Underage drinking parties UPDATED INFO POST 68.....

[crashbb]

My DH had a job where if you got a DUI you were automatically terminated, this was a 1 figure a year income. Did it keep them from drinking and driving NOPE. So I can guarantee you, it wouldn't work for teens.

Well, if I was getting paid $9 a year (or less), I'm not sure that I'd worry about keeping the job either

 

[aprilgail2]

Well, if I was getting paid $9 a year (or less), I'm not sure that I'd worry about keeping the job either

LOL---I was thinking the same thing!

 

[bookgirl]

Where I live it would change thier future I live in a state with social responsibility laws or host law. If underage drinking is discovered at a house party the parents/adult living there are charged. Aggressivly charged. There have been a number of cases where lives were changed. Either the college athelete over 21 lost college scholarship (arrested, charged and prosecuted) or parents of the party throwing teens were charge with a crime and ended up losing a job.


It's also not like it has not been very well broadcast here either, but I know of at least a couple of instances where adults refused to furnish booze, or people were ratted out before the party could even happen.

I think it's great when someone is willing to make people accountable for dumb mistakes. Sitting on the bench for a sectional game is better than family and friends sitting in a pew crying over a coffin of lost potential and dreams.

That being said I think people should educate thier children about Responsible drinking before they are 21. Kinda like drivers ed before you get your licsence. (I have let my nephews taste something I'm drinking even at thier age 13, at 18 I might let them try a beer, but there is no way I'd let them drink, drive, throw a party where others would drink or be a part of some large boozy party of underage kids heck I have never had more than one glass of wine or a couple of beers in front of them as we as adults don't have booze parties around the kids so that they don't think that is appropriate behavior). There's a difference between responsible use of alcohol and just making dumb decisions and hope for the best or assume that it wouldn't happen to your child or someone you know.

 

[Andtototoo]

As asked previously, were these kids in attendance or actually tested & blew positive? That is my question, even if the list came from the cops that does not mean they were all tested etc. it could just mean in attendance and if that is the case then again, its guilt by association.

That's exactly how Disney runs the CP. If they find drugs/alcohol in an under-21 apartment, everyone in the apartment gets terminated. (The only exception is if the roommates rat out on the person doing the drugs/drinking, so in that situation, it pays to be the tattletale.) When my dd was in the CP last spring, they had a "party bus" that goes from apartment complexes to bars and one night, the kids on the bus were so rowdy, the driver called the CP to come out and deal with them. TPTB ended up terminating everyone who was on the bus. Dd knew someone who'd just gone out with her friends, had not drank any alcohol and she was fired too just for being on the bus. No breathalyzers, no appeals, you were just gone -- total guilt by association. So in that sense, such a school policy is preparation for real life.

 

[njmom47]

When I was in FL, and dh was still working nights, dd2 had a party. We knew about it. Granted, she told them her ddad was upstairs asleep (for the early part of the night), she only had about 10 kids, and not everyone drank. Dds bf drove a couple of people home, and some slept over. DS (the "bouncer") corroborated all this. I wasn't happy with the idea, but things were as she said they would be, so it was ok in the end.
And I know when I was growing up, that's really all we did on the weekends...and in HS I dated a 3-letterman who was the one who brought me to these parties!
My main concern, if my child had truly never experienced drinking, would be how they would handle it when they're away at college.

 

[cornflake]

In many states there are increasing limits on driving at young ages--not after certain hours, not with passengers, etc. I consider that creeping up.

In NY (I just looked), under 18 you can't drive except between 5 and 9, must have an adult in the car, cannot have more than one passenger under 21, etc.

I can't think of any parent that would drop a teen off at a party with alcohol, no matter what the age was. I don't care if it was legal. They are too young to know when to say when, they don't need to have a child die from drinking too much. Sorry but this just is not a good idea. Teens don't need alcohol.

No one NEEDS alcohol, but I don't think there's some magical property to turning 21 that makes one able to handle alcohol, especially if they've never had it before. I think it's less likely that kids who have been drinking socially for years will start with bingeing and going bonkers with it than will kids for whom it was a big taboo reserved only for adults.

My DH had a job where if you got a DUI you were automatically terminated, this was a 1 figure a year income. Did it keep them from drinking and driving NOPE. So I can guarantee you, it wouldn't work for teens.

That's an ENTIRELY different thing though. We're talking about drinking, not drinking and driving.

Stupid horrible people are stupid horrible people. I don't think age will change them much, nor do I think being stupid and awful are inherent teen qualities. There are plenty of people and kids who wouldn't drink and drive.

 

[ladypage]

Oh, I agree with you. I was just pointing out how it was here. Personally I think there are way too many laws that encourage driving drunk. Let's say you drink too much and realize you are too drunk to drive so you decide you are going to sleep it off in the car. You can still get a DUI in a parked car here. I think it is ridiculous. All that does is tell someone that they should risk driving and get home as opposed to risk sleeping in the parking lot and getting arrested anyway. Now, I realize calling a cab is the better choice but still, as long as they aren't out there driving I don't care what they do.

This is yet another thread that just blows my mind when it comes to what parents allow the schools to do. Parents should be in charge of their kids when they are not on school property or at a school event. They have no business butting in when anything happens outside of school but they do. I played sports all through school and not once did I sign anything about what happens outside of school and I wouldn't have. I would rather not play than give up my freedom. Kids got busted at parties, in fights over the weekend, and stuff like that and as long as those things didn't continue in school (a rematch of the fight for example) the schools butted out. That is how it should be.

Yup, we have that law here too. You also can not walk home because being drunk in public is also against the law. One of the local bars had a designated driver on duty, and they would drive the patrons home. A few years ago the local cops started pulling that DDs over, and arresting the people in it who were drunk. They still got DUIs or Drunk in Public even though they weren't driving or anything. The DD would also get a ticket. Granted, I don't think this lasted long, and I'm betting any of the people who tried to fight it got it thrown out, as the legality of it was shady at best. But it shut down the bars DD program, they couldn't bother with it when they would get at least two tickets a night.

 

[pacrosby]

No one NEEDS alcohol, but I don't think there's some magical property to turning 21 that makes one able to handle alcohol, especially if they've never had it before. I think it's less likely that kids who have been drinking socially for years will start with bingeing and going bonkers with it than will kids for whom it was a big taboo reserved only for adults.

I respectfully disagree. Teens, even college students, often (very often) drink for the sole purpose of getting buzzed/drunk. It is not for social reasons nor because they simply like the taste. IMO introducing kids to social drinking at an earlier age will do little to change the behavior of the "partier". And that's what a lot of kids like to do....party.

That's an ENTIRELY different thing though. We're talking about drinking, not drinking and driving.

Stupid horrible people are stupid horrible people. I don't think age will change them much, nor do I think being stupid and awful are inherent teen qualities. There are plenty of people and kids who wouldn't drink and drive.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that the brain of a teen is not fully formed which is why they are more prone to participation in risky behaviors. With teens it's rarely a matter of being stupid and awful...it's lack of experience, inability to assess risk, the sense that "it" will never happen to me etc. etc. etc.

 

[ladypage]

Where is the age to drive creeping up? I am 49 It was 16 in my day and it still is.

Depends on what state you're in. There are also limitations, for instance, in my state I could get my license at 16, but couldn't drive anyone except for an adult, and I couldn't drive past 11 pm, or before 7 am.This particularly sucked because I was in a lot of sports that started early and got back from meets late.

 

[cornflake]

I respectfully disagree. Teens, even college students, often (very often) drink for the sole purpose of getting buzzed/drunk. It is not for social reasons nor because they simply like the taste. IMO introducing kids to social drinking at an earlier age will do little to change the behavior of the "partier". And that's what a lot of kids like to do....party.


There is plenty of evidence that shows that the brain of a teen is not fully formed which is why they are more prone to participation in risky behaviors. With teens it's rarely a matter of being stupid and awful...it's lack of experience, inability to assess risk, the sense that "it" will never happen to me etc. etc. etc.

I'm of the opinion that the kids who drink to get drunk and binge and etc. are more often the ones who didn't drink socially to begin with. If it's just a normal thing to drink, and has no 'woohoo!! Party! Quick!' forbidden fruit/taboo associated with it, I think kids are less likely to binge like that, or to think of that as what alcohol is for.

As for the latter, I think they're absolutely stupid and awful people. It's not about experience, it's about 'this is not what one does. Period.' If you want to drink, that means you don't want to drive.

Plenty of adults drive drunk - anyone old enough to be allowed to operate a vehicle should know better than to do that, and if they don't, or dismiss it, then... I'm not going to excuse that behaviour.

 

[runsandjumps]

All I can say is if you're going to drink as a teen -please have a Sober friend. I know my kids will experiment but I don't want them to do it excessively. It would be naive to think kids won't do something because of an age limit. I don't drink myself, and I hope someday my children will understand my reasoning.

 

[Planogirl]

I'm in the camp that thinks the schools should not dictate behavior away from the schools or school functions. There is a local district that is contemplating monitoring all students' facebook pages which I'm strongly against. It wouldn't work anyway because the kids would just set up "dummy" pages and actually use others to communicate.

However if the kids sign agreements with the schools then they should honor them.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's an ENTIRELY different thing though. We're talking about drinking, not drinking and driving.

Not exactly.
Both are illegal. For adults drinking & driving = breaking the law. For teens (with rare exception) drinking is illegal.

Can an employer fire an employee for being accused of a crime? I think it's the same with these teens. We keep harping about "personal responsibility", well, that's exactly what this is. The kids (and their parents?) signed these agreements to participate in extracurricular activities. No one held a gun to their head to do so. They did it of their own free will. If they felt they had a problem abiding by the "contract", they shouldn't have signed it.

Now, I do believe only those kids who were drinking and actually picked up by police should be punished. It should not be extended to those who were there, or those who were "seen" by others at the party.

 

[zoo2tycoon]

To the person who asked if my kids go to BIG BROTHER SCHOOOL...

NO. It is a public school with mid-western 'values'.
Homeboys who protect each other!
Do I approve of all---nope but when we agree to terms of things they need to enforce all across the board---not just by who you are or who your daddy is.

Teachers are good...focus on learning. Have received national/state awards for academics.

I think all outside activities and those driving should be under the drug testing.

Do I agree with the 365 day thing...not really BUT we had our kids sign off and we did so a rule is a rule that we agreed too. My kids have no choice if they want to play...so therefore we follow.

There is also a 25% suspension from next sport...so if they have winter sport they are out 25% of season---clearly spelled out on agreement we signed. If no winter sport than spring sport (whatever next sport is).

Guess if kids were smart they wouldn't have blabbed all over twitter and at school----parties all the time where this goes on but kids are smart enough NOT to say things.....this is when social media is not place to post!

 

[mamacatnv]

I'm in the camp that thinks the schools should not dictate behavior away from the schools or school functions. There is a local district that is contemplating monitoring all students' facebook pages which I'm strongly against. It wouldn't work anyway because the kids would just set up "dummy" pages and actually use others to communicate.

However if the kids sign agreements with the schools then they should honor them.

Ohhh Heck NO!
DD's school has a cell phone agreement that included me as a parent giving some unknown "administrator" permission to view my child's calls and texts upon demand. I refused to sign it, instructed DD to not sign and reminded her that if anyone ever tells her to hand over her phone for viewing or a password for Facebook etc. that she is to state calmly and respectfully "call my parents, now" and do not comply.

I don't like to be a trouble maker but I do think that we as parents need to draw our own lines in the sand and stand by them.

 

[mhsjax]

Well, if I was getting paid $9 a year (or less), I'm not sure that I'd worry about keeping the job either

HaHa, boy did that come out wrong... It was a 6 figure income that I meant to type. Boy, cant believe I missed that one.

 

[penn19]

Ohhh Heck NO!
DD's school has a cell phone agreement that included me as a parent giving some unknown "administrator" permission to view my child's calls and texts upon demand. I refused to sign it, instructed DD to not sign and reminded her that if anyone ever tells her to hand over her phone for viewing or a password for Facebook etc. that she is to state calmly and respectfully "call my parents, now" and do not comply.

I don't like to be a trouble maker but I do think that we as parents need to draw our own lines in the sand and stand by them.

Absolutely! At the elementary school my son attended, the Principal made one of his classmates log onto her fb page in front of her to show her a page that was set up that the Principal thought was a slam against her. It wasn't. It was a page for kids in that grade level. I read it. No big deal. And no slam against the Principal.

I told my son that no way was he to sign in to his account at school at a teacher/administrators demand. As you said, I told him to repeat, "call my mom".

 

[luvsJack]

Ohhh Heck NO!
DD's school has a cell phone agreement that included me as a parent giving some unknown "administrator" permission to view my child's calls and texts upon demand. I refused to sign it, instructed DD to not sign and reminded her that if anyone ever tells her to hand over her phone for viewing or a password for Facebook etc. that she is to state calmly and respectfully "call my parents, now" and do not comply.

I don't like to be a trouble maker but I do think that we as parents need to draw our own lines in the sand and stand by them.

There is a local private school that does this. They sent a form home with all jr. high and high school students to be signed by both kids and parents, stating that if a school administrator saw student anywhere (Saturday, at the movies, for instance) they could ask for their phone and check all text messages.

Most of the parents actually agreed to it, from what I was told. They liked the idea that someone else was helping them monitor their kids.

 

[mamacatnv]

There is a local private school that does this. They sent a form home with all jr. high and high school students to be signed by both kids and parents, stating that if a school administrator saw student anywhere (Saturday, at the movies, for instance) they could ask for their phone and check all text messages.

Most of the parents actually agreed to it, from what I was told. They liked the idea that someone else was helping them monitor their kids.

I personally think that is just crazy. Being a private school I can see how they can get away with more monitoring but no way would I go along with that. Too much room for abuse of power.

 

[penn19]

There is a local private school that does this. They sent a form home with all jr. high and high school students to be signed by both kids and parents, stating that if a school administrator saw student anywhere (Saturday, at the movies, for instance) they could ask for their phone and check all text messages.

Most of the parents actually agreed to it, from what I was told. They liked the idea that someone else was helping them monitor their kids.

Wow. Just wow. I don't like to get into the whole Big Brother thing, but NO WAY am I ever going to allow something like that. I mean, what exactly are they looking for? And if they find something, then what?