|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 21, 2008 15:29:23 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/news/x518442747/State-police-check-for-underage-drinkingI don't agree with this- they are targeting the wrong people. Its like lets try and trick store employees who are working crappy hours and earning min-wage into selling booze to underage kids with fake IDs. And now they have a criminal record all because they needed to work. Yes stores need to be responsible and card them but if you really want to stop kids from buying beer how about arresting the kids themselves and giving them a fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jul 21, 2008 15:33:27 GMT -5
How many times (back in the old days) a kid would come up to me & ask me to get a drink for them in a bar, I can't count. It's so damned easy. They need to card them at the door, but they don't. The owners have this naive view that the under-twenty-ones will just drink soda.
C'mon..
|
|
|
|
Post by rickolney on Jul 21, 2008 17:03:24 GMT -5
My oldest son used to manage a Fast Trak down this way. He used to tell me many stories about how many times DRUNK people (Drivers) would come in and buy beer. He also told me about under-aged kids trying to get past the 'system' ... and he'd even get asked himself, outside on break, if he'd buy some youngster beer. Yeah, no kidding.
I'll also add that my cousin, Dave Olney is a New York State Trooper locally. I hope he and his associates nail as many store employees as humanly possible. There are more conveinance store clerks doing this than we all know, obviously.
Sorry, Todd... that's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Jul 21, 2008 18:56:20 GMT -5
Easy solution.........put it back to 18 where it belongs  |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 21, 2008 21:36:36 GMT -5
Easy solution.........put it back to 18 where it belongs Because it's too easy and too logical, that's why we'll see it stay at 21 or be raised to 24. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 21, 2008 21:44:15 GMT -5
I think the insurance companies certainly have an interest in getting young males past the dangerous age (15-25) without losing too much of their profits through paying hospital bills.
That's the only reason I can think of, other than MADD, why legislators are "responsive" to the problem of underage drinking. So, 24 may be next.
Here's an extraneous thought: the higher we push drinking and cigarette-buying ages, the more of the population we put under control for those substances.
It's OK to raise your eyebrow now.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickolney on Jul 22, 2008 17:47:05 GMT -5
I think the insurance companies certainly have an interest in getting young males past the dangerous age (15-25) without losing too much of their profits through paying hospital bills. That's the only reason I can think of, other than MADD, why legislators are "responsive" to the problem of underage drinking. So, 24 may be next. Here's an extraneous thought: the higher we push drinking and cigarette-buying ages, the more of the population we put under control for those substances. It's OK to raise your eyebrow now. Society can't legislate young men, or women for that matter, into becoming responsible citizens. Least wise, that is my opinion. If a parent that drinks can't properly prepare their child for the real life and consequences to drinking and driving -- maybe the parents should have THEIR insurance rates attached in some manner of speaking. But okay... so if we keep raising the age on things that bear a responsible train of thought by the person partaking, regardless of age, all we're really doing is removing the LEGAL aspect of who should drink legally and at what age. Stupid kids are always going to go beyond moderation. Real stupid kids kill themselves and others. And what says the Insurance industry won't pony up the ante and make male driving age requirements at 28 years of age. R. |
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Jul 22, 2008 19:39:54 GMT -5
Just a reminder it was the federal government under (oh this is gonna hurt! It was the only thing that man did that p--------ed me off and I still say the best president in my lifetime) President Reagan threatened to remove federal highway funding for 55 mile limit and drinking age to 21.
Insurance, that's why you can't have a beer machine or tap at a firehouse anymore. Back in the "nasty days" after we had a call we would come back to the station, put everything back in service and a good amount of the crew would sit and have a beer and a little talk. Helped allot back in those days when ole Route 49 was known as alligator alley or"Get the Jaws out" and you needed a little help digesting what you just saw.
Today as soon as the call is over, everyone is gone. It was another nail in the once proud volunteer fire service.
Rant off...sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 22:04:22 GMT -5
Insurance companies were at first for 55 mph and advertised for it. ("55 Save Lives.") When I later heard not a peep from them as the feds raised the limit back up to 65, I began to wonder why. Turns out 55 reduced deaths, but not accidents. Therefore, it raised the insurance companies payout for hospitalizations. The drivers and passengers who would have died when the limit was 65 instead lived and had long hospital stays when the limit was reduced to 55. Less profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcup102 on Jul 22, 2008 23:28:44 GMT -5
WOW!! I have to say that is an impressive record for no arrests at the convenient stores, unless it was obvious it was an under age kid trying to buy that tipped them off. I agree with this practice, but I also believe more needs to be done with the bars. ABC board is slow to respond when a violation or referral is made to them. This is usually due to numerous complaints and referrals received and the lack of people to check into them. I told the manager of one bar that had several peole hanging outside the front door on numerous occassions, that I would shut him down for the night as my several warnings and getting tired of telling people to go back in, were ignored. Besdies, that is not my job, it is the manager or bartender that needs to maintain an orderly premise. We used to do ABC checks, usually at shift changes when we had the manpower, but now things are so busy that it rarely gets done unless we see a repetive problem.
As far as the drinking age, well, maybe I'm getting old but the 18 to 21 year olds seem to immature even when they are caught at an under age party. They more often than not get mouthy, attitudes(beer muscles), and usually talk themselves right into getting arrested. Rather than saying OK when they are told to dump the bottles or empty the keg and leave, they want to get porky and disrepsect the the gift of a break. I dunno, I think the drinking age should stay as is from what I have seen and dealt with.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 23, 2008 6:39:09 GMT -5
See I agree that it needs to be done- but I do not like the idea of police officers tricking people (who arnt really criminals- unlike pot heads) into commiting a crime just because they are doing there job- everyone makes mistakes. If they do it they should atleat make it obvious that the person is underage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 23, 2008 7:34:03 GMT -5
They aren't "tricking" anyone. They simply send an underage person into a store to buy beer. If they are able to make the purchase, the clerk is arrested. If the clerk will sell it to the police decoy, they would sell it to another underage person. What is there about that process that is trickery?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 23, 2008 8:42:17 GMT -5
It's not embezzlement if you're already pre-disposed to commit the offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 23, 2008 9:23:49 GMT -5
How old are the underage people they are sending in, though? I mean, if they are almost 21 and look older, it's really pushing it, I think.
I remember when I worked at the grocery store I checked the ID of one person who I thought was underage. She was 45! Another person was writing a check, so I needed her ID. She was not buying alcohol, but had she been I probably would not have asked for her ID...she looked plenty old enough. I mean, I would have sworn she was 50. However, must have had a hard life because her ID said she was only 18. It's tough to tell sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 23, 2008 9:35:37 GMT -5
Also, about the drinking age...I think it should be 18. I was pissed when it was raised to 21...felt like a rite of passage had been taken from me! I was a teenager when they raised it. Grrr. ANYWAY...I think it should be 18 and the education about it should be better.
|
|
