This is a thread for discussing the drinking age and how we might help return it to 18 where it belongs. I'll be sending LTE's to NH college papers and maybe posting flyers on campuses, inviting them to this thread via the tinyurl.com engine. May take a while for this to take off...and it will likely do so only once local college students grab it and run with it.
They are old enough to go to war. They are old enough to vote. They must be old enough to drink. :)
Quote from: russellkanning on January 12, 2005, 11:21 AM NHFT
They are old enough to go to war. They are old enough to vote. They must be old enough to drink. :)
Agreed.
I drank when I was 18 . . . but then, the Air Force had shipped me off to England where the legal age was 18.
We might want to consider balancing this with a program about responsible Drinking, perhaps a flyer:' Your Right To Drink And Your Responsibilities' and I wouldn't limit to those under 21.
Lloyd
Is this a state or federal law? The smoking age is 19 is Utah but 18 here.
Enjoy your rights at 18. Please vote and drink responsibly. ?;D
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on January 12, 2005, 03:27 PM NHFT
Is this a state or federal law?? The smoking age is 19 is Utah but 18 here.
Probably another one of those cases where the state must comply or miss out on getting some Fed tax money back.
Quote from: russellkanning on January 12, 2005, 11:21 AM NHFT
They are old enough to go to war. They are old enough to vote. They must be old enough to drink. :)
But what then would the kids have to look forward to after 18? 21 is the last age marker, after that, you're just getting older. :)
Quote from: intergraph19 on January 13, 2005, 06:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on January 12, 2005, 11:21 AM NHFT
They are old enough to go to war. They are old enough to vote. They must be old enough to drink. :)
But what then would the kids have to look forward to after 18? 21 is the last age marker, after that, you're just getting older. :)
Oh shush. It is bad enough that I have to ask friends to buy my cooking wine and the wine I drink with dinner! I am 20 in a couple days and have been drinking wine with dinner and cooking with it since I was 13!
JP
Stop using cooking wine. Don't cook with wine that you wouldn't drink!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on January 13, 2005, 11:02 PM NHFT
Stop using cooking wine. Don't cook with wine that you wouldn't drink!
"Cooking wine" i have had no trouble purchasing, but it tastes nasty. I always cook using real wine!
JP
Oh, I get ya. I thought you meant 'cooking wine' the crap in the bottle labeled 'cooking wine"
I get ya
I get ya
Its a state issue. Last I checked only 1 state has a drinking age of 18. The reason states have it at 21 is the federal government gives them transportation money to set it there. I believe NH is possibly the only state in the nation that could change to 18 because NH already loses federal funds for not having a seatbelt law. Someone should look up how much money the state could lose for switching to 18. Dan
We don't want federal funds we want our booze! :D
You don't even drink :o
The tinyurl.com direct link to this thread is tinyurl.com/4wdny
Most excellent...it works like a charm 8)
Sent to the Keene State College paper via their submission form at
http://www.keeneequinox.com/main.cfm?include=submit
Dear folks at the Equinox:
In a free country, Keene State College students would be allowed to drink alcohol legally. Yes drunk drivers should be locked up, and yes there are legitimate concerns when *minors* drink. But if you're 18 you're an adult...old enough to be drafted. If we can trust you with an assault rifle, we can trust you with a beer. Legalization would also make it easier for 18 year olds to party in safe places rather than driving to and from hidden events.
Help us make this country free again (or at least this state). Visit the New Hampshire Underground at NHunderground.com. There you can help us organize protests and activities aimed at returning the drinking age to 18, where it belongs. If nothing else, it will annoy the Feds!
We can't get the law changed tomorrow. But we can put seeds of doubt in the minds of the public regarding the current "Nanny Rules" that have driven you underground. And, successful or not, protests are a lot of fun! :)
If you want to go directly to the thread where we are discussing this cause, head to tinyurl.com/4wdny
The nation's busybodies have stripped you of a liberty you never had the chance to lawfully enjoy. It's time to regain that liberty and put the "Free" back in "Live Free or Die."
What can we do to help lower the drinking age in NH?
Russell wrote:
<<What can we do to help lower the drinking age in NH?>>
Maybe think of a visual publicity stunt. But as I say, I'm tending to think we defer to the teenagers on this if practical. If they show up here and are ready to fight for their freedom then this can move forward...if not it should go on the back burner. That's my thinking.
Gee I just don't know anything about drinking. ;D
Quote from: Pat K on January 18, 2005, 02:01 AM NHFT
Gee I just don't know anything about drinking. ;D
LOL
JP
I've been working on the drinking age issue in Vermont for the last year. It was part of my gubernatorial campaign. I've done a lot of research on it. It is a great front burner issue. I have a few suggestions for outreach in NH.
What's happened in Vermont last year
A state representative introduced a bill to lower the drinking age last January. It generated a ton of media.
We canvassed about 20 of the 27 colleges in Vermont.
We collected 2000 postcards calling for the drinking age to be lowered.
We collect 500 online petitions signatures for the drinking age to be lowered.
We held a debate at the State House with two Reps, the Commissioner of Public Safety and the president of NYRA (http://www.youthrights.org/").
I polled the legislators on their position on the drinking age and what they would feel comfortable supporting. Most were very uncomfortable about losing federal highway dollars. In Vermont it would have been $10 million.
We set up an email system so people can email their legislators to support lowering the drinking age.
What's happening in Vermont this coming year
The representative who introduced the bill to lower the drinking age to 18, will be introducing a different bill to allow teens to drink with their parents when they are at home and in private establishments such as bars, clubs, and restaurants. The goal is to end the forbidden fruit affect, end the laws in Vermont that treat parents as criminals for being parents, and to allow parents to be the role models for their teens to teach responsible and moderate drinking.
There is a state senator who has also expressed interest in introducing a bill.
We are putting together a list of expert witnesses to testify in possible committee hearings.
We'll be doing more outreach.
Avoiding losing federal funds
By passing a law to allow teens to drink with their parents when they are at home and in private establishments such as bars, clubs, and restaurants you avoid any loss of federal highway funds.
I'll post my plan A and plan B in another message.
Benefits
This is a great outreach tool for college campuses. Some students get excited about it and want to help. Others don't care because they do it illegally anyway.
Two Options to Avoid Losing Federal High way Funds
If you are philosophically supportive of lowering the drinking age because it is age discrimination, because you believe it will help reduce alcohol abuse, or for some other reason, but you are concerned about the state losing 10 million dollars in federal highway funds, then read on...
Vermont has at least two options where we will not lose any federal highway funds as long as we are in strict compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age (NMDA) Act 1984.
Option 1: Parental Option
Option 2: Lawful Option
If you believe the drinking age should remain 21, but want to reduce the problems associated with underage drinking, then you might still be interested in option 1.
National Minimum Drinking Age Act
Before I explain the options, it is important to understand what the NMDA Act actually says. Here is a link to the law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC158
Federal highway funds are ONLY withheld when "...the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful." There are two conditions "lawful purchase" and "lawful public possession" in this statement that are used to determine if a state loses 10 percent of their federal highway funds.
Public Possession
The definition of "public possession" in relation to NMDA is defined by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration in Appendix 7 of their "Community How To Guide Policy" http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/community%20guides%20html/Book6_PublicPolicy.html#App7
To quote the relevant section. The national law specifically requires states to prohibit purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages [to avoid losing federal funds]. It does not require prohibition of persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking alcoholic beverages. The term ?public possession? is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following.
* An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian age 21 or older;
* Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or medical institution;
* In private clubs or establishments; and
* In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer.
Option 1: Parental Option
Overview:
The Parental Option would allow persons under the age of 21 to drink at home and in private clubs or establishments when accompanied by their parent or legal guardian.
Current Situation:
Kids learn dangerous drinking habits from their peers in unsupervised settings in the woods, an empty house, or driving around in a car. Vermont's current law penalizes parents who know their kids are going to be drinking and want to give their kids a safe, supervised location to do it. The current law penalizes parents with up to two year in jail and a minimum fine of $500 and maximum of $2000 for supplying alcohol to their own child. Binge drinking and alcohol abuse among high school and college students is very high. Several states (CT is one example) allow consumption in homes, meaning parents are not penalized if they give alcohol to their children.
Benefits:
The Parental Option is similar to how most of the world treats alcohol, whether their drinking age is 16, 18, or 20.
* This option places a strong emphasis on supervised alcohol use. Parents can teach teens to respect alcohol, to drink responsibly and to drink in moderation.
* The "forbidden-fruit" effect is removed.
* This could also lower the alcohol related fatality rates in Vermont to rates similar to those of Canada and Australia, which have rates of 55% and 70% lower than the United States.
Legality:
NMDA prohibits purchase, but it does not prohibit consumption of alcohol in homes and private establishments (clubs, pubs, restaurants,...) by persons under 21 years of age. Vermont would lose no federal highway funds by taking this first step towards a more liberal and family-oriented alcohol policy in Vermont.
Implementation:
This should be implemented as soon as possible, to start the shift towards supervised, moderate, and responsible use of alcohol by teens in order to lower the amount of alcohol abuse among teens now, which will lead to less abuse among adults later in life.
Option 2: Lawful Option
Overview:
The Lawful Option would keep the purchase and consumption by persons under the age of 21 unlawful, but it would remove all penalties for purchase and consumption by adults 18 years and older. It would lower the priority of arresting those 18 or over for responsible drinking.
Current Situation:
Current law discriminates against 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults based on their age. At eighteen, you can vote, get married, enter into contracts, smoke cigarettes, defend and kill for our country in the armed services, and even own a bar, but the only thing you cannot legally do is take a sip of wine. Alcohol abuse with binge drinking increased among 18-20-year olds after the drinking age was raised to 21. Many college administrators support lowering the drinking age to 18 because it is easier to deal with drinking on campus when the administration can treat all college students as adults.
Benefits:
* Although we can't change federal law, we can stand up for the adult Vermonters who are facing age discrimination by the federal government.
* By removing penalties and shifting the focus of law enforcement and courts to higher priority issues, the State will save approximately 2.7 million dollars.
Legality:
NMDA only requires states to make the purchase or public possession unlawful. By keeping public consumption and purchase illegal, yet removing the penalties and setting law enforcement's priority to the lowest setting when it comes to adult alcohol purchase and responsible consumption in Vermont, then Vermont will still qualify for all 10 million in federal highway funds. This will allow law enforcement to focus on the true problems, like drunk driving.
We have other laws on the books that make actions unlawful, but are not enforced. For instance, Title 13, Ch 51, ? 2134, the possession of any instrument of gambling is unlawful, yet people own dice, cards, poker chips, roulette wheels...we rarely enforce this law.
Implementation:
Many are concerned about 18-year-olds going crazy if we remove the penalties on them. The large majority of them already drink regularly, so while there might be a week of partying it will quickly settle back down. One way to make the implementation smoother would be make the law take effect during July when most college students are not in school.
Another concern is that if it is easier for 18-year-olds to get alcohol, then younger people will have greater access to it. Since the drinking age was raised in 1987, high school junior and senior alcohol use has only been reduced by a few percentage points, while at the same time drinking use among 8th graders has increased 17 percent. One solution to this might be to increase the penalties for supplying minors with alcohol.
Conclusion
I have heard from 35 legislators in support of lowering the drinking age to 18. I've only heard from six opposed to it. The Governor supports lowering the drinking age, if we don't lose federal funds. Senator Leahy opposed the passage of NMDA Act in 1984. The Secretary of State supports lowering the drinking age. I expect there are the votes in the legislature to pass option one or two.
Option 1 should be implemented before the end of this session so we can start reducing alcohol abuse in Vermont, the sooner we start the more lives we'll save.
Give Option 2 some consideration. It follows the strict definitions of NMDA, and we won't have the guilt of needing to support age discrimination in Vermont. Would we lower the drinking age if it weren't for the federal extortion of 10 million of our tax dollars?
Please contact me if I can answer any of your questions. hardy@freevermont.org or 802-372-9512.
Sincerely,
Hardy Machia
31 Town Line Road
Grand Isle, VT 05458
http://www.freevermont.org/
But see, we don't want to recieve Federal highway funds.
Tracy
You can legally _serve_ alcohol as a bartender at 18 in NH, even though you cannot legally drink the stuff yourself.
Quote from: tracysaboe on September 25, 2005, 12:27 PM NHFT
But see, we don't want to recieve Federal highway funds.
What you want to do and what you can politically do are two different things. Give it a shot in NH. Maybe the politicians won't mind losing $15-30 million or so in federal highway funds in NH. My postings were to educate people on this list about what we are doing in Vermont, what the current federal law says in case you want to repeal alcohol prohibition on 18, 19, 20 year olds and not lose any more of your tax money to the feds.
NH will lose 10% of whatever federal highway funds they receive. Note, that federal highway funds are generated by taxing people in NH at 19 cents per gallon. So, when you say you don't want to receive federal highway funds, you are saying that you don't want NH taxpayer to keep their tax money.
If you think you can pull off a straight repeal the 21-year-old drinking age in NH, then more power to you. Whatever folks decide, reaching out to 17-23 year olds ought to be considered in all of this.
Hardy
Every time I've seen 18-20 year olds arrested for drinking or possesion I've thought that these folks should be out there in activism instead of breaking the law. They can vote, they can run for state office. Get out there and do it.
I would support here in NH.
I also think that something needs to be done about the exceptionally early time at which bars are forced to close. I just moved here a week ago and I'm shocked at how early the nightlife shuts down. I've lived in Panama for the past year, where the bars are open all night, and I've never seen a barfight or any major disturbance. I see at least two major points here:
1. It is extreme economic discrimination against bar/club owners when the best they can hope for is 3-4 hours of business on a good night. In addition, some clubs may never open simply because of the poor profit potential.
2. It actually causes greater problems for the police when a flood of people is forced onto the streets all at one time. If they were left alone to trickle home when they desired there would be no issue.
They're forced to close at a certain time in New Hampshire?
Bar closing time is a municipal decision.
Really? This is not a statewide law like Ohio? I've been out to clubs in Nashua and Manchester and they all seem to close around the same time, i.e. 1-1:30. That could make it even more difficult to work for change if each town is doing its own thing...
I would think that local level law would make change easier. If I own a bar in town A and have to close at 1:30 and, the next town over has a later closing time, I'm more likely to become an activist.
I think they recently ended closing laws in GB or at least London to avoid last minute power drinking and everybody hiting the roads at one time.
I get confused at this argument. Libertarian (small-l) minded people talk about decentralizing government and then when they want to get rid of a certain law that is decentralized they complain that it would be so much easier if it was at the central level government.
Just my $0.02.
totally agree
I think Thomas Jefferson prefered to have as much power (such as taxing) at the lowest levels possible.
Wasn't decentralization one of Jason's ideas in proposing the fsp?
Tolstoy said that Russians should hope for the independance of slavic countries and a break up of the nation ...... not an empire buildup.
Quote from: patmccotter on September 26, 2005, 05:15 PM NHFT
I get confused at this argument. Libertarian (small-l) minded people talk about decentralizing government and then when they want to get rid of a certain law that is decentralized they complain that it would be so much easier if it was at the central level government.
Power should be local, but restrictions on government power should be as centralized, and universally applied. Otherwise, the battle must be fought every time, at every level, and every location.
Kevin
Quote from: patmccotter on September 26, 2005, 05:49 AM NHFT
Bar closing time is a municipal decision.
Oops! I think me spoke too quickly on this. RSA Section 179:17-II-(b)
II. The following restrictions on hours of sale reflect the times during which a licensee may sell beverages or liquor, unless further extended by the commission:
(b) On-premises licensees may sell from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Kinda funny (in a sad way) to read this thread and the following article on the same day:
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/alerts/reader/0%2C1854%2C578338%2C00.html
Quote from: toowm on September 26, 2005, 09:56 PM NHFT
Kinda funny (in a sad way) to read this thread and the following article on the same day:
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/alerts/reader/0%2C1854%2C578338%2C00.html
:P
That organization is completely hopeless.
"Underage drinking doesn't just impact the youths who take a drink, or their families, or even their schools. It affects all of us," said Dr. Susan Lynch, First Lady of New Hampshire.
Our country is so stuck up and snotty, it's unbelievable. :o
Wasn't her daughter just arrested at UNH for underage drinking? What a hypocrite.
see she was right .... it does affect all of us ..... or at least her family
Someone should approach Lynch's daughter and find out if she's liberty friendly. Then she could be the point girl for a drinking-freedom campaign.
Can you see the press?
"Lynch's Daughter Aligns with NHFree.com to Decriminalize Teen Drinking!"
Ian wants the law changed so he can drink when he comes to NH ;)
LOL I'm 25, and I quit drinking years ago. I think alcohol is nasty.
Now then.. nice, sticky, green marijuana? That's another story. ;)
Amen
Quote from: ken on September 27, 2005, 12:26 PM NHFT
Wasn't her daughter just arrested at UNH for underage drinking? What a hypocrite.
LMAO
Ahem I mean Amen.
Quote from: patmccotter on September 26, 2005, 05:15 PM NHFT
I get confused at this argument. Libertarian (small-l) minded people talk about decentralizing government and then when they want to get rid of a certain law that is decentralized they complain that it would be so much easier if it was at the central level government.
Just my $0.02.
Not me. I oppose Endorsing the Big bully to force the little one to behave. Makes it that much easier for the big bully to terrorize us later.
TRacy
Underage Drinking in Restaurants & Bars
Seven states in the U.S. permit persons under age 21 to drink alcoholic beverages in restaurants and bars with their parents.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1125425726.html
Is NH one of these free states yet?
My cooler is open 24/7 for any one who would like a beer. ;D
I drank one of my Dad's entire beers when I was 2 or 3 years old. ?He wasn't paying attention and I thought it was a normal drink.
Once an outlaw always an outlaw, I guess. ?;) ?What are they going to do? ?Throw me in jail for it? ????
The drinking age in most countries is 16-18. ?The US gov is all alone and out of its mind. :o
Regardless of other countries, I think there should be no "underage drinking" laws at all.
QuoteI heard little children were supposed to sleep tight.
That's why I drank a fifth of vodka one night.
My parent's got frantic, didn't know what to do.
But I had saw some crazy things
before I came to.
Now, do you think I was crazy?
I may have been only three but I was swingin'
Twisted - best version by Annie Ross of Lambert, Hendricks and Ross
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002ADR/103-6358647-0777444 The verse just starts at the end of the Amazaon audio sample.
OMG, I was looking for that very song to post for him yesterday ;D
:) :D ;D 8)
Quote from: Pat K on September 28, 2005, 04:07 PM NHFT
My cooler is open 24/7 for any one who would like a beer. ;D
I see PatKs first act of civil dis. ....... handing an underage drinker a beer at a bbq ..... we could inform the police that we will be breaking the law. ;D
It would be a great issue to reach out to youth with.
Considering how brainwashed and ignorant young people are today, this would be a great issue to catch their attention, maybe entice a few of them to pay attention to what's going on around them, and perhaps even get some active with NHFree.
This and a Drug War Civ Dis or Protest would work wonders, I think.
I've never thought twice about not giving or buying JP a drink. As if he was likely to become significanlty more warped then when sober. ;)
Quote from: russellkanning on September 29, 2005, 01:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on September 28, 2005, 04:07 PM NHFT
My cooler is open 24/7 for any one who would like a beer. ;D
I see PatKs first act of civil dis.? ....... handing an underage drinker a beer at a bbq ..... we could inform the police that we will be breaking the law. ;D
At Porcfest some of JP'S friends were looking for him, and they wanted to get some beer, I told them were my cooler was and said help your selfs. Later I had a flash back to statist thought, and said to myself I wonder how old they are? Then I just laughed to myself and got over it.
You guys are awesome.
Huh,
so that was your cooler,Pat. ;)
If it was roughly the size of a Volkswagon, it was Pat's.
Quote from: Pat K on September 29, 2005, 04:26 PM NHFT
At Porcfest some of JP'S friends were looking for him, and they wanted to get some beer, I told them were my cooler was and said help your selfs. Later I had a flash back to statist thought, and said to myself I wonder how old they are? Then I just laughed to myself and got over it.
That's classic!
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1101839726.html
Quote from: TN-FSP on March 17, 2006, 11:49 PM NHFT
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1101839726.html
Excellent resource! I swear, the guy's been reading my thoughts.
One caveat when it comes to NH, though:
(http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/images/usmap_minimum_age.gif)
While consumption by <21 might not be prohibited in NH, possession is. And some brilliant legal minds have deduced that underage adults who consume alcohol "possess" the alcohol in their bloodstreams, which is a crime.
Screw the highway dollars. Eliminate the drinking age completely.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on March 18, 2006, 12:20 AM NHFT
Excellent resource! I swear, the guy's been reading my thoughts.
See the chart on this page, very funny.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html
Of course, kids in VT take buses to CA on the weekends so that they may drink and smoke weed in peace. I don't know, but I guess the same thing happens in NH.
QuoteWhile consumption by <21 might not be prohibited in NH, possession is. And some brilliant legal minds have deduced that underage adults who consume alcohol "possess" the alcohol in their bloodstreams, which is a crime.
Then they are breaking the law. Does anyone know who started doing this? I need to make a call to a friend ;)
I wrote Dr. Hanson and invited him to stop by our forum. I even dropped the "L" bomb on him, and invited him to PorcFest.
Kevin
Quote from: TN-FSP on March 18, 2006, 12:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on March 18, 2006, 12:20 AM NHFT
While consumption by <21 might not be prohibited in NH, possession is. And some brilliant legal minds have deduced that underage adults who consume alcohol "possess" the alcohol in their bloodstreams, which is a crime.
Then they are breaking the law. Does anyone know who started doing this? I need to make a call to a friend ;)
No, they are not breaking the law:
============================================
NH RSA 179:10 Unlawful Possession and Intoxication. ?
I. Except as provided in RSA 179:23,
any person under the age of 21 years who has in his or her possession any liquor or alcoholic beverage, or
who is intoxicated by consumption of an alcoholic beverage, shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined a minimum of $300. Any second and subsequent offense shall be fined at least $600. For purposes of this section,
alcohol concentration as defined in RSA 259:3-b of .02 or more shall be prima facie evidence of intoxication. No portion of this mandatory minimum fine shall be waived, continued for sentencing, or suspended by the court. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the court may, in its discretion, impose further penalties authorized by RSA 263:56-b.
II. Except for persons convicted on the basis of intoxication, any person under the age of 21 years convicted of unlawful possession of liquor or beverage shall forfeit the same, and it shall be disposed of as the court directs. The proceeds, if any, shall be paid into the treasury of the county in which the proceedings were determined.
============================================
And this is what the Hudson police use.
Internal Possession of Alcohol by Minors (http://www.hudsonpd.com/minors.html)
By Officer Cayot and Officer Cavallaro
The purpose of this article is to help explain to parents and minors (anyone under 21 in this case) some changes that have taken effect in the Alcoholic Beverage Laws pertaining to minors. These changes went into effect on January 1, 2003 and have changed the definition of when a minor is in possession and have increased the penalties of those convicted. The new law can be found under RSA 179:10 Unlawful Possession and Intoxication and reads as follows:
I. Except as provided in RSA 179:23, any person under the age of 21 years who has in his or her possession any liquor or alcoholic beverage, shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined a minimum of $250. Any second or subsequent offense shall be fined at least $500. For purposes of this section, alcohol concentration as defined in RSA 259:3-b of 0.02 or more shall be prima facie evidence of intoxication. No portion of this mandatory minimum fine shall be waived, continued for sentencing, or suspended by the court. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the court may, in its discretion, impose further penalties authorized by RSA 263:56-b.
This new law not only imposes a penalty for a minor to have alcohol in his/her physical possession, but also imposes penalties for minors who have internal possession of alcohol. This means if you are under 21 and have been drinking you are subject to the same fines and penalties as a minor who is caught with alcohol in their physical possession. This law takes away the minors ability to go out drinking, separate themselves from the physical alcohol and be free and clear of any legal consequences. Minors who are arrested under this law will be handcuffed and brought to the station for booking where they will be forced to await bail for their release.
This law not only makes this violation costly in the monetary sense: $250 minimum for the first offense, $500 minimum for subsequent offenses, this law also allows the court to impose additional penalties at its discretion. These additional penalties include the loss of the minors New Hampshire State Drivers License even if the violation does not occur while the minor is in a vehicle.
The bottom line is if you are under 21 don't drink because if you get caught you are facing hefty fines, an arrest, and a possible loss of your drivers license.
Unless a cop sees a minor consuming a beverage that is known to contain alcohol, it would seem this would be difficult to enforce.
Quote from: hook on March 18, 2006, 09:43 AM NHFT
Unless a cop sees a minor consuming a beverage that is known to contain alcohol, it would seem this would be difficult to enforce.
The standard for probably cause isn't that tough. Smelling alcohol on the breath is one way. There are also sensors built into some flashlights; you don't have to blow into them, just breathe or speak. You might not even know you're being tested in such a way.
This law is seriously wrong. If I, as a parent, can't let a minor child (or even minor
adult child!) of mine enjoy two drinks without placing him or her in legal jeopardy, the world has gone topsy turvy.
Kevin
Hudson PD 603-886-6011 Non-Emergency
Business 603-886-6011
603-594-1162 FAX Crime Line 603-594-1150
So are these cops operating outside NH law or are they just enforcing a bad law? If the former, maybe I should call the crime line and report them to them!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 18, 2006, 05:02 PM NHFT
Hudson PD 603-886-6011 Non-Emergency
Business 603-886-6011
603-594-1162 FAX Crime Line 603-594-1150
So are these cops operating outside NH law or are they just enforcing a bad law? If the former, maybe I should call the crime line and report them to them!
Well, they are likely violating several sections of the NH Constitution, but not written codes that are not based on the Constitution.
I'm still gonna call them and explain that they are violating the NH Constitution and that they need to turn themselves in to the law. However, I need to look over the NH Constitution so I am able to explain how they are violating their boss.
Chief JavertCowing sounds like a righteous ass.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Drinking-party+mom+speaks+up&articleId=2878498a-ea59-4493-8b46-3737fc776fa0
Drinking-party mom speaks up
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
Union Leader Staff
Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006
Gilford ? Susan Hanlon doesn?t even remember her mother.
She was killed by a drunken driver, leaving behind a grieving husband to raise their six children, including then-3-year-old Susan.
Now that her own children are teenagers, Hanlon is determined to do what she can to protect them from her mother?s fate.
?I?m terrified for my children when they leave my house and they aren?t under my supervision,? she said. ?And I?m terrified for people who don?t think their kids are doing things. Their kids are doing things, and they?re the ones who are going to end up wrapped around a pole.?
Last weekend, Hanlon was arrested for hosting an underage drinking party for her 18-year-old daughter and more than a dozen of her classmates at her Gilford home.
Hanlon doesn?t see her behavior as contradictory. ?There?s law and then there?s what you believe is the right thing.?
?Keeping people alive is the most important thing, and I was providing a safe environment to keep them all here and alive so they weren?t out on the street getting somebody killed ? or themselves killed.?
She did not provide alcohol for the teens, and not all the kids at the party were drinking, Hanlon said. And she says she ?had no idea? that New Hampshire passed a law in 2004 that makes it a crime to host a party with alcohol for five or more non-relatives under 21.
?I thought in your home, in a controlled environment, it was fine.?
Hanlon said she never would have allowed the party, a sleepover to celebrate her daughter?s 18th birthday, had she known about the party host statute. ?I feel that I disappointed people in not being aware of the laws.?
But she fears the law, however well-intentioned, will drive kids out of the relative safety of their homes, to the woods and parking lots ? and into their cars. That was something some opponents of the measure, which was crafted and promoted by a group of Dover teenagers, raised during the contentious battle over its passage.
?I think kids are still going to do it, but they?re going to drive around and do it,? Hanlon said. ?And they?re definitely going to go off to college and do it at college.?
And that?s what really worries her, as the parent of a Gilford High School senior. ?Do we want them bingeing and throwing up and dying? We need to teach them responsible drinking, and because it?s against the law we can?t.?
Gilford Police Lt. Edison Cowing called such an attitude ?a cop-out.?
?I would say you can?t take the defeatist attitude, ?They?re going to do it anyway, so you might as well do it at my house,? ? he said.
Cowing said it?s possible some kids may take their parties to the woods if they can?t drink at home. But he said, ?I don?t believe in making it easy for your kids to break the law. If somebody is hell-bent on doing something, they?re probably going to find a way to do it. But don?t give them the tools.?
Hanlon told the Sunday News the teens were dancing and some were having ?mixed alcohol? drinks. She had taken all their keys, and was checking on them regularly, she said.
She hosted the party to protect the kids, she said, to keep them safe. And she said she?s not the only parent who regularly, quietly, makes such a choice.
It was the same in her house growing up, Hanlon said. ?My dad was the one who survived his wife being killed, and he made sure we were safe with alcohol as well when we were growing up, because he didn?t want to see us plastered on the side of the road.?
Hanlon said she has not gotten any angry phone calls from parents of the teens who were at her daughter?s birthday party ? although she has heard some of her younger son?s friends have been barred from her house. ?I?ve had parents ask me what they can do to help.?
But according to Lt. Cowing, at least one parent called the Hanlon home before the party and was assured an adult would be home and no alcohol would be served.
?We?ve got a sworn affidavit to that effect,? he said. ?These parents are livid. These parents did everything we tell parents to do. They called and checked. If you can?t trust the 40-year-old, who can you trust??
Hanlon says some parents are upset with how police handled the incident, taking her off to the police station and leaving the teenagers in the house with the officers, to arrange rides home. Two of the teens were charged with unlawful possession of alcohol.
?Storming somebody?s house, sending kids in 12 different directions, terrifying them and scaring them half to death, is it going to stop them from drinking?? she asked.
Cowing said Gilford police always call parents to the home when they bust an underage party, so they can see for themselves the evidence of alcohol or drugs. And while Hanlon is the first person in town charged under the party host law, he sees no problem with removing her from the house before parents arrived. ?There were police with the kids, who I would have to say are a whole lot more responsible than her.?
Since her arrest last weekend, Hanlon has spent hours on-line, researching the issue of underage drinking. ?It starts with people understanding it?s a problem and not just saying it?s against the law,? she said. ?Yes, it?s illegal, but it?s happening, so let?s take it from there.?
?Parents, community leaders, the government, everybody needs to figure it out. We need to stop making drinks and drinking such a great and wonderful-looking thing,? she said. ?Go to any of the TV shows, watch how they glorify how cool it is, sitting at a bar and drinking.?
Hanlon would like to see stricter penalties for drunken driving. ?That?s what?s important, keeping them off the street.?
But prevention experts say that?s not the only important thing. They point to the dangers of binge drinking, such as alcohol poisoning, and the increased risk of sexual assaults and fights. And they point to scientific evidence of the negative effects of alcohol on the still-developing brain.
Hanlon said she shares those concerns, but contends they can also serve as arguments for teaching young people about the adverse effects of alcohol in a controlled environment.
?My kids are my kids, and I feel it?s my responsibility for them to see what the effects are of it,? she said. ?I tell them when they go to college they?re going to be put in this position where there?s going to be a keg and you can drink 500 beers if you want to. I?m not going to be there. Nobody?s going to care if you?re in the bushes dead.?
Against the advice of friends, she?s thinking about pleading guilty to the charge against her, ?just because it?s the right thing to do.?
Hanlon hopes her own mistake will teach her children and their friends it?s important to face the consequences of your behavior. ?Each time something like this happens, it teaches everybody a lesson, what to do and what not to do.?
But she still worries about the choices these young people will make when there is no safe haven, no caring parent to watch over them when they experiment with alcohol.
?I?m trying to figure it out. You try to be a cool parent yet a responsible parent, yet a law-abiding citizen, yet knowing there are certain gray areas. And doing something that?s right and that makes a difference is what I would like to see done here.?
?Wouldn?t it be nice if we could teach our kids it?s not even worth doing because it?s not worth the money, it?s not worth the effect it gives you and it?s not as cool as everyone says it is? That?s the world we need to get to.?
Well all the kids in my nieborhood started drinking in "the woods" of course we didn't drive, we were not old enough. ;D
Ignorance is no excuse: ALL CITIZENS MUST SPEND 10 YEARS OF THEIR LIFE READING THE LAW! >:(
Setting the drinking age to 18, or even 19, would offer a huge boost to NH's economy. There are college age students all over the Northeast who already make the drive up to Montreal as it is. If students could drink legally in NH, our bars and stores would receive a huge economic boost, at the expense of nearby socialist states, of course...
We also need to make a point of pushing back the drinking times. Bars now stop serving at 12:40 am, and this kills the night life here in Manchester.
--Max
I just sent an invitation to Miss Lynch to join this discussion. I included a direct link so that she wouldn't have to look for it. ;D
Can anybody give me the contacts of 2 representatives who might be willing to introduce legislation on reducing the drinking age.
I would like to propose an all out defiance of the federal funding incentive and also have someone propose a bill which would allow people to allow all that can be done while still qualifying for federal highway funding, that is if we still get very much anyway.
If I can get two NH legislators to commit to introducing such legislation, I would also contact Ron Paul of Texas to see if he would be willing to try to get the federal crap undone, which is much more of a long shot.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 20, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
Ignorance is no excuse: ALL CITIZENS MUST SPEND 10 YEARS OF THEIR LIFE READING THE LAW! >:(
Exactly.
If we had to read ever freakin' law that was passed... AHHH
couldn't find a gilford PD number. The town hall number is 603-527-4700
didn't work at night, wasn't able to leave a message at night
Here it is:
Gilford Town - Police Department, Business
47 Cherry Valley Road, Gilford, NH 03249
(603) 527-4737
arright got thru to Lt. Cowing's voice mail and left a polite complaint. He has a spot on the town website where he quotes the 2nd amendment so I thanked him for that then got on to the complaining part LOL.
OK,
nobody responded when I asked for the contacts of legislators in NH who might be willing to tackle this issue. I guess nobody really knows of any state representatives who have voiced an opinion on this matter. So, I am writing 3 state reps from my district, Cheshire 2, and asking them to introduce legislation about it at the next possible time. If anyone else is in Cheshire 2 and feels like writing to Reps:Eaton, Pratt, or Sawyer, please feel free.
If anyone knows legislators who are generally pro liberty, I would appreciate it if you would PM me their contact information. Does anyone know if Don Gorman would introduce something like this?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 20, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
Ignorance is no excuse: ALL CITIZENS MUST SPEND 10 YEARS OF THEIR LIFE READING THE LAW! >:(
Do you have a copy of this fat bastard? If so, send it to me and I'll piss on it with pics of course :D (I'm serious you know I'd do it ! 8-)
I don't understand the question. ???
citizen just click on the link in my sig, open up the Legislator Index and pick one of the reps with a b or better to contact. all of them know us, or at least they know of the FSP and are probably supportive. Some might balk but others will probably show interest in bringing something forward. Or you can contact Democrat Jim Splaine, who's previously submitted a somewhat similar bill. He's only 20% pro liberty in rankings but who knows.
Actually you'll probably have to contact 4 or 5 reps to get good response you need, but you only need one sponsor.
I'm glad you want to do this ! sorry you didn't get a quicker response.
Also I think you're bill will do better if it simply reduces the penalties for all these "drinking crimes" rather than actually legalizing them. That way you are only removing from the status quo that most unpopular part of the evil system, the punishment part.
It is kind of ironic. they tried to pass a bill making individuals who serve in the military and who are 18 years of age, legal drinkers. Screw the 18 year old who works and lives life! It all boils down to what causes a problem? Is it a gun? is it liquor/beer? Is it a car? No, it is the will or energy of a person. A stupid a'hole causes the problem/accident and a heart warming liberal thrives off of it. One dumbass kills or hurts some one and we are all to suffer. granted people make mistakes and I feel a true and very deep sympathy for those who have lost friends or loved ones.The individual should be punished who hurts another!. Not all of society!!!! :fencing:
If you are living in a ward where you (or some-proliberty-one you know) can run, do it. If there are proliberty candidates you know, stuff money into their campaign, now! Not in September when it does no good. We would have lots of legislators lining up to sponsor bills if we would get on these proliberty campaigns ahead of time. Nevermind candidates having a chance or not. We need to help out now.
Remember: we need to build our pool of:
candidates
activists
campaign managers
donors
volunteers
and campaign treasurers, secretaries, and fundraising chairs
the statists have all of this in spades
They have a machine. We need a leaner, meaner, better organized machine than they have.
--Maximus
I was going to run on the LP ticket. Unfortunately,I will likely be moving between now and the elections and I will no longer be in Cheshire 02. It's sad because I might have stood a chance.
Oh well, there will be another round of elections in 2008, and they won't be right after my graduation.
Quote from: citizen_142002 on April 09, 2006, 10:38 PM NHFT
I was going to run on the LP ticket. Unfortunately,I will likely be moving between now and the elections and I will no longer be in Cheshire 02. It's sad because I might have stood a chance.
Oh well, there will be another round of elections in 2008, and they won't be right after my graduation.
I doubt you would have won at your age or on the LP ticket. Use the 15 hours a week you were going to spend running to help someone else. Or, just drink with young people and talk about freedom. Either one will help :)
Actually, I have been using the time to write to representatives. I'm following Dada's advice and using the NHLA ratings to guide who I write to. By dumb luck, I actually wrote to Sheldon Sawyer, one of the six representatives with an A. I haven't heard back from him yet, though.
As for the other part of your suggestion, well let's just say I try to support liberty in a lot of ways ;)
Cool, keep up the good work. If I'm in your district when you run for whatever, I'm sure I'll vote for you. As for me personally, I like to hide out in the background doing all the really important, really intersting, but also typically really thankless jobs that have to get done for our political and economic infastructure. My ego is limited, so I'd much rather see results and be happy with them and get no recognition outside perhaps the relevant working group than get tons of credit for something that's relitavely pointless. Does this make sense? If so, how many others like me are there out there? I'm hoping for at least a few, as I've not been able to find more than one so far...
Penguin, there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way. Some people are just better in a supporting role than at being the figurehead. Without and army of people doing the thankless jobs, even the most charismatic candidate won't stand a chance, unless it's a really local race.
Even more to the point, you can actually have a greater impact as a volunteer or campaign manager (in most cases) than as a candidate. Campaign managers can help out on several campaigns. Volunteers can reach accross ward boundaries and help proliberty candidates. Early donations make a big difference, and letters to the editors of various newspapers help out a lot.
Many of these things are difficult to do during a hectic campaign schedule. If you are considering a run for office in your ward in the future, now is a good time to start building the name recognition now by running for office. You don't have to spend much money, or even buy signs. Just meet people face to face and get your name out there. The nicer you are to people, the better your positive numbers will be. That's what you're doing by running for office.
I've never been a proponent of everyone running for office, but some people will need to run for state house. A lot of proliberty legislators are retiring this year. Others are in tightly contested races. There are a lot of wards out there where you can put your name on the ballot and get elected with little or no campaigning.
--Max
Quote from: russellkanning on January 12, 2005, 11:21 AM NHFT
They are old enough to go to war. They are old enough to vote. They must be old enough to drink. :)
I agree with you there.. ;D ;D ;D
Dude, why is your Karma at -14? Who is doing all of this flaming?
I believe in you, man.
--Max
I haven't been following this thread a lot. Been busy knocking my head against the wall with local politicians. I've got a related question maybe someone can answer.
Tonight I was speaking to a local police officer. He told me: it is illegal for anyone to give a minor alchohol this includes a parent. He said a parent cannot let a child have so much as a sip of beer without breaking the law and mentioned the "internal possesion" stuff. He did follow-up by saying it's hard to enforce, but if a complaint were filled a parent could be charged.
Anyone know the specific RSA hes talking about or if it exists.
Quote from: GT on May 02, 2006, 10:29 PM NHFT
Tonight I was speaking to a local police officer. He told me: it is illegal for anyone to give a minor alchohol this includes a parent. He said a parent cannot let a child have so much as a sip of beer without breaking the law and mentioned the "internal possesion" stuff. He did follow-up by saying it's hard to enforce, but if a complaint were filled a parent could be charged.
Anyone know the specific RSA hes talking about or if it exists.
You are looking in the right place. This would be a state law, if the police officer is correct.
In other states, parents and legal guardians have the right to give their children/wards potable alcohol. I remember being instructed years ago, at my high school, by a police officer, on the proper protocol for a minor to receive an alcoholic beverage in a restaurant: First, the server had to put the drink in the posession of the parent, then the parent could put it in the possession of the minor.
Quote from: erich on May 02, 2006, 11:55 PM NHFT
In other states, parents and legal guardians have the right to give their children/wards potable alcohol. I remember being instructed years ago, at my high school, by a police officer, on the proper protocol for a minor to receive an alcoholic beverage in a restaurant: First, the server had to put the drink in the posession of the parent, then the parent could put it in the possession of the minor.
That's exactly how it works in Texas.
I've looked this up before in the NH RSAs, but I don't remember the specifics. I don't have time to look it up right now; hopefully someone will have the answer. I think the RSAs are actually silent on this issue, and the "internal possession" thing relies on a court ruling.
The news reports on arrests for underage drinking parties in NH really scare me. There has been at least case where none of the teens were drinking, but the adult in the house was arrested because alcohol was present. Excuse me, but I, as an adult, have every legal right to have both alcohol and teenagers in my home. If the kids get rowdy to the point that the neighbors complain to police, am I going to be arrested for having
my beer in
my refrigerator, even though the teens aren't drinking?
The "any detectable amount" standard for "internal possession" means that a diabetic teenager who's never imbibed alcohol could be arrested if his insulin levels get screwy. Likewise for one who has taken communion, or any other religious use of wine.
Although I don't participate in the public schools, I have to laugh at all the dire warnings for kicking kids out of extracurricular sports or activities for "being in the presence of alcohol". Does that mean they can't go to restaurants? Concerts? Their own kitchens?
Most of all, I'm troubled by the double standard. Police are seemingly empowered to decide in some cases that, "Oh, well, that's not what the law meant, so we won't prosecute." And at the same time, they will push it to the last jot and tittle for cases they wish to prosecute, even when the clear intent of the law was just the opposite.
Kevin
As I was researching the RSA's I came across RSA 214:20-d
============================================
214:20-d Implied Consent to Submit to Test to Determine Alcohol Concentration. ?
I. Any person who target practices, takes, or attempts to take wildlife in this state by use of a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow and bolt, or any other weapon, shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations for the purpose of determining whether that person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug...
============================================
I was not informed of this when I took the "Basic Pistol Course".
And in answer to the question of RSA related to internal possession:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=126.msg56344#msg56344
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=126.msg56345#msg56345
I was thinking the other day, I don't know if it has been mentioned, but what about lowering the drinking age to 18, but only for beer and wine, such as could be sold at gas stations and food stores? An interesting start...
What would be the advantage of only allowing young people to purchase beer and wine? We'd still lose the highway funds. Are you thinking it would be better received by the public.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 03:57 AM NHFT
As I was researching the RSA's I came across RSA 214:20-d
============================================
214:20-d Implied Consent to Submit to Test to Determine Alcohol Concentration. ?
I. Any person who target practices, takes, or attempts to take wildlife in this state by use of a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow and bolt, or any other weapon, shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations for the purpose of determining whether that person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug...
============================================
I was not informed of this when I took the "Basic Pistol Course".
Implied consent while they are hunting/target practicing, or implied consent whenever a cop feel like it? Not that I agree with implied consent in general, but the law doesn't seem to give any actual limitation.
Why would anyone want to drink beer or wine in the first place? Some champagne's are okay, but the rest tastes like vinegar. Give me hard liquor any day.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 03:57 AM NHFT
As I was researching the RSA's I came across RSA 214:20-d
============================================
214:20-d Implied Consent to Submit to Test to Determine Alcohol Concentration. ?
I. Any person who target practices, takes, or attempts to take wildlife in this state by use of a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow and bolt, or any other weapon, shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations for the purpose of determining whether that person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug...
============================================
I was not informed of this when I took the "Basic Pistol Course".
Sounds like a bill to target for next year.
Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 03, 2006, 02:20 PM NHFT
What would be the advantage of only allowing young people to purchase beer and wine? We'd still lose the highway funds. Are you thinking it would be better received by the public.
A stepping stone I guess.
Who cares about highway funds (well yeah I guess the state does), we should be able to manage our own money and roads.
I'm just saying, like marijuana, total legalization is an unrealistic first step. Medical use, small personal amounts, et cetera, are.
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.
It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.
It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.
Perhaps a law proposing that 18-20 year olds be allowed to "internally possess" alcohol as long as they're under the supervision of their parents would be in order, then.
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.
It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.
Perhaps a law proposing that 18-20 year olds be allowed to "internally possess" alcohol as long as they're under the supervision of their parents would be in order, then.
Or came into it's "internal posession" in their presence.
I'm surprised Canada hasn't become a hell-hole since their drinking age is still 18 in Quebec... I've been up there a few times, poked around an SAQ (their provincial liquor store) to see what they had. My friend bought a bottle of ever clear and didn't even get carded... crazy Canadians.
And uh, I didn't drink any! :-X
Quote from: aries on May 03, 2006, 08:06 PM NHFT
I'm surprised Canada hasn't become a hell-hole since their drinking age is still 18 in Quebec... I've been up there a few times, poked around an SAQ (their provincial liquor store) to see what they had. My friend bought a bottle of ever clear and didn't even get carded... crazy Canadians.
I heard that someone might take that to Porcfest.
The vast majority of people I've talked to believe that the drinking age should be 18. In fact, I've only met one or two people in my life who believe that the drinking age should be 21.
I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition. You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
Don't you own your own body? Who has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do? No one. This is America, not North Korea or Nazi Germany. The nation that prides itself on freedom above all other things needs to get serious about it.
This ain't the quasi-free state project, and this ain't nh-not-quite-as-bad.com
--Max
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on May 04, 2006, 02:49 AM NHFT
I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition. You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
So Max you are going to run as an LP member not GOP right?
Do you call for the legalization of all drugs?
Some people call for incremental changes because maybe that is all the 'public' will go for. Maybe you have the public on your side but the house and senate will only move incrementally.
I want to be 'free' now but I can take the slow road if I have to. FSP was never meant to be quick and easy.
My father turned 21 the year they raised the drinking age back up to that.
I have a problem with age based limits in general. It gives way to it's own twin paradox where twins are born minutes apart, but one twin is born just before midnight and the other, just after. One is legally an adult a full day before the other. That's why I don't celebrate birthdays. Legally, on your birthday, you age a full year, physically, mentally, and emotionally at the strike of midnight. But your not a year older then you were yesterday, you're only a day older!
Quote from: Dreepa on May 04, 2006, 02:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on May 04, 2006, 02:49 AM NHFT
I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition. You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
So Max you are going to run as an LP member not GOP right?
Do you call for the legalization of all drugs?
Some people call for incremental changes because maybe that is all the 'public' will go for. Maybe you have the public on your side but the house and senate will only move incrementally.
I want to be 'free' now but I can take the slow road if I have to. FSP was never meant to be quick and easy.
I don't think you can stop people from hurting themselves if that's what they're intent on doing. I think that we should end drug prohibition outright. If individual towns want to enact certain ordinances against public drug use and such, that's their right.
Drug policy is something that you have to sell to the general public. Because NHites are generally open minded about this kind of thing, you can talk about drug raids and other lost civil liberties without getting a screamer who insists that any change in policy will result in an "Escape from LA" type of scenario with buildings constantly on fire everywhere and the sun never coming up.
"We're not the only country seeing that the War on Drugs isn't working. Spain, Italy, and Luxemborg have decriminalized most drugs, and their crime rates have gone down. Portugal and Holland have decriminalized all drugs, and their crime rates have gone down. Drug addiction rates have gone down slightly, but the crime rates have gone down in those countries because there is no longer an illegal black market drug traffic."
That answer solves most problems right off the bat.
I'm not an incrementalist, but we all have seen the timid, half-assed legislation that has come to the floor. I used to be a conservative, and they don't like half-assed solutions. They want to fight the drug war seriously or not at all.
Albert "Max" Abramson
candidate for State Representative
Manchester, Ward 5
In answer to your question, republican Liberty Caucus. If anyone asks, I am a libertarian.
Call me Snake. :icon_pirat:
I've written a few Reps on both sides of the aisle. It has been a few weeks, and none of them have responded to my letters.
I'm wondering if the best way to appraoch this issue is through a question on the ballot that can be decided by a direct vote of the people. I don't usually have faith in directly democratic measures, but I think it might be more expedient than trying to go through the legislature.
What kind of hoops does one need to jump through to get a proposition on the ballot.
Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 10, 2006, 05:09 PM NHFT
I've written a few Reps on both sides of the aisle. It has been a few weeks, and none of them have responded to my letters.
I'm wondering if the best way to appraoch this issue is through a question on the ballot that can be decided by a direct vote of the people. I don't usually have faith in directly democratic measures, but I think it might be more expedient than trying to go through the legislature.
What kind of hoops does one need to jump through to get a proposition on the ballot.
Not in NH. You have to get a rep or senator to sponsor the bill.
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on May 04, 2006, 02:49 AM NHFT
you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition. You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
I agree.
From what I've followed of how various bills passed (or, rather, failed to pass) the NH legislature this year, I'm inclined to say, they'd have a better chance if they went for full legalization, of all substances. As long as it's clearly "not to minors" and as long as it's clear that there will be proper "licensing and regulation", there's a realistic chance for success on drug (including ethanol) reform here in NH.
Note that I purposefully included the bit about licensing. It's a separate issue that from what I can tell will take longer to get straightened out. Just ask Mike Fisher! ;)
Pushing for an end to prohibition is principled and controversial, which means people will be talking about our ideas. We want that.
I see a few choices. We need to think laws in reverse since it is always much easier to create them then to irradicate them.
I would push for at least 2 things first, Allow adults over the age of 18 to at least be able to drink at home. When I was a kid you could not buy cigarrettes under 18 but you could smoke them at school or wherever when you were 16. So this would give parents some choice instead of "it's not your choice its the law" mentallity. I hop that by the time my son is 18 years old I will not be considered a criminal if I decide to give him a glass of wine with Christmas Dinner.
The other option maybe try to get Beer and Wine legalized for 18 year olds? Germany legal drinking age is 16 and I never saw anyone check a ID in the 2 years I lived there. Then again the driving age is 21 and the kids need to take a bus to the disco tech on weekends that picks them up like a school bus in each village. We should make all senators and representatives take a world tour before making any laws.
QuoteWe should make all senators and representatives take a world tour before making any laws.
That could backfire horribly. Imagine all the calls for gun control! "They do it over there!" But I understand your sentiment.
Quote from: scullmaster on June 21, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
Allow adults over the age of 18 to at least be able to drink at home.
+1...
very good suggestion!!
This is something all kinds of people can get behind.
I would
strongly suggest you contact the most liberty-friendly Rep in your district (http://www.nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating), and ask if they would sponsor such a bill in the fall legislative session. If none of your Reps will, try contacting any of the "A" or "B+/B" Reps -- they tend to be a
lot more willing to listen to people than the authoritarian "D/F/CT" Reps.
If you'll work with a Rep to get the bill introduced, I'll do what I can to lobby for it. Deal?
BTW, those who oppose it will probably point to the "house party" law:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/644/644-18.htm
Here's a good approach, as found in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code:
Sec. 106.04. CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR
(a) A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the alcoholic beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse.
and:
Sec. 106.06. PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL FOR A MINOR; FURNISHING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person commits an offense if he purchases an alcoholic beverage for or gives or makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor with criminal negligence.
(b) A person may purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give an alcoholic beverage to a minor if he is the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court, and he is visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.
It works well.
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/09/some-good-news-6/
Sunday, March 9th, 2008
Several states are considering a return to a more sensible drinking age:
More than two decades after the U.S. set the national drinking age at 21, a movement is gaining traction to revisit the issue and consider allowing Americans as young as 18 to legally consume alcohol.
Serious discussions already are under way in several states.
In Vermont, the Legislature has formed a task force that will study whether the drinking age should be lowered.
In South Dakota, a petition is circulating that would ask the state to allow 19- and 20-year-olds to legally buy beer no stronger than 3.2 percent alcohol, while in Missouri a group is attempting to collect the 100,000 signatures needed to get a measure on the November ballot to lower the state's drinking age to 18.
And in South Carolina and Wisconsin, lawmakers have proposed that active-duty military personnel younger than 21 be allowed to buy alcohol, a move similar to one that was rejected last year in New Hampshire.
Linked from the comments at Balko's blog:
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html
Not that I'm a fan of using the law to fix things, but if there had to be a law...
The age of majority should not be done in steps. 18 to vote but 21 to drink and buy a pistol. I would contend 18-20 year olds are being discriminated against due to their age, and should be demanding their full adult rights that they gained on their 18th birthdays.
Old enough to enlist or be drafted? Then old also enough to buy a handgun or a six pack.
You mean 18 year olds can be handed all kinds of weapons of war but can't buy handguns? ::) Wow.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2008, 03:05 PM NHFT
You mean 18 year olds can be handed all kinds of weapons of war but can't buy handguns? ::) Wow.
Not only that but if an 18 year old accidentally loses his M16 rifle he goes to prison. When an admistration lies a country into a protracted war they get re-elected.
:dontknow:
It would be interesting to hear a group of under 21 active service
members weigh in on the issue. I'd like to know how they feel about being asked to bear arms and kill people but are told they aren't responsible enough to have a beer. I have a close relative that's, 20 years old...jarhead, think I'll ask him next time he checks in. Are active military uh "discouraged" from free speech on issues like this by some kind of "we own your mind" military policy?
The height of irony... in the Middle East a 20 year old grunt saying..."man it's hot, I'd just kill for a beer".