Posted by Rob_is_bored (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are there not laws against giving minors alcohol already? Maybe we should quit wasting taxpayers money with committees and crap and just enforce current laws.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm opposed to this as I feel it could criminalize innocent people.
We can't expect organizers of gatherings to be psychic, nor should it be the responsibility of a host to go around carding and frisking people to make sure they are in compliance with whatever laws.
this is ridiculous.
if the host was aware of underage drinking I believe that is called furnishing and/or contributing.

and before some launch into a tirade of how I'm soft on underage drinking, I'll remind you that I have had close family members die as a result of under age drinking.

I don't feel the intent of having laws in the first place was to snare or trick people into becoming criminals.
another thing I am opposed to are these "stings" where police coerce kids into attempting to purchase beer at a pizza place.
that is called contributing to the delinquency of a minor by MN Law.
I don't want kids getting drunk or getting in accidents, and I have never heard of even one instance of this happening at a pizza place.

what a waste of tax money and in general a shallow effort.
ultimately only resulting in a decent hard working low paid person losing their job and getting fined.

Jamie Cooper

on a sidenote, I'll add that if it were not for a certain law in the 1980's that rewarded persons for calling in suspected drunk drivers, a friend of mine wouldn't have panicked when he thought this was happening to him, as a result he went home and killed himself.
certainly alcohol had a role in causing that suicide but, it was his fear that he thought he saw someone calling him in for the bounty that was offered back then, that caused him to flee home and hide from the perceived problem.

the solutions to teen drinking are not redundant laws!
I believe the solutions have more to do with creating an atmosphere in which teens are not afraid to talk with parents and adults about the issues they face.

Jamie Cooper

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe we agree on something Jamie, But you are exactly right on here.

Posted by mamaof2angels (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this is an awesome move... why would you above think that this is a bad thing? underage drinking is against the law... if an adult over 21 does not take the law serious and buys alcohol then there should be punishment... if you are a parent and a child is having a party then you should be held accountable... along with the child having the party.... Why do you all think that partying and drinking is what should be protected? maybe we should be focusing on a community that makes the "change" and finds more positive outlets...
Jamie, I am sorry to hear of your friends suicide.
I agree with you on the solutions to create atmospheres which teens are not afraid to talk about issues, I think if the community is going to enforce this it should also turn around and look at things that this community should be working on to give a place for teens and members of the community to go and have a different, fun, enviornment ...even a swimming pool would be a start!
I also think if this has became an issue, that then neighbors who have more than 6 phone calls in a year of complaints of fighting, and loud nioses... should also be fined.. or I know lets wait until they shoot their whole family? because you do not live in a domestic situation, does not mean living near one does not do harm to your children:)

Posted by Sumwun (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's funny when someone posts a whiny tirade on here that is longer
than the
article itself.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mamaof2angels,
I understand and appreciate why you support this idea however, this law doesn't do anything new other than criminalize people whether they participated knowingly or not.
it is already against the law to throw a booze party for minors,
this is just another redundant empty gesture.

why should you be criminalized if a kid shows up with booze hidden in a pocket to your child's birthday or graduation party?

Jamie Cooper

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

89Heritage,
I think the main disagreement you and I had was about presidential candidates and the two big parties.
I know you and I share many of the same opinions, such as on the reuse of the RTC.
I'm sure we agree on more points than we don't.

Jamie Cooper

Posted by momofthree (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought that there was already a law about this or atleast very similar to this.

I was told that if a party of underage drinkers gets busted that a persons property could be taken. Please, correct me if this is totally wrong and just someone trying to scare people.

And if there isn't already a law or something like it in place, I can understand the idea of wanting such an ordinance, but I think that there should be more thought into how to enforce it, instead of just rushing into an agreement on enforcing it.

Posted by mamaof2angels (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamie,
point well made... I agree ... they should be enforcing laws already created and put their time into other causes!

Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just institute a system of easily secured and matchable State issued id's to purchased alcohol. Force and threat is the basis of law. Any easily identifiable 'you purchased this, why is it here being consumed by underage drinkers' tracking system can have the desired effect, force of action through threat of knowing you will be caught by obtaining and providing for minors. But then, none of this will be fixed until the problem simply of a cities development and tax basis being provided mainly by the sociably acceptable selling of booze but seemingly ignorant or hopeless discussions on the ramifications this policy has on the simply development of attitudes and use by all walks of life over the last 100 years in this state can easily be evidenced by the statistics of how bad Minnesota is in terms of the destructive influence given to drinking.

Posted by potatosup (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I completely agree with Jamie. Well put. There was a time when law enforcement would assist drunk drivers-before an accident happened or even before they left the bar- and make sure they had a ride home, not wait for them to get behind the wheel and then slap them with a DUI. Drinking and driving is definitely not a good idea, but where has the help and compassion gone. The same goes for minors caught drinking. As long as no one was at risk, police would call parents and have them pick up the minor, be sure no one was in danger, all this before an accident or injury occurred. What happened to the good ol' days when the police were there to help us, not instantly turn to arresting. Also, how are minors suppose to learn how to drink responsibly, by 21, without having a beer or glass of wine now and then, while with a responsible adult? (accent on "responsible") And not all parents are the responsible adult in a minor's life.

Posted by Norse (anonymous) on October 18, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whiney Tirade, par for the course with a certain 'kill everybody'.

I find the number of posts in anti-authority position interesting not to mention the admissions of providing alcohol themselves to underage drinkers under the guise of teaching them to drink responsibly (before age 21), in lieu of irresponsible parents in the life of said minor. May this law be passed and the above lawbreakers be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (all of them!).

Posted by potatosup (anonymous) on October 18, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one has admitted to serving minors alcohol. This is just sharing of opinions. My reference is to the cause of binge drinking once a person turns 21. When I was of legal age it was 19. We had our parents and role models closer in our lives than a 21 yr old does. In most cases they have already moved far enough away from family that there is not an adult around to tell them that they've had enough. Most of the people around them are on that high of independence, pushing the limits on how much they can do on their own, in whatever the subject, alcohol included. I couldn't have gotten away with that being just a couple years younger. I think the younger drinking age had it's advantage of more watchful eyes while still being able to drink legally.

I think Norse needs to lighten up and recognize that other opinions aren't always pointing toward some evil mindset.

Posted by Ole_Potato (anonymous) on October 19, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone is ignorant enough to think that people under the age of 21 will not consume alcohol. I think we see statistics and story that indicate some are introduced to drinking as early as 12-13. I do think the law helps to provide a larger chargeable buffer between a young persons ability to choose activities on their own, and the influence of others that are senior to them, as it relates to using alcohol to weaken their own willpower.

Alcohol is generally available to minors in many forms, from taking it out of parents/relatives liquor cabinet, to paying a homeless person to buy for them, to simply having an older friend/relative purchase directly for them and their friends to consume. The law isn't going to stop this from happening, however it will certainly allow the source of acquisition to be reviewed (and assumed in this case) when minors are discovered to be consuming.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and here I thought Republicans like "Ole_Potato" were for less Govt. and always preaching less laws.
explain why a redundant law with a new name developed at taxpayers expense is in any way serving anyone other than the lawmakers.
furnishing alcohol to minors is illegal, providing a location for minors to drink is also illegal.
why should people be criminalized if a minor sneaks on to their property or into an event with booze?
this law suggests that hosts are expected to be psychic or intrusive into the privacy of others or they are criminals.
I will laugh if this is passed and some kid passes out in your yard.
because you are then a criminal!
what a load!

Jamie Cooper

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

by the thinking behind this proposed law, everyone in this city would be a criminal if a teen snuck a bottle of booze into a school dance.
this is preposterous!

Jamie Cooper

Posted by Ole_Potato (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like the guy who passed out in your yard all those years ago? (and probably several more times after that)

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey pal there's a big difference between passing out and being knocked out!
LOL
but this is moot being that neither has ever happened in my yard that I know of.
but then again I wasn't aware that you were following me on my motorcycle or contemplating running my dog and I over to "shut me up permanently" either until you posted so.
I must admit sometimes your death threats and attempts at character assassination sound a bit like terrorism.
how are thing going for you GOP candidate again?

Jamie Cooper

Posted by FFHSStudent08 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, people, lets look at this from open eyes. In Minnesota a parent is allowed to give their child alchohol in the state of MN as long as it is on their own property. Even if they are underaged. If we didn't have all these restrictions there wouldn't be a problem. In Italy the legal age is 16 and they have a lot less deaths and accidents due to alcohol comsumption, but they also treat their alcohol with respect and drink when it is appropriate. We should all be responisible for what we do ourselves, and one way to do that is to let US be responsible, not the government. The GOVERNMENT should not be controlling every little thing we do, that would be called SOCIALISM, and a more familiar form of socialism is communism. Lets not be socialist or communist, be American and be responsible.

Go Here and it will tell you!
http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/s...

Posted by Ole_Potato (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Meatsonic, there is no need for anyone else in the world to attempt character assasination on you, YOU ALONE accomplish that with your band(lol), lyrics, you-tube vids, preacher certificate bought off the internet, and snorting of 9-11 dust for what purpose we can only guess.

As for death threats? You claim that and then wear it out in public as some badge of honor...A clue for you nobody would waste the time to make an attempt on a life so pathetic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJNziWUfV...
Happy Halloween (this one looks like something you would do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo0bE0QIZ...)

As for the passed out guy on the lawn of your families home some years back...I can't quite remember why that was in the paper, perhaps a look through the archives whould show it. Did the guy drinking at their party fall down and freeze to death? Anyone else remember? Or was it one of it's knockouts left for dead?

The only terrorism I have seen practiced is that idiot on youtube telling us he wants to 'Kill Everybody'.

Fergus Falls is a very small town comparatively, you will be seen in public, your actions will be noted by joe-public, and take that at face value.

As for the Obamanation08, it smells just like Gore oh-oh, and Kerrious 0-for.

This country cannot be ignorant enough to vote the skank into office while his party has majority control over the house. Anyone remeber what Jimmy Carter brought us in the early 80's? If you had money you were happy with the 18% interest rates on cars/homes. If you were like the rest of us you were broke and couldn't dare borrow at those rates.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, Ole_Potato, making up people dying in my families lawn?
you are exactly why I cannot condone your republican party anymore!
you are the lowest of the low in our society, you support overly advantaged bloated wasteful self serving politics and attempt to intimidate and even tamper with the democratic process, your party has bankrupted our nation and sent thousands of our people to their death in a unjust war, all just so your clown pres. doesn't have to admit he lied and was just trying to impress his daddy.
it's people like you who have chased people like me to any party other than the GOP.
thank you for confirming again and again that I made the right decision when I resigned from your disgusting party over 10 years ago.
in the future people will look back on the politics of the GOP and ask why the average American allowed such a party to exist like children do now when they learn about the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

just imagine if Gore was allowed to actually serve for the job he was elected to instead of Bush being court appointed as President by the judges his daddy appointed, or if Kerry had won four years ago.
I wonder how the thousands of dead US soldiers would feel about that? how many have died since the Kerry election that wouldn't have?
I see your GOP pals are already rigging this election too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DEQfEQ-l...
as much as 50% margin of error?
Unacceptable!
I'm voting Dem even though I'm not 100% in favor of them simply because they are not Republicans and have the best chance to remove the GOP from power. I normally vote for third party candidates, however like the growing majority, I have now decided that the GOP must be removed at any costs.
John McCain has betrayed even himself.
Sarah Palin is a joke, even she knows it and embraced it on SNL this weekend.

what is your relative point about Jimmy Carter and how he has anything to do with this ridiculous and redundant "social host" law that is being offered?

Posted by Ole_Potato (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my, News at 11....COOPER supports and Promotes AL JAZEERA

AKA Taliban Central News

Posted by fillerup (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/9...

Hmmm....... interesting

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

if Republicans ever put down their prejudicial view against AL JAZEERA and realized it's reporters are from every country including the USA and paid attention, they would have realized that AL JAZEERA provided the location of the taliban leadership just last week.
apparently a task our military hasn't been able to figure out.
they found the taliban leaders by traveling in a station wagon to a well known cave that has been used by them since bin ladden was funded by our tax dollars.

it's not like you'll be hypnotized by being informed there "ole_potato"
it's not like gay, you won't be converted by actually paying attention to the available intelligence.
I'm just glad Colin Powell left your sorry party!
He's right!

Jamie Cooper