger that giving alcohol to OTHER PARENT'S children is BAD. How many things have happened in this country where people say, "blame the parents"? Lots. People say it for Columbine, for video game stuff, TV violence, etc. etc. I am not going to get into all that, but holding parents accountable for their own children is a common, justified argument.

Now, we have a woman who gives alcohol to other children. That's wrong. Don't assume that because you want to keep your kid home safe (or whatever) that it is OK with OTHER parents. It is their right and their right only to know what is going on and giving it approval.

Of course, I have no idea if the sentence would have been less had the other parent's known and not been upset. That's where the myriad facets of the story start coming into play.

The Constitution says the punishment must equal the crime. How long would be too long, Ranger? How short would be too short, G_Beee? We have common ground here. I think we agree the mom was wrong -- but to what extent punishment?

Next, G_Beee, you have a point -- let's call a spade a spade... You see drinking as a less harmless thing than those other things you mention by your tone, and take issue with seeming American Puritanism (I'm being a bit melodramatic...). Understandable, I see your point. I feel the same way most days. So let's talk about that. No need to couch your issues in a response to a sensationalist story.

Ranger, I am curious as to what punishment would have been too severe in your eyes? Your tone (again, just my perspective) seems to be, "She broke the law, so she gets what she deserves." Surely there is a spectrum there? Especially in a nation where litigation is supreme. If the other parents are REALLY outraged (like they didn't know?), then they can sue for damages, yes? If the pundits think the punishment was too harsh, then that is at _least_ a possibility, yes? Additionally, the law has nothing to do with heads, on platters or otherwise. Law is not vengeance, and if you think it should be, you are so far off the mark so as to pretty much reduce any common ground to infertile dust.

I just had to quote this...

"It is a ridiculously over-punitive sentence which clearly does not fit the crime. "

That's from the article. What happened to the days of Walter Cronkite (who happens to be in Firefox's AND CB's dictionary) and leaving the opinion out of the facts?

"then they can sue for damages"

Probably not, as she was already convicted. Double jeopardy comes into play. Now, if she was found innocent, the parents could sue every last penny out of her.

"Ranger, I am curious as to what punishment would have been too severe in your eyes?"

Considering she can get 1/2 her sentence reduced due to good behavior, and likely get parole the first time she is eligible, she may only serve 8-9 months of the initial sentence.

I think that is about right, but I do not know the other facts of the case. Like I typed, if it was my child I would call for her head. Unless you have kids, it is a tough concept to understand, but even having a 5 and 2 year old, I can see her sentence being not out of line. The law is not for vengeance, but it certainly is for punishment, and corrupting others kids is a punishable offense.

Exactly, NS. I was pointing out civil possibilities to contrast the fact that justice could have been served in either case, it isn't about "heads on platters"...

Do you have any links for all of your alcohol comments? If what you say is true, wouldn't Europe be a bubbling mass of blubberheads by now? Do liver, brain, and growth studies in areas where drinking starts sooner bear out what you say? Surely, if what you say is true, dramatic differences would have studied, documented, and acted upon decades ago...? The US is something like 40th in alcohol consumption (pure alcohol consumption per capita)... At that low a rate, we would have surely seen bigger disparities between the US and countries higher on that list, no?

Ranger, whether or not her sentence can be shortened has nothing to do with it. That's not a fact of the case. Murder 2 folks can get off with 15-20 years in certain cases too. So what? I am all about arguing about specific issues, one at a time. If you want to have a discussion about shortened sentences and parole in this nation, let's talk about that (I think that is about 3rd or 4th in the queue by now).

As for a kidless person not being able to understand -- Hm, does Liberty have kids? Does every judge have kids? Every juror? That statement was complete and utter nonsense. Having kids, in this case, actually constitutes a flat-out bias -- the very opposite of what the law is about. I am sure the attorneys were careful to make sure at least a portion of the jury did NOT have kids during Voir Dire (if they knew their craft at all).

(By the way, G_Bee has kids too, so sorry, apparently he CAN understand you, while I am abundantly unqualified.)

I was looking for common ground, Ranger, and you give me reasons why certain people won't be able to understand. Thanks for that!

The common ground is that a group of her peers found her guilty. A judge sentenced her to 27 months according to the guidelines setup by the legislature. She appealed her sentence and all appeals were denied. How much time is too much? I do not know, but I can say 27 is appropriate. Please do not try to get me into a corner and say exactly xxx is the right amount, I just do not know.

What more do you want? To just throw the law out the window just because some people think we were a bit harsh on our sentences? Being a father lets me understand and agree with the results of the trial and the sentence. It does not give me bias, but rather I understand and agree with it.

I fail to understand why people disagree with the sentence. She gave alcohol, which was clearly against the law to not only her children but other children, below the age of 18. The statutes are clearly there and the punishment is clearly there. What is the problem?

children that can drive have a potential deadly weapon under there control

i honestly think if the drinking age was lowered to younger than driving age that there would be much less drunk driving accidents in teens. Reason? Teens drink because its illegal, if it was legal i know full well they would not do it as much. So, i say the more logical thing would be to allow drinking inside the home with parents, (not allowed to drink outside the home) at the age of 16 or so, then learn to drive around 18.

People can disagree with the sentence based on their own background and experiences. Surely you can AT LEAST see the other side? At least have a small understanding of why someone else _might_ find the sentence harsh?

We all have lives, pasts, relationships, hopes, dreams, etc., Ranger. Why is it that it seems, when it comes to your opinion over other's, that your gestalt is given superior status?

For the record, I said, from the get go, that I see your point. I even elaborated. And for the record, you have not shown any understanding of alternative viewpoints that I can see.

And for the record, that's how it seems to usually go.

I can see others point, however the point of the thread was to show outrage at the "disproportional" sentence this woman received.

However, I feel it was completely correct. In fact, there are others that agree with me. While I can see the other view, I believe they are wrong and stating why.

Just read that article.

I'm with NS's comment. Wow.

NightStrike, June 19 8:35 PM EDT
I just had to quote this...

"It is a ridiculously over-punitive sentence which clearly does not fit the crime. "

That's from the article. What happened to the days of Walter Cronkite (who happens to be in Firefox's AND CB's dictionary) and leaving the opinion out of the facts?

---That one, to clarify.

Look at the piece. It is labeled. Do not confuse "news" with commentary on same.

And, uh, no. In suing for damages, a civil matter, the likelihood of success is usually considered to be increased by a guilty verdict in a criminal court. Double jeopardy does not apply, as that is a protection against the government trying, more than once, to hold one accountable for the same crime.

See: Goldman? v. Simpson

If she'd gotten the guilty sentence and a 90-day confinement, the deeply-offended parents could sue her for any damages (they could prove) to their deeply-wounded children. Again, whether the penalty is criminal or civil, it's called "the justice system" for a reason.

Oh man some of you are making it sound as if she forced down alcohol and, to quote, "corrupted" teens.

1. they were alreadying going to do it
2. they had already _done_ it

Where's the corruption? If you are going to argue that I don't know those as a fact, then you clearly know nothing about teenagers.

If I was a parent, I would not hesistate to do what that woman did, because I know what happens when drinking is unsupervised.

This is an opinion, and you can tell me I'll change if I have a kid, and I'll tell you that you're wrong. She had her kid's/kid's friends' best interest in mind, and at best, her penalty should have been a fine.

Those idiotic parents are so outraged because they'd rather _not_ know that their kids are well-supervised in their drinking? Are those naive fools thinking it won't happen if all the parents don't condone it?

Conclusion: I agree it is legally wrong, but her punishment did not fit the crime.

"Do you have any links for all of your alcohol comments?"

I can get some, but I don't have the time right now. I'll get you some later, if I can. The Discovery Channel runs a segment every so often about how alcohol REALLY works. At one point, they show a 3d image of a brain of a college senior that reportedly drank 4-6 beers a night all through college. They compared that to a younger person (I forget how old) that never drank. The college kid's brain was not exactly the geometric shape we've come to expect from plastic displays in science class. It was more like a spiky rock, with deep cavities. At any rate, the special goes into a lot of detail.

For good references, check out any psychology departments that treat alcoholics. That's where I conducted a lot of research. The negative effects of alcohol, like most things that people enjoy, aren't widely publicized outside of the areas where it's required knowledge. Let's face it -- people enjoy getting faced, and don't want to be told that it's bad.

noneed --

Inded, I question the kids themselves, as they *accepted* the drink. It was not, as you point out, forced onto them. The parents, likewise, should have raised their children better, to be better people. But they didn't. The kids were at fault, their parents were at fault, and none of that changes what she did.

If three people are speeding, and the cop pulls the first guy over and gives him a ticket, it matters not what anyone else did. *SHE* was pulled over, so *SHE* gets in trouble. If the two other drivers were going twice as fast, that doesn't change the fact that she was speeding.

I'm trying to understand why people are arguing rights and wrongs over an issue that is based on a system that doesn't make any sense in the first place. In a hyper-legal society:

- where moral right and legal justice are separate issues
- and where some can walk from killing a person on technicalities
- where anyone gets out of prison in 1/3rd the time on overcrowding
- people are left to die on the floor of a hospital for lack of insurance there
- and yes, a woman can go to jail for stupidity

. . . will go absolutely no where. Lawyers, advertisers, and spammers have overrun America, and it's only a matter of time before they take the rest of the world down with them. None of it makes sense, and no, there's is no such thing as fair judgment. It's subjective, ruthless, and totally random. Welcome to chaos.

That's true NS, she's the one caught, so she's paying the price. But if you got a 500$ speeding ticket, would you not think it slightly out of the ordinary?

Here in NZ, you can get fined up to 10,000 for serving alcohol to a minor (the management) and 2,000 for the bartender doing it. I'll take a 2k fine over 2 years of jail any day. Hell, I'll even pay the management's fine since I can earn far more than that in 2 years, plus keeping a clean record.

So, if a bartender in America knowingly serves an underage drinker, he'll get jailed for 2 years? Because obviously that drinker is someone's son....

at least she didn't have sex with the kids too (like that other mom that was on the news)

lol TH, that's an awesome comment hahahahaha... rofl

NS... there actually would be a good chance of getting that speeding ticket thrown out on the basis of selective prosecution. ie. the police would have to have a reason to pull that car over instead of the other two. (ah safety in numbers!)

On the subject of the thread:

Considering the number of people in the US penal system I am amazed they want to use up a cell for this. I guess it is par for the course in perhaps the most incarceration happy nation in the developed world.
I think it is interesting that the punishment/deterent argument gets such support. The effectiveness of deterents in criminal justice is suspect at best.
The purpose of punishment is to preclude repeat behaviour in the same individual (and to repay a debt to society) and I don't think Jail in this case is the best form of punishment.

Meh.... Justice is such an abstract concept and our personal values skew the social calculus in our minds.

G_Beee:

If I'm not mistaken it's legal to buy a gun, smoke cigarettes, get married, and drive a car in Virginia all before it's legal to drink. On top of that a family can be broken apart so that a mother can spend 27 months in jail for letting her kids and some friends drink alcohol at the age of 16.

-The sale and use of alcohol is a sociopolitical problem in the US, G_Beee. While the country may have discarded total prohibition back during the the Great Depression, a significant portion of the population still regards alcohol as a substance worthy of very strict control. Heck, there are still plenty of states with dry and semi-dry counties and towns. These sort of people influence the various levels of legislative power, as few politicians will risk their careers by appearing soft on alcohol abuse and related problems, especially where underage drinking is concerned.

Timberwolf:

While she clearly used poor judgment, broke the law and infuriated the parents of the other teens who were at her house...

Before blatantly breaking a law, as well as 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor', you might want to check with the parents of said minors before you do it. Don't break a law unless you are prepared to suffer the consequences of doing so.

-I have to question how the punishment fits the act, Timberwolf. Her actions were non-violent, she made sure none of the youths at the party would drive after drinking and the only consequences for the kids involved were probably a bunch of bloodshot eyes and shaky stomachs. How is that truly worth twenty-seven months in the state pokey? A DUI in Virginia, for comparison, can net a maximum of twelve months in prison and a fine of $2500. [reference] Driving intoxicated, an act that creates clear dangers for both the driver and anyone else around him, can only net a sentence less than half what the woman in the story received for holding a party. Is that just?

Ranger:

I fail to understand why people disagree with the sentence. She gave alcohol, which was clearly against the law to not only her children but other children, below the age of 18. The statutes are clearly there and the punishment is clearly there. What is the problem?

-The problem is that you see the power of the government to regulate behavior and provide punishments for infractions in an absolute sense, while some of the other posters take issue with the moral right of the government to impose sentences without regard to mitigating circumstances and differing concepts of justice.

Nightstrike:

The drinking age is based on how exceedingly destructive alcohol is to a growing system, even in small doses. Of all alcohol consumed, 25% goes immediately to the brain, and has a strong tendency to disintegrate gray matter. When it touches the liver, it causes permanent scarring damage. When it encounters developing cells, it erodes the growth process. One ounce of alcohol given to a minor has a much larger effect than you want to believe.

-So, Nightstrike, you believe the government has more right to your body than you yourself?

Scotland has a very ingrained drinking culture, like a lot of European countries, so maybe that influences G's views on this. But I am in agreement with him; a jail sentence for this seems over the top. Punishing the children as well as the parents, probably causing more damage to their welfare and growth than the alcohol ever will...


As far as linking alcohol to damage to gray matter: yes, alcohol does destroy the brain over time. And yet, referring to G's homeland of Scotland again; Scotland as a country produces more doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, writers, artists, musicians as a percentage of its population than almost any other country in the world. They also produce a lot of alcholics too but hey. Of course, a lot of our government is Scottish so maybe there is proof of long term brain damage........;)

"So, Nightstrike, you believe the government has more right to your body than you yourself?"

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. Alcohol consumption generates negative externalities, i.e. social costs such as increased health costs from the increased incidence of liver disease/heart disease etc, losses in worker productivity, loss of life/injury/damages from car crashes/alcohol related assaults etc etc.

People don't take these additional costs into account when they drink so people tend to drink more than is "socially optimal". The economic rationale behind alcohol taxes and/or regulations such as advertising restrictions/age limits etc is that it reduces consumption to a more socially optimal level and shifts some or all of the additional costs associated with drinking from all members of society to those that actually drink.

So you agree with Nightstrike, then, Sacredpeanut? The government has assumed the power to use coercive means to control and prevent the consumption of various substances to meet arbitrary social parameters. Worrying about lost time should be left to businesses, health problems to individuals and their respective health care providers and legal troubles to the courts.

My point wasn't about whether this woman broke the law or not as she clearly has.

My point was that I'm amazed it's legal to own a gun, drive a car and be married before you're allowed to have a drink.

I'm also amazed that after being found guilty of supplying alcohol to underage "kids" she was sent to jail and removed from her own kids as a result. What damage has been done to them, and is it fair also punish them for her mistake...?

As I said, it all seems a little out of proportion.

PS. I'm a father too :p

What about the family of someone whose death has been caused by a drunk driver? Who reimburses them for the loss they have suffered?

I'm not sure on the health care system in your country but we have a fairly comprehensive public system in New Zealand. An alcoholic who suffers chronic liver disease will probably not pay a cent, it is covered through the health system and therefore ultimately by the government.

It's a well known fact that many of the costs of Alcohol are no absorbed by the consumer but paid by society as a whole. I can point you to numerous papers that discuss the indirect costs of alcohol on society.

You can do what you want to your body , but as soon as it starts infringing on others it becomes societies problem, not just yours.

That's just daft SP.

Who's talking about drunk driving? Anyway, there's more kids on the slab in the morgue as a result of driving accidents than there are for drinking a few beers.
Remember what we're supposed to be talking about here... A woman who took the car keys from everyone before they were allowed to drink. A woman who supervised the party and wasn't responsible for any of the "kids" being drunk as none of them were over the driving limit when tested by the cops anyway.

It's a disproportionate sentence.

As for the health care system. New Zealand has a very well developed healthcare system and is famous for having an extremely comprehensive system modelled on the UK National Health Service. ;)

I missed that bit about the kids not being over the limit for driving; so we're talking about kids having maybe half a glass of wine or 2 small cans of beer at most. 27 months for that!!!? o.O

G Beee, I was going slightly off-topic and replying to IA who was arguing that drinking only affects the person doing it therefore the government has no right to intervene.

I agree with you actually, I know many parents who let their children drink underage as long as it is supervised and undercontrol. It does seem disproportionate given similar offences that get you over two years jail time.

Beer - more beer.

I would always rather go to a country that allows parents to supervise their children rather than the state - the UK are getting very harse on taking away supervisiory rights from parents.

My parents allowed me to drink and smoke (not just cigarettes) in the house when I was 18 and it did me a hell of a lot of good and I respected them for it.

I had no choice at the time I murdered them - I was sent a message from an alien species living in their garden shed.

IA, while I would love to talk about your topic more (gov't regulating behavior), I don't see where NS (or SP, subsequently) supports the gov't having control over our bodies. He merely stated where the gov't got the IDEA for the drinking law, and talked about that. One can see the support for a law but still not agree with it. That is, anyone who can see more than one side of an issue at any given time. Let's stay connected folks, don't splinter.

NS, I found a couple articles about brains and alcohol, so no need for links. I guess I am just surprised that if it is really THAT bad, we would have seen a larger discrepancy between countries with higher youth drinking and the USA.

Don't get me wrong, I know alcohol is bad for the body... I'm just absorbing the data right now and trying to make sense of it.

He's been absorbing the data, experientially, for years. It hasn't noticeably slowed him.

In fact, one might argue my wit has softened in all the right places and sharpened in all the right others! *smile*

The dose makes the poison.