Support for Westchester’s social host law
The proposed social host law now working its way through the Westchester Board of Legislators, which would make it a crime for adults to knowingly host a party where alcohol is served to underage drinkers, has gained some important support — the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police.
In a statement, the association urges the board to pass the bill and offers kudos to its sponsor, Legislator James Maisano, R-New Rochelle.
“The social host law plugs a loophole in the penal and (Alchohol Beverage Control) laws by allowing law enforcement to cite those who knowingly provide a venue for underage drinking,” the statement said.
The Board of Legislators is expected to take up the bill again Tuesday night and hold an additional public hearing on the measure on Aug. 11th.
| 
Email This
Advertisements
there is a larger issue here that the law does not
contemplate…unless you believe that kids are not
going to drink anyway…the underlying premise of
holding the parents responsible for hosting a party
cuts two ways….if every home threw its teenagers
out with their friends…again with the premise they
are going to drink somewhere, the result would be kids
drinking in parks and outdoors where they are guaranteed
to get back in their cars and drive…thereby resulting
in even more deaths from dwi’s. or alcohol poisoning
since there would be no adults around even to take
a kid to a hospital…drinking in a home however assuming
the adults were responsible and took all the car keys
away..as long as they don’;t supply the alcholic beverages
would 1. stop dwi’s since the kids would have to stay
over…2. prevent alcohol poisoning from taking a life
since the adults could take someone to a hospital if needed
so the idea of holding parents responsible for drinking
has a downside…which lawmakers must consider…
any bill imputing criminal liability should take the
facts and circumstances into consideration in order to
really be effective
Alcohol poisoning? Do it at home so someone can drive you to the hospital? Talk about over-thinking an issue.
you are overlooking the premise..that kids are going to
drink…the law would force parents to make sure the
kids did it “somewhere else”...its not overthinking
the law simply doesn’t consider it as a factor
WHY are the kids automatically going to drink? It’s against the law. Hard drugs, too, are against the law. As are a myriad of other things. A law that is unenforceable only breeds contempt for law in general. If is is unenforceable, everyone is spinning wheels. But if it IS the law, parents should be vigilant that the law is respected in its essence by their offspring, and by those put in their charge who are visitors in their home, not just because of the consequences. It is unfair to promote underage drinking, too by other people’s kids, especially in your home. It is part of the social contract. Without this, we have vacillation, dithering, and admit to a lack of moral purpose. I think that many of us are happy to have our children go off to college so that we no longer have to face these dilemmas at home. It becomes someone else’s problem. All of this is presented just as argument so that the other side of the issue is considered before final legislation is enacted.
As a matter of policy, we outlaw behavior we consider to be against the best interests of society, always watching that our laws are consistent with maintaining the values of a free society. The social host law meets that standard.
1. Underage drinking is bad (teens brains are not fully formed, just ask a parent).
2. Allowing those over 21 to facilitate (even by studied inaction) underage drinking is also bad. It encourages the drinking and it encourages contempt for the law.
3. Consultant’s objection that some kids will drink period, is A) correct and B) besides the point. If the social host law works, it will reduce (not eliminate—you right there Consultant) the incidence of underage drinking and therefore such a law would reduce the dwi’s, alcohol poisonings, etc, that Consultant is properly concerned about.
4. There is no guarantee that the social host law will be successful, but enough of the right experts (MADD, the police) are for it for me to consider the plan well within the range of prudent policy.
This is kind of a silly debate. You cannot drink in any state if you are under 21. Although, I may not agree with that law, we are a society of laws and we must enforce those laws. Of course, a parent should get some penalty for allowing an underage drinking party at the home. The reason we need this law is that no parent should be allowed to host a party where other people’s underage kids are served booze. That is outrageous. When my kid leaves the home to go to a party, I should be able to believe that no drinking is going on there SINCE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. I should be able to assume that I am sending my kid to party where parents don’t allow lawbreaking.
And consultant, I often agree with your posts, but this one is just dumb. Your logic, which is that we should allow kids to illegally drink in homes, since they will drink somewhere else, betrays common sense. First of all, you have no idea that if that underage drinking party is canceled that the kids will just drink somewhere else. Plus, under this dopey logic, why don’t we allow gambling, prostitution, and drug use in the home too, since you would also think the kids will do that elsewhere. We need to draw lines in society, that is how a free society regulates itself, and I am happy to see that a line is being drawn that stops this illegal activity and forces parents to act responsibly.
Finally, the county legislature is doing something right.
I am not suggesting that parents should knowingly host
an underage drinking party….In that regard I agree with
the premise of the law..however as a practical matter in
order to enforce any criminal law you must demonstrate
mens rea..that is the intent to do the act….so
this law would require the police to demonstrate that
parents participating in or encouraged their kids and
their friends to drink in their homes…if you can
establish that element of the crime I would agree…of
course the mere fact that kids are in a basement and may
be drinking does not establish that beyond a reasonable
doubt…the difference between drinking and prostitution
gambling and drugs is that alcohol is legal it can
be bought in a retail store and kids have easy access to
it…this law encourages the police to invade private
premises without a warrant on the rumor that there is
a drinking party..it requires that kids and their friends
testify against the parents of their friends…it
insures that parents patrol their homes and throw
any kids out who have liquor..My libertarian streak
tells me the law is not practical, not enforceable
and will be counterproductive…Not that i think that
adults should supply alcohol to minors..that is not the
issue..for me the issue is how to stop it, and the
unintended consequences of such a law …ie having a
teenager with friends for the last 10 years I am well
aware of what kids will do whether in my house
someone elses house or the local hang out spot….If my
child is going to drink (and by the way my son does not
drink at all)..but if they were going to drink….I would
prefer they drink in a safe place not in the streets
where they have to get in their cars..which I believe
would result in far more fatalities
First, I want to state that most of us writing about this issue should note that the drinking law used to be 18 and was changed by us folks now in our 50s to be 21. I think we should go back to 18. Teenagers who want to drink will get alchohol no matter what age. It’s just like criminals know how to get guns. Drugs are illegal but people still know how to purchase them. I say make drugs legal and instead of putting people in prison send them to rehab. Prison doesn’t do any good it just fosters more bad behavior. Tell me one drug law that has helped people to stop taking drugs. By passing this new law and punishing parents who may not even know what’s going on because they could be at a movie or sleeping is utterly ridiculous. Please understand that I do not drink or take drugs but this is just another law that won’t do a thing to solve the problem. By passing this law, we are losing our civil rights because the police can search your house on a rumor that teens are drinking. Also, I’d like to make a comment on not letting teens drive until they are 18 is also ridiculous. I was driving at 16 and was very responsible. Before you know it, some of you liberals will want to raise the drinking age to 25 and getting a driver’s license to 21. If we continue to coddle teenagers, how can they become responsible. I blame the parents lack of supervision and spoiling their children.
You should have a master’s degree to drink legally, and it should be from a respected university, preferably in the northeast. Insofar as driving goes, no one should be allowed to drive unless they have been in the military and attained the minimal rank of 02, either Lieutenant Junior Grade, or First Lieutenant.
the queen speaks the truth 18 is the age you can die
for your country..but the law deems you too irresponsible
to drink a beer…the baby boomers drank at 18..and then
they got religion…the baby boomers did pot and cocain
and then they got religion…hypocrits all….
The drinking age should be at least lowered to eighteen. Anyone, who has gone to college in the past twenty years knows that no one waits to twenty-one to drink. I do not like to cite to foreign countries too much but every European country has a lower drinking age and they do not have nearly the number of alcohol-related deaths the U.S. has. The drinking age of twenty-one is moronic and ineffective.
As for the social host law, let’s not become puritanical in this county. The real problem is teens driving drunk. This is a serious problem. Let’s deal with that issue head-on and not create more laws that have unintended consequences.
good analysis Ian…if we are going to focus on keeping
teens safe..ie preventing them from driving their cars
while intox..shouldn’t we be encouraging them to stay
at home…rather than going out…again assuming they
are not going to wait until 21 to drink..and frankly
i know of no teenager who waits till 21 to drink
and i can say that I know about 50 presently..so
putting the parents on the skillet only works if
they are serving underage kids which is the current
status of the law now.
Have any of you with these grand opinions actually read the law? Thr answer has to be NO, since so many comments claim that that this law will do things that are not even covered by it. Some of you great political theorists here should have read the law before commenting. I had concerns and contacted the county legislature and the law was emailed to me. This is a well-drafted and common sense law, but how could some of you know this without reading it.
For example, “ifiwerequeen” claims, “By passing this new law and punishing parents who may not even know what’s going on because they could be at a movie or sleeping is utterly ridiculous.” Well that post is ridiculous since the law only punishes adults that “knowlingly allow” underage kids to drink in their home. “Consultant” says “this law encourages the police to invade private premises without a warrant on the rumor that there is a drinking party.” Wrong again, if he had actually read the law and came to public meetings where law was reviewed, he would know that every member of law enforcement stated that this law would not change anything in how they deal with these situations. The Greenburgh Police Chief stated several times that when they get a complaint about underage drinking parties, his police always follow the same procedure – they send an office to knock on door to check on the situation. The chief said that if this law passed, the same exact procedure would be followed – SO NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. Other posters here said that this was criminalizing parents – wrong once more – the first two incidents when this law is broken are violations not crimes (the equivalent of a parking ticket). It is only the third violation that rises to a misdemeanor.
There is a state law on books that says adults cannot “give” or “sell” booze to kids, and the only thing the social host law does is add that parents cannot knowlingly allow illegal drinking parties at their homes. That seems awfully reasonable to me.
sorry barbara I understand the law….and I am a former
prosecutor…how do you prove “knowingly allow” and
how does this differ than the present situation..John
Kapica says nothing will change..but the law is a sham
because you cannot demonstrate knowledge unless the parent
is involved in the distribution of the beverage..so
if a parent is upstairs and kids are downstairs it doesn’t
matter..the law is poorly drafted because it doesn’t solve
the problem…parents who are PRESENT…when alchol is being
served..IMMEDIATELY PRESENT…should be held liable…
you cannot impute knowledge to a parent simply because
it is their home…..nor should you
First, “consultant” is one of my favorite people in our world. He saved the life of a child, who is now a grown-up.
Now: me, I am a scold. Except for members of our armed services, I think the drinking age should remain 21.
martini anyone!!!!
and Tim thanks for the kind words..I appreciate it
AND JEFF GRADUATED!!!!!!!!AND HE DOESN’T DRINK AT ALL..
even when offered…..
Cast a wary eye on ANYTHING the B of Legislators proposes as law. I like Maisano, but we already have pertinent rules and regulations in effect. If, as various posters both pro and con have stated, the proposed changes are basically cosmetic and intrinsically unenforceable, this new proposal might only lead to spurring an overzealousness on the part of respondent police. And, where does it lead? If a kid is addicted to a drug, can the parents be imputed to be “allowing” this simply because they harbor and can’t properly police this family member? Some of these hurriedly though- out laws, when literally interpreted, can lead to more harm than good. See RICO, which, in some cases, and contrary to its original intent, has been used unconscienably by prosecutors looking for an edge.
Oh! I’ll gladly have a Bombay martini with consultant, anytime.
I had my first drink when I was 23, working in the newspaper business.
Harry Truman began his day with a bourbon, saved my father’s life in 1945, and lived to 88 without one regret.
Jeff is a glorious kid. I hope he takes my son Chris, 13, to the range sometime. Chris was driving 150 last week, at Fairview.
your son is always welcome at the driving range…let
me know when he wants to hit a few…I don’t practice
anymore..(too good)..only kidding..the arthritis i have
limits the number of swings i can take so i save
them for the course…