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.

Now: me, I am a scold. Except for members of our armed services, I think the drinking age should remain 21.

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.

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.

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.

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.