Should the city of Craig and Moffat County implement a social host ordinance to prevent underage drinking?
| Response | Percent | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, more needs to be done to discourage underage drinking | 51% | 125 | |
| No, there are already laws in place | 45% | 111 | |
| Undecided | 3% | 9 | |
| Total | 245 | ||
Advertisement
Advertisement
20 April 2009
at 5:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
Just a few days ago I heard a parent a work talking about throwing a party so his teenadge son could get drunk. This is not the example that the youth of today need to see set for them. A law such as this would at least give the police a chance to try to curb this type of activity. If we don't do something now we can only blame ourselves when we end up with a society of alcoholics.
20 April 2009
at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Craig_gal (Anonymous) says…
didn't we have this same poll on here several months ago?
20 April 2009
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
og174 (Anonymous) says…
This looks like to me as—”keep asking the same question, until you get the answer you want”— The comment that stated ” throwing a party so his teenage son could get drunk”— I really doubt that was said—maybe letting his son have a party so there could be some type of controls, maybe—face it people, young people are going to drink, with or without your blessing—let's acknowlege that fact and then approach it realistically—we can't expect the poice to babysit our kids—talk to your kids–if they want to experience liquor—let them in a controlled enviroment—chances are they will find the hype is more exciting then the reality—God I dispise people with their heads in the sand!!! But I guess that is what makes us a diverse people!!!!
20 April 2009
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
to og174: Unless you are there taking part in a conversation you should not call the person that was there a liar. Just so you know, this law would not be to babysit kids. It would be to babysit the adults that allow their kids to drink, and adults that buy alcohol for kids that shouldn't have it . If you don't understand what you are commenting about, you should probably keep your mouth shut! So do you despise yourself?
20 April 2009
at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
larrylnd (Anonymous) says…
I don't believe that having a new law passed will help a thing. There are already laws that cover buying or serving alcohol for miners. So What good would it do to pass more laws that will not get enforced, because of lack of officers to enforce them.
20 April 2009
at 5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
og174 (Anonymous) says…
To als362–I didn't mean to inply that you lied. I think I read your comment to say you “HEARD” a parent say —I assumed that your saying you “HEARD” the comment meant that you were not part of the conversation. A lot of misstatements are made through “hear say” and that is what I was trying to get across. And no I do not dispise myself—quite the opposite—My wife and I raised 3 kids here in Moffat County that have all went on to be very successful in their lives—All without the help of more ineffective laws that put our law enforcement in a very tough, impossible position. Success of our young people starts at home, not with additional laws. Again I am sorry if you took offense to a comment that wasn't directed at you personally.
21 April 2009
at 5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
You are correct these succsses do start at home. but there are a lot of parents that don't feel the same way that you do, or take the time necessary to train their children in the how to live properly. I cite the person that said he was going to throw a party so his son could get drunk, and the adult that purchased alcohol for a teen that ended up falling off a cliff here in town. These adults should spend some time sitting in jail to consider just how stupid they really are. An ordinance such as this would make that possible
21 April 2009
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Craig_gal (Anonymous) says…
the “adult” that purchased alcohol for a minor that had horrible consequence was not a parent. I know there are some extremely irresponsible “adults” out there and some very irresponsible parents out there as well, I am tired of being lumped into one category because society only knows how to take away everyone's freedom instead of singeling out the one(s) that are doing the harm. I have not ever purchased alcohol for my children or for their friends, never! but, when my niece got married and my 19 year old wanted to join in the toast with champagne it never crossed my mind that he should not do that. I have a hard time understanding why it is okay to continue taking away my right as a parent–again i do not condone or promote underage drinking but let me have the basic right to decide what is appropriate and what is not
21 April 2009
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
I know the person that bought the alcohol was not a parent. That is one of the things this type of law is aimed at, so they can single out the ones doing the harm. Had I been the DA for that case I would have charged him with murder, because that is just exactly what he did.
21 April 2009
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
valleylocal (Anonymous) says…
What I don't understand, is whats the difference between the young adults now vs when we were young adults? Didn't most of us try drinking when we underage? Granted the drinking age at that time was 18 but still. Instead of passing another law, lets try and educate the youth about the effects of alcoholism and drug addition, instead passing laws that will effect their future and their parents! What would the system do with a youth if his/hers parents are sent to jail/prison? Put him/her in foster care! That just creates another problem.
21 April 2009
at 7:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GrandFutures (Anonymous) says…
I love the colorful discussions that arise whenever this subject is brought up.
I pose a few questions to you all.
Do you support underage drinking?
Do you support others providing alcohol to minors?
This ordinance would only effect those who break the law/ordinance and for anyone who doesn't support underage drinking this ordinance would be a good thing for our youth and community.
21 April 2009
at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
I am all for people being educated and learning the effects of drugs and alcohol. The problem is that there are parents out there that don't feel that way or won't take that responsibility for their kids. When adults refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and children, then other things must be done to take control of these situations. This ordinance would allow that action to take place. Not against the kids, but against the adults that allow these types of things to continue.
The difference between when you drank as a child and now is the fact that society has changed in its perception of underaged drinking. There were no Madd Mothers, or other groups that target drinking especially by children. Cars then were made of steel, not plastic as they are now, and there were fewer of them on the road.
21 April 2009
at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
No I do not support underage drinking or adults giving alcohol to children. These things are not only legally wrong they are morally wrong!
21 April 2009
at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Craig_gal (Anonymous) says…
No I do not support it either, wow it is so simple, so why do you need a law? You want to pass another ordinance because it is not as clear as you make it sound. als I am completely on board with you, that “adult” should have been charged with murder, there are already laws in place for what that person did, what happens now? we can't enforce the contributing to minor so we go after parents? we can't educate the kum and go's so we go after the parents? all of the “we can't could go on for quite awhile so I will stop, maybe I will go sit outside in the privacy of my home.
22 April 2009
at 5:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
The best way to educate a business so they will do the right thing is to get into their pocket with fines, time spent in schools, and loss of sales because they sold to an underaged person. This ordinance would make that possible and easier to accomplish. YES, go after the parents, they are the ones ultimately responsible for their childrens actions. I think if you catch a child with alcohol or drugs, both parents and the child should be put in the same cell together. Then they would undoubtedly have time to talk about that problem.
22 April 2009
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
missrose (Anonymous) says…
Kids in this town are drunks and people need to take self responsibility and do something about
22 April 2009
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nikobesti (Anonymous) says…
GrandFutures, those are simple questions which don't address the issue here. You mean to insinuate that “hey, unless you're a degenerate feeding your child alcohol, you should support this ordinance!” As Craig_gal has maintained quite elegantly, you can't just paint people who oppose this ordinance as people who support underage drinking.
I still need a question answered about how this ordinance is different from our existing laws. Als362 wrote, “When adults refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and children, then other things must be done to take control of these situations. This ordinance would allow that action to take place.” HOW exactly would this ordinance allow that action to take place? Can't parents already be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor when they purchase alcohol for their children? Aren't there already steps the city can take against businesses that break the law?
See, adding more laws that do the same things as laws already on the books just doesn't work. I mean, this general “law enforcement” approach to underage drinking obviously isn't working if all you still think there's a serious problem in Craig. So what's your proposal? More of the same. If it hasn't worked up to now, what makes you think it will work this time? Oh, so we tweak a few things and layer on more laws, but essentially, your approach to this problem hasn't changed at all. Parents know what's illegal and kids know what's illegal. They still do it. The recent issue in Craig you are discussing was a horrible tragedy, but are you seriously maintaining that that would not have happened if your ordinance was in place? No way do I buy that. This isn't going to help the problem.
Maybe we need to think out of the box on this one instead of pushing for more of the same strategy we've been trying for the last few decades without success.
22 April 2009
at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GrandFutures (Anonymous) says…
The law on the books is the problem it makes it extremely difficult to charge anyone with anything other than piling on MIP (minor in possession) charges on our youth. Those who supply the alcohol and the place for its consumption go without punishment. So we can continue to punish our youth as we always have for making poor decisions when it is proven they are not capable of making rational decisions for years to come or we can go after those in our community who willingly and knowingly harm our children. These ordinances have been proven very successful in other communities and have been adopted in 29 states. You say we need to think out of the box….please feel free to attend any Grand Futures board meeting. Your ideas would be welcome. We meet the second Tuesday of every month at the Grand Futures office.
Matt Beckett
22 April 2009
at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DV8 (Anonymous) says…
Here is what the state law says
CRS 18-13-122
(2) (a) Any person under twenty-one years of age who possesses or consumes ethyl alcohol anywhere in the state of Colorado commits illegal possession or consumption of ethyl alcohol by an underage person.
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to the offense described in subsection (2) of this section that the ethyl alcohol was possessed or consumed by a person under twenty-one years of age under the following circumstances:
(a) While such person was legally upon private property with the knowledge and consent of the owner or legal possessor of such private property and the ethyl alcohol was possessed or consumed with the consent of his parent or legal guardian who was present during such possession or consumption;
and
18-6-701. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
(1) Any person who induces, aids, or encourages a child to violate any federal or state law, municipal or county ordinance, or court order commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor. For the purposes of this section, the term “child” means any person under the age of eighteen years.
(2) Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a class 4 felony.
I think these cover most of it. A parent can only give their child alcohol if the parent and the child are both at the same private residence. They cannot give other people's children alcohol, nor can they supply it if they are not present.
23 April 2009
at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50cal (Anonymous) says…
bunch of angels here huh?
23 April 2009
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
I guess if you are sure you are not going to break that law, why would you be afraid of another to fill in any possible cracks in the law?
23 April 2009
at 7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
irishbrat (Anonymous) says…
i'm pretty sure i was no angel as a teenager.
24 April 2009
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50cal (Anonymous) says…
kids in this town are drunks? this generation must be the first that are? all the past town drunks were all worthless?
24 April 2009
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nikobesti (Anonymous) says…
GrandFutures, you state that, “Those who supply the alcohol and the place for its consumption go without punishment.” As DV8 has shown, we have laws on the books covering these actions. So, if they are going without punishment, the law isn't the problem; the enforcement of the laws is the problem. So why add yet another law that won't be enforced? Why aren't we advocating that the current laws be enforced?
24 April 2009
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DV8 (Anonymous) says…
The only gaps I can see in the current laws are:
1. People who drink alone with their children.
2. People who allow their kids to taste alcohol during a family barbecue
3. Parties that include each parent of each child at the party.
4. Churches that serve wine during their communion ceremonies
Am I missing any?
24 April 2009
at 4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Craig_gal (Anonymous) says…
DV8 your missing or forgetting to tell the other side. There are those that want to lump every parent into one absolute category and then judge them based on those assumptions and one act. Sorry if this sounds harsh to some but this is exactly what the “ordinance” will do.
Let us parent
24 April 2009
at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greeneyedgurl (Anonymous) says…
DV8–my dad made me drink blackberry brandy when i was a kid when I had a bad cough, does that count?
24 April 2009
at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DV8 (Anonymous) says…
If this ordinance passes, that could be illegal. I didn't even think about cough syrup and many home and over the counter cold remedies. Many of them have alcohol in them. Treating your child's cold symptoms will become a punishable offence.
24 April 2009
at 10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GrandFutures (Anonymous) says…
DV8…the gap is in the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who purchased the alcohol.
Proving who owns or rents the property is much simpler and usually is the same person that supplied the alcohol. At most of the parties even the kids there have no idea who purchased the alcohol. I think trying to put this off on our officers for not enforcing it is unfair they are only as effective as the laws we empower them with.
I will be unable to respond further as I will be out of town. I sincerely invite anyone to contact me at the Grand Futures office.
24 April 2009
at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GrandFutures (Anonymous) says…
Would this proposed ordinance prevent parents from providing alcohol to their own children?
No. The decision to provide alcohol to one's own child is a personal choice and freedom. Under current law it is legal for underage persons to consume alcohol while accompanied by their parent, guardian or spouse over the age of 21. This ordinance prevents adults from knowingly allowing children other than their own to possess alcohol on private property without that child's parent being present. The right to allow a child to drink is reserved only for a child's legal parent or guardian no one else.
I thought providing alcohol to a minor was already illegal. How is a Social Host Ordinance different than what already exists?
It is illegal for adults to furnish alcohol to individuals under the age of 21. However, when law enforcement officials arrive on the scene of an underage drinking party, youth typically don't “rat” anyone out, so it is often difficult to determine who actually provided the alcohol. A Social Host Ordinance allows law enforcement to cite the individual who hosts or provides a setting for underage drinking to take place.
25 April 2009
at 12:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DV8 (Anonymous) says…
The law states it is illegal for a child to possess or consume alcohol.
Theoretically if an adult allows a child to possess or consume alcohol (other than the stated exceptions) they are contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Wouldn't the person(s) over 21 at the party fit this definition?
It also seems that this allows for lazy police work. Doesn't matter if the owner of the home is aware of the party or not, they are now responsible and now have to worry about their own legal issues rather than the fact their child is drinking.
Just out of curiosity… since this would be a city ordinance, does that mean that it would go through City Court, rather than the District Attorney's office?
25 April 2009
at 12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GrandFutures (Anonymous) says…
If I go away on vacation and my child hosts an underage drinking party, am I responsible?
Under the proposed ordinance for Steamboat Springs, adults are not responsible for hosting the party if they are not at home and youth hold a drinking party without their knowledge. A teen or other person in control of the house could be cited for hosting the party in addition to possessing alcohol. This new law doesn't change existing civil liability-adults can be held liable for injuries or other consequences that occur regardless of whether they are present or not.
What if I'm upstairs sleeping and my child sneaks booze into the house, am I responsible?
Adults who knowingly allow underage alcohol use on their private property will be held responsible. If an adult is not aware that an underage person brought alcohol onto the property or if the underage person is concealing the alcohol, that adult will not be held responsible Police officers must establish probable cause by determining that a person knew or should have known that underage drinking was occurring on the premises.
What if underage drinkers are trespassing on my property?
The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply in the case of a party or gathering consisting entirely of persons trespassing on the premise or residence.
It is undecided where these tickets would be written. We are in the very early stages of this possible ordinance.
25 April 2009
at 6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
highway1340 (Anonymous) says…
What YOU do with YOUR own children is entirely different than what YOU do with OTHER people's kids. Letting YOUR kids drink in front of YOU in your own home is one thing, but if you knowingly let OTHER people's kids drink in YOUR home and something happens to that child YOU should be completely liable for the actions and outcomes of that child and any biproducts that may occur from that drinking. This is pure common sense! Anyone who doesn't follow this simiple logic must be either stupid, or just plain dumb!
25 April 2009
at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
als362 (Anonymous) says…
Absolutely correct 1340