Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
When five teenagers from Oswego died last month in a horrifying car accident after leaving a party, it wasn't hard to retrace their steps to find a party with a whole lot of booze. Those killed — and the driver, 23-year-old Sandra Vasquez — had all been at a house party where alcohol was served to minors.
In response, State Rep. Tom Cross (R-Oswego), is proposing legislation that would suspend any teenager's driver's license for three months if they are caught drinking. Cross said at a Monday news conference that at that age "there is nothing more important than being able to drive. Not to be crass, but we thinking being alive is probably more important than being able to drive. But we digress.
Color Chicagoist ignorant, but we already thought this was a law. While we don't want to encourage teen drinking per se, we did a bit of imbibing before our 21st birthday, and would have been more than a little bummed if our driving privileges were taken away. That being said, we never really hurt anything when drinking except our liver and possibly our GPA.
What do you think? Would this legislation be a teen drinking deterrent or just another way for legislators to make it seem like they are doing something to curb the inevitable?
Image via Youth Change.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The best thing to do would be to ban them from driving until 21 - that's right, completely strip them of that privilege as it would shock them more than 3 months - as well as entering their names into a database that employers, schools, etc. can search in to find out if these teens were drinking before 21. Yea, it's already a crime already, but not everyone does a criminal records check.
"Not to be crass, but we thinking being alive is probably more important than being able to drive."
When you are a teenager, you believe you are impervious and nothing can hurt you. So yes, having your license taken away for 3 months would be devistating to a teenager. Personally, I don't think 3 months is long enough to punish a kid who's underage, drinking and driving. Call me a crotchety old woman, but I'm with Brad. Suspend them from driving until they're 21... although then they can legally drink... maybe they should be suspended until they are 30 and have outgrown the need to be drunk to have fun.
I agree that a longer suspension would be better (reinforcing that driving is a privilege, not a right), but what really gets me about this case is all the hoohah it has generated over teenage drinking when the accident was caused by an adult who was drunk.
this law wouldn't have made a lick of difference in that oswego crash anyway, since the driver was of age. the whole thing feels misguided, redundant and too little too late.
Agree w/JimW and geekgrrl- esp. because it was revealed after the accident that one of the girls who died had been trying *desperately* to find a ride home, and barring that, find a place to stay. The drunkass 23 year old who killed her was her only option.
And, to play devil's advocate, I think teenagers are more inclined to ask another teenager for a ride if they feel like they're in trouble.
I'm with Brad, too. Although, I would caution that if you are caught once, and lose your license until you're 21 then there is no incentive not to go back out and get blitzed again... so maybe 1 year would be better. It'd still *suck* big time, and would give recourse for multiple offenses.
I agree that the suspension laws are a good idea, and need to be maybe a bit longer. However, I think that maybe a 6 month suspension would be better. Taking away someone's license for 5 years is way to harsh. Especially when you consider kids who aren't habitually binging, but wind up drinking once or twice before 21 for whatever reason (peer pressure, etc.). Also, I think that in response to the "color Chicagoist ingnorant" bit - of course it's illegal to drink underage, but how many of us (who are over 21) were caught doing it only to receive nothing but a slap on the wrist - aka, a punishment that was hardly memorable or consequential to our social lives?
The problem with that is most suburbs (including Oswego, I'd guess) have garbage public transportation. I'm thinking back to my high school days and if I had lost my license permanently my parents would have suffered tremendously. Between my job, my after school activities and other things I needed transportation for (that friends wouldn't help out with), it would have killed them.
Tom Cross is proposing it they get caught just drinking. not Drinking and Driving. If they get caught D&D throw the book at them, no driving until 21.
But if they're not driving, give them a Misdemeanors ticket and an appearance before a judge, just like in Ohio for under 18 (not that I know anything about that)
Hit em in the pocketbook. Fine em, get there parents to ground them.
I don't think you should suspend someone's license until they're 21 simply if they get *caught* drinking underage which is what this legislation is proposing. Presently, little beyond a slap on the wrist is what most kids would get if they caught drinking underage. There are already laws concerning underage drinking which include stiff fines and even possible jail term as well as suspension of a driver's license. Check these 2 PDFs from the Illinois website. Page One and Page Two
As a former teenager, I would have to say that I would have still risked my driving privileges in order to drink...
I think it would be worse to have a criminal record than to have your car taken away. I had a couple of friends who were caught with booze before they had their licenses and thus, couldn't get theirs. They actually had the last laugh because all through high school and beyond, they never had to be the designated driver.
I think it would be worse to have a criminal record than to have your car taken away. I had a couple of friends who were caught with booze before they had their licenses and thus, couldn't get theirs. They actually had the last laugh because all through high school and beyond, they never had to be the designated driver.
The kids will keep drinking as long as they can get their hands on it.
I bet we'd hear a lot less about underage drinking if it became a felony to provide minors with alcohol. No more "Well if they're going to drink, I'd rather them be here so I can watch them and take their keys" kind of parents.
Kids lose their license for a year if they're caught getting into bars or buying with a fake ID. And there's a Zero-Tolerance for drinking and driving. Blow a .01? License suspended.
Why not make these rules for liqour stores? Sell to minor? Liqour license suspended on the first offense. Do it again? Revoked. Forever.
Mikey - that is an excellent point.
I think there are two separate issues being addressed in one fell swoop.
First: underage drinking. Because they are minors, they shouldn't be drinking. But, it will happen. That's what wine coolers are for, right? Just like smoking. People are going to have different reasons, and there is no way to peg one punishment to cover that array of reasons. As some responders noted: they would have risked loss of license to drink.
Second: driving. I still don't understand why the US does not have a graduated license system. Drivers (of all ages) need to understand that this is a privelege that they need to earn. Part of the privelege is understanding the consequences of causing an accident.
Do you avoid drinking and driving because it's the law? Or do you avoid drinking and driving because you know that there is a much higher risk of you causing injury (or property damage)?
But, maybe I am too much of an optimist for society. Maybe we do need all of these strict laws and punishments just so people learn how to be humane.
(sorry if this posts twice. FireFox says there was an Internal Server Error, so I am attempting to post in Internet Explorer)
I think there are two separate issues being addressed in one fell swoop.
First: underage drinking. Because they are minors, they shouldn't be drinking. But, it will happen. That's what wine coolers are for, right? Just like smoking. People are going to have different reasons, and there is no way to peg one punishment to cover that array of reasons. As some responders noted: they would have risked loss of license to drink.
Second: driving. I still don't understand why the US does not have a graduated license system. Drivers (of all ages) need to understand that this is a privelege that they need to earn. Part of the privelege is understanding the consequences of causing an accident.
Do you avoid drinking and driving because it's the law? Or do you avoid drinking and driving because you know that there is a much higher risk of you causing injury (or property damage)?
But, maybe I am too much of an optimist for society. Maybe we do need all of these strict laws and punishments just so people learn how to be humane.
yeah, Jeff, it would be a great idea to make it a felony to provide minors with alcohol. ANY parent who would allow their underage child to have alcohol should be jailed and stripped of their custody rights. that would really get at the root of the problem.
while we're at it let's ban tobacco, meat, porn, and hydrogenated oil.
Accidents happen. Teenagers drink. People die you can't save the world by legislating behavior. You can't punish all all the responsible teenagers by changing the laws for a few hundred kids.
yeah, Jeff, it would be a great idea to make it a felony to provide minors with alcohol. ANY parent who would allow their underage child to have alcohol should be jailed and stripped of their custody rights. that would really get at the root of the problem.
Point taken. Though I never said anything about custody rights, I understand your argument. I meant it more as a "show of force," so to speak. Kind of like the Office Space analogy of "white-collar resort prison" vs. "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison."
And no, locking parents up won't get to the root of the problem. But because adults have to purchase alcohol for minors (unless they steal it), there should be a deterrant from them becoming enablers.
jwj:
You can't legislate behavior? What country do you live in? You can't punish all responsible teenagers?
If these kids are responsible they won't be punished. If they drink and drive they are irresponsible.
Since teens are going to drink and are statistically going to be horrible drivers even when sober, the obvious solution is to lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the minimum driving age to 21. Problem solved.
The Government is considering lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg and later this year will publish a consultation paper to gauge opinion. With a 50mg limit, most people would be able to consume only one 175ml glass of standard-strength wine or half a pint of strong beer and remain legally fit to drive.
-----------
Nikimathew
california dui