Kids are going to drink, there is no doubt about it. It is unfortunate that they get behind the wheel. To punish parents further will not stop this.
A side note--I found out the hard way the method the kids now use to get alcohol is to drive around looking for open garages with a fridge in it, they run in grab the beer and run out. Pretty brave huh?
I Love Alcohol
· 2 years ago
The 21 age drinking requirement is stupid to begin with. You can die for your country at 18, but cant have a class of champaign to celebrite a friends wedding.
Its a given fact, kids in high school will more than likely drink, and i think its fair for parents to some what control this by allowing it at their house, requireing the kids to stay the night, and keep their keys locked up till the morning. Its better than having drunk kids driving around looking for a safe place to drink.
Guy Montag
· 2 years ago
Parents who not only allow their kids and others to drink in their homes, but purchase the booze for them are criminals. It's called contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The kids shouldn't be drinking, and good parents should make sure their kids aren't in a situation where they can go "garagehopping" or getting boozed up with their buddies. If you didn't want your underage kids drinking (like most, I assume, don't) how would you like to find out that your child was getting trashed, but with parental supervision? Would you be alright with that? Be honest with yourself.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
I don't see how this law distinguishes between the situation where a parent is allowing their child to throw a party for others where liquor is available vs. the case where the parents allow their own children to drink in their own home. The first case I can see throwing the book at because the other parents haven't given permission. The second, I don't think the state has a business being involved in. I was allowed to have wine for weddings and holidays as a child and as I grew older I was allowed to have beer and wine with meals. I feel this gave me a better appreciation for the fruit of the grain and vine than I would have from the state's position of complete prohibition until 21.
grand old partisan
· 2 years ago
My parents used to let me have a glass of wine each Christmas starting around 16. That adds up to about 5-15 years and about $125,000 I guess.
Seriously, this is a knee-jerk legislative reaction to a tragedy. If the potential death of your child and their friends isn’t enough to make you act like a responsible adult, what makes anyone think that 1-3 years and $25,000 will? (And if it does, what does that say about our priorities as a society?)
Go ahead and pass the law (what legislator in their right mind wouldn’t vote for it?), but don’t expect it to really change anything.
yinn
· 2 years ago
This will solve nothing by itself. Two dichotomies must be addressed first. One is the expectation of 18-year-olds to take on all adult responsibilities except for retaining minor status for three more years when it comes to drinking. Another is the parents' dilemma when it comes to teaching children to act within the law vs. teaching them to drink responsibly.
Garp
· 2 years ago
Parents should be held accountable for breaking the law; however, it is wrong to charge a felony because there was bodily injury. Another word, just because everyone gets home safe doesn't mean the crime is any less dangerous.
Kids are inexperienced and unsafe drivers cold sober. Any parent who has to pay the insurance premiums for a youthful driver knows what happens to insurance rates when their kid starts to drive. These rates are not because insurance companies want to stick it to families. It is because kids crash, and quite a lot.
For any parent to knowingly add alcohol to an already precarious situation is criminal......
Suburban
· 2 years ago
The idea is OK, but it again brings up a lack of consistency arguement like the proposed greater involvement of parents with teen driving. Almost always when teenagers drink OR drive everyone lives. But when a teenager has an abortion, that baby is guaranteed to die. So here legislators are requiring parental involvement when most survive teen drinking OR teen driving but denying even notification for a serious medical procedure when death of the baby is assured. That is an amazing inconsistency. Please note I am not in any way OK with drinking and driving which is why I used the word 'OR' above.
Wumpus
· 2 years ago
Kids will always outsmart parents and find ways to drink if they want to. More laws, yay!
NW burbs
· 2 years ago
The Oswego teens who died, like other before them, were well under 18 so the "Why is the age limit 21?" arguments hold little water. (The driver in the Oswego crash was 23, however.) This holds true for many of the other teen drunk driving accidents.
The point here isn't the driving, it's the drinking and (larger picture) parental responsibility.
Garp makes a good point -- parents should be held accountable for breaking the law whether or not the kids drive in addition to drinking.
Teaching kids responsibility (responsible drinking) is a part of parenting. We parents can't be 100% perfect, but too many of the parents involved in these and other incidents are actually encouraging drinking, not responsibility.
--
"Suburban", stick to the topic.
Just Observing
· 2 years ago
Stupid law.. won't do anything. Part of the reason we have such a culture of drinking in the U.S. is our prohibition against underage drinking. Why is that most other countries that have less restrictive laws have less problems with binge drinking?
Veritas
· 2 years ago
Why stop there? I think we need stiffer penalties for 22 year old men who allow their 20 year old wives to drink at home!
Objective Dem
· 2 years ago
I did a quick internet search and found this sentence in the executive summary for "What drives underage drinking - An international anaylsis" by International Center for Alcohol Policies: "Harmful underage drinking is more prevalent in so-called “dry†countries, where alcohol is perceived with ambivalence, than in “wet†areas, where it is accepted."
Rather teaching kids to drink in a responsible manner by having a drink or two with a meal, we criminalize it and turn them into binge drinkers. And because alcohol is illegal, young adults turn to pot and other drugs.
I can understand some sort of law that penalizes adults who throw underage drinking parties. But this is significantly different from threatening parents who allow their kid to have a few beers or a glass of wine.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
I have never been a big fan of "send a message" legislation. I think government should focus on solving problems, not "sending a message" that there is a problem.
We've been "sending a message" to sex offenders, gangbangers, drug dealers, deadbeat dads and a long list of folks for years. It hasn't solved much, so my expectations for Garrett's bill are low, even though I know her intentions are noble.
A more cynical man than I would suggest the reason it hasn't changed anything is that the message is really being sent to voters, not lawbreakers, and the message is "re-elect me."
I'm not that cynical, but I will note that typing "Blagojevich" and "send a message" into your Google search engine produces 12,400 hits. Not scientific, but you get the point.
Fan of the Game
· 2 years ago
"Kids are gonna drink anyway, so I'd rather they do it with me instead of while driving down the road."
That's the argument, but it just sets the bar so low (and what makes those parents think their children ARE NOT drinking elsewhere?). Should we not have high expectations for our children and for ourselves as parents?
pickles!!
· 2 years ago
Its about time we hold parents legally responsible if someone is injured or killed during a drnking party at a parents house. We are not talking if a kid has a sip or two of wine at a family gathering, these are full out drunken parties that parents "look the other way at".
Parents need to start taking responsibity for the behaviors of their kids, and not blaiming TV, music, video games, Internet and society for all the problems thier children are having. I support this measure.
Next comes the issue of holding parents responsible for teen drivers who injure people in reckless crashes.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
I went to university in Germany and discovered that Germans are considered adult when they drink but don't get drunk. As a result, they teach their children how to consider alcohol in a proper context. We don't have that here. We still believe in prohibition - that no one gets booze until a certain age - then we expect them to be old enough to prosecute for any offenses and that'll teach them!
Nutty.
I support this legislation because we must rely on parents to parent. You are required to be responsible for your minor children regardless of the crime. To excuse parents by saying that kids will be kids isn't demanding that parents parent.
When you become a parent, you become a parent for life. Just because they become old enough to prosecute for crimes they commit doesn't let you off the hook. Just because they "don't listen to you" didn't work as an excuse when they were 2, and it doesn't work when they are 20. When parents turn their backs on their responsibilities, they should pay the penalties. Life is tough, parenting must be tougher.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
P.S. If the law is going to be applied, it should be applied equally, with no excuses made for parents who are "unwitting" (wittless) or "unknowing" (naive). That describes 80% of parents.
Also, you've got to wonder if any prosecutor would apply the law to a parent who's own child was injured, maimed or killed.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
Granted it was a long time ago, but I remember from college Sociology that, research at that time showed laws punishing parents for childrens' acts did little or no good. Perhaps there is more recent research telling a different story, I don't know.
Gregor
· 2 years ago
So let me get this right; to improve the parenting, we're going to tear the parent's ways from the kids, and the job that feeds and clothes those kids, and throw that parent in the slammer for a year or two, just at the age where parenting makes all the difference in a teen's life? Without substituting another parent and breadwinner? Brilliant!
Wouldn't it make more sense to sentence the parent and child to weekly classes where they can BOTH learn something? People that approach solving social problems with ill-considered absolutist measures are generally idiots. This bill should die a flaming death.
Anon
· 2 years ago
I think many people are missing the larger issue. This law would be used only when a teenager who has been drinking with their parents knowledge causes an injury to someone else.
Many good arguements have been made about teaching your children to drink reposonsibly, and I agree with many of them. However, there is no such thing as drink and DRIVING responsibly. If a parent is going to allow their child to drink in their house, they should be liable if they then let that child drive.
The crime we need to focus on is not drinking, but drinking and driving.
Garp
· 2 years ago
A parent can't be responsible for all the acts of their children, but they can be responsible for their own actions. Knowingly allowing or even providing alcohol and/or a place to drink it to minors is taking an active part in the crime. We are not talking about ignorant adults here. Kids are crazy enough without having their parents pouring liquid irresponsibility down their throats.
Having said that, the legislation seems designed to gain votes and not solve the problem. It might be better if the police cracked down on parents who allow house parties when the events are happening and hauled them off to jail.
Throwing the book at the parent after the kids are scraped off the street is too late.
Mom
· 2 years ago
To Just Observing: Binge drinking is a problem in other countries--the difference is those kids don't have access to a car as readily as American kids. Most countries have a higher age restriction for obtaining a license.
To I love alcohol: Your kids are gonna drink argument doesn't hold water...Sure a parent can gather up the keys but unless they sit guard at the door they cannot guarantee someone isn't going to leave.
And let's not forget what can happen in the house. Studies show that sexual activity, date rape and unprotected sex increase when booze is involved. That can lead to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. You can bet if my daughter gets knocked up at some house party where the parents allowed booze I'll be suing them in court!
The bottom line is that kids are going to do what they are going to do. But as a parent it is my job to teach them right from wrong. If they go out and drink and drive or get pregnant I'll be there to support them. But I won't contribute to it. I don't ever want my child to look at me and ask "Why did you let me do this? You were supposed to be the parent."
zatoichi
· 2 years ago
In high school, the parents of my group of friends regularly collected car keys and kept them all night. Alcohol was readily available at every family function from weddings to funerals to picnics. It was virtually unavoidable. Put in any rules you want. Teens are still going to drink just as they have forever. Be the most rule following parent and your kid will do some action that you will find mortifying. You simply cannot have a rule for every possible action. Nice idea that will never fly.
gotta be anonymous
· 2 years ago
Drinking and driving is a problem regardless of the age of the driver. Whether you are 16, 21, 30, or 60, alcohol will diminish your ability to make competent decisions about whether you should be driving or not. Until we get serious about real consequences for people who drink and drive, all the laws in the world aren't going to make a difference. And parents who think it is more important to be a friend to their child than a parent will most likely not care about the consequences of their actions.
Mr. Ethics
· 2 years ago
Sen Garrett lives in Lake Forest where a $25,000 fine must be affordable? It would seem that this law if enacted would just further destroy families who are already grieving. We can not arrest our way out of this situation and the State can not afford to pay for the all these kids after their Mom and Pops are hauled off to jail. This law has to be stopped in its tracks.
can't imagine
· 2 years ago
Susan Garrett is part of the over reacting crowd in Lake county. Everything is an issue for her and most of the people their. I do not support teenagers drinking and especially driving after drinking, but then I think anyone who drinks and drives is criminal. But to blame parents and further the pain and suffering is Susan Garrett like.
U of I Dem
· 2 years ago
Passing reactive laws is not the solution. Proactive legislation and education are the solution.
i d
· 2 years ago
So many others gave so many good reasons against this legislation that I'll not reinterate what's been said. Any needed arrests can be made using the superfluous number of current laws.
Utility Infielder
· 2 years ago
Is everyone younger than me? About the time I was turning 21 Illinois passed a law reducing the drinking age for beer and wine to 18. Anyone remember what happened? Accidents and fatalities went up so Springfield overturned the law within a couple of years. The old enough to die for your country (Vietman) but not old enough to drink (vote) is 40 years old. The answer is Yes. Just get over it!
Shelbyville
· 2 years ago
I don't think that most people have a problem with an 18 year old drinking wine with dad on Christmas.
But what is happening is that Mom and Dad throw the party and furnish all comers with booze. Then, there is ALWAYS drugs and you have a recipe for disaster.
I fought and fought parents in one of your local school districts that were allowing this. The kids weren't just getting into the liquor cabinet on the sly - these parents were buying the keg.
Objective Dem
· 2 years ago
I agree that throwing a beer fest for underage drinkers is wrong and there should be penalties for it. Unfortunately, the laws are too aggressive on the issue. So now we have a standing law that makes it illegal for a parent to allow their kid to drink at home. The result of laws that don't make sense is the police pick and choose when to enforce them and people don't take them seriously.
The proposed legislation is just silly. People already understand the emotional and financial ramifications of a kid (or adult) getting seriously hurt at a party they sponsor. They just don't believe it will happen to them.
Sue Garrett is just looking for a quick answer to a tragedy for her to use in her next campaign. My impression is she is a smart decent woman, so it makes me mad that she isn't working at real solutions.
Huh?
· 2 years ago
Passing legislation, education seems to be the gist of the discussion.
At the risk of being trite, does anybody remember that tired old saw, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"?
The point is that passing laws and educating is all well and good. But how do you get a teen to think that they aren't invincible? How are we going to make that teen stop and think about the consequences of their actions?
Once again, who is teaching our children when they are learning to drive. We as parents are the role models that they see drinking and driving, speeding, tailgating, driving while distracted.
We as parents have to be the respectable role model and show our children how to drive in a respectable and responsible manner.
Anon
· 2 years ago
Parents are buying the kegs and passing out at the parties themselves. Northwest side of Chicago eighth grade graduation party 'season' is a dangerous time of the year to be on the roads.
Stronger laws with consequences for parents who can't handle the responsibility of saying no to their teenagers would perhaps cause at least some of these people to think twice.
I agree that kids have been drinking and driving and probably drinking on horseback before that--however combine this with a generation of parents who think it's cool to be a kid too--and I think a legislative solution might be necessary.
NoGiftsPlease
· 2 years ago
I don't see how it will help anyone if the children's parents are in prison. Maybe we should also arrest people who knowingly overserve guests in their homes? They are responsible for allowing drinking and driving there too. How many drunk driving accidents have there been in the last few months that weren't underage drivers? Probably quite a few, but we don't hear about them because the lemmings are busy running to the other side of the cliff. The driver in the oswego accident was 23 years old, by the way.
dan l
· 2 years ago
I'm flatly against stamping a fine or jail time because a parent let's his kids and a few others from [insert high school] football team.
On the other hand, if one of the players gets in a car and kills 2 people, you're frickin' right there should be some charges brought.
Patriot
· 2 years ago
Put the responsibility for underage drinking on the underage drinker. They do not care if their parents are penalized for their underage drinking. They see their parents drink and drive without getting penalized. It is too late for parents who encourage underage drinking. Focus upon the underage drinker by imposing stiff penalties on them for their irresponsible behavior.
All Comments
A side note--I found out the hard way the method the kids now use to get alcohol is to drive around looking for open garages with a fridge in it, they run in grab the beer and run out. Pretty brave huh?
Its a given fact, kids in high school will more than likely drink, and i think its fair for parents to some what control this by allowing it at their house, requireing the kids to stay the night, and keep their keys locked up till the morning. Its better than having drunk kids driving around looking for a safe place to drink.
Seriously, this is a knee-jerk legislative reaction to a tragedy. If the potential death of your child and their friends isn’t enough to make you act like a responsible adult, what makes anyone think that 1-3 years and $25,000 will? (And if it does, what does that say about our priorities as a society?)
Go ahead and pass the law (what legislator in their right mind wouldn’t vote for it?), but don’t expect it to really change anything.
Kids are inexperienced and unsafe drivers cold sober. Any parent who has to pay the insurance premiums for a youthful driver knows what happens to insurance rates when their kid starts to drive. These rates are not because insurance companies want to stick it to families. It is because kids crash, and quite a lot.
For any parent to knowingly add alcohol to an already precarious situation is criminal......
The point here isn't the driving, it's the drinking and (larger picture) parental responsibility.
Garp makes a good point -- parents should be held accountable for breaking the law whether or not the kids drive in addition to drinking.
Teaching kids responsibility (responsible drinking) is a part of parenting. We parents can't be 100% perfect, but too many of the parents involved in these and other incidents are actually encouraging drinking, not responsibility.
--
"Suburban", stick to the topic.
prevalent in so-called “dry†countries, where alcohol is perceived with ambivalence, than in “wet†areas, where it is accepted."
Rather teaching kids to drink in a responsible manner by having a drink or two with a meal, we criminalize it and turn them into binge drinkers. And because alcohol is illegal, young adults turn to pot and other drugs.
I can understand some sort of law that penalizes adults who throw underage drinking parties. But this is significantly different from threatening parents who allow their kid to have a few beers or a glass of wine.
We've been "sending a message" to sex offenders, gangbangers, drug dealers, deadbeat dads and a long list of folks for years. It hasn't solved much, so my expectations for Garrett's bill are low, even though I know her intentions are noble.
A more cynical man than I would suggest the reason it hasn't changed anything is that the message is really being sent to voters, not lawbreakers, and the message is "re-elect me."
I'm not that cynical, but I will note that typing "Blagojevich" and "send a message" into your Google search engine produces 12,400 hits. Not scientific, but you get the point.
That's the argument, but it just sets the bar so low (and what makes those parents think their children ARE NOT drinking elsewhere?). Should we not have high expectations for our children and for ourselves as parents?
Parents need to start taking responsibity for the behaviors of their kids, and not blaiming TV, music, video games, Internet and society for all the problems thier children are having. I support this measure.
Next comes the issue of holding parents responsible for teen drivers who injure people in reckless crashes.
Nutty.
I support this legislation because we must rely on parents to parent. You are required to be responsible for your minor children regardless of the crime. To excuse parents by saying that kids will be kids isn't demanding that parents parent.
When you become a parent, you become a parent for life. Just because they become old enough to prosecute for crimes they commit doesn't let you off the hook. Just because they "don't listen to you" didn't work as an excuse when they were 2, and it doesn't work when they are 20. When parents turn their backs on their responsibilities, they should pay the penalties. Life is tough, parenting must be tougher.
Also, you've got to wonder if any prosecutor would apply the law to a parent who's own child was injured, maimed or killed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to sentence the parent and child to weekly classes where they can BOTH learn something? People that approach solving social problems with ill-considered absolutist measures are generally idiots. This bill should die a flaming death.
Many good arguements have been made about teaching your children to drink reposonsibly, and I agree with many of them. However, there is no such thing as drink and DRIVING responsibly. If a parent is going to allow their child to drink in their house, they should be liable if they then let that child drive.
The crime we need to focus on is not drinking, but drinking and driving.
Kids are crazy enough without having their parents pouring liquid irresponsibility down their throats.
Having said that, the legislation seems designed to gain votes and not solve the problem. It might be better if the police cracked down on parents who allow house parties when the events are happening and hauled them off to jail.
Throwing the book at the parent after the kids are scraped off the street is too late.
To I love alcohol: Your kids are gonna drink argument doesn't hold water...Sure a parent can gather up the keys but unless they sit guard at the door they cannot guarantee someone isn't going to leave.
And let's not forget what can happen in the house. Studies show that sexual activity, date rape and unprotected sex increase when booze is involved. That can lead to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. You can bet if my daughter gets knocked up at some house party where the parents allowed booze I'll be suing them in court!
The bottom line is that kids are going to do what they are going to do. But as a parent it is my job to teach them right from wrong. If they go out and drink and drive or get pregnant I'll be there to support them. But I won't contribute to it. I don't ever want my child to look at me and ask "Why did you let me do this? You were supposed to be the parent."
But what is happening is that Mom and Dad throw the party and furnish all comers with booze. Then, there is ALWAYS drugs and you have a recipe for disaster.
I fought and fought parents in one of your local school districts that were allowing this. The kids weren't just getting into the liquor cabinet on the sly - these parents were buying the keg.
The proposed legislation is just silly. People already understand the emotional and financial ramifications of a kid (or adult) getting seriously hurt at a party they sponsor. They just don't believe it will happen to them.
Sue Garrett is just looking for a quick answer to a tragedy for her to use in her next campaign. My impression is she is a smart decent woman, so it makes me mad that she isn't working at real solutions.
At the risk of being trite, does anybody remember that tired old saw, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"?
The point is that passing laws and educating is all well and good. But how do you get a teen to think that they aren't invincible? How are we going to make that teen stop and think about the consequences of their actions?
Once again, who is teaching our children when they are learning to drive. We as parents are the role models that they see drinking and driving, speeding, tailgating, driving while distracted.
We as parents have to be the respectable role model and show our children how to drive in a respectable and responsible manner.
Stronger laws with consequences for parents who can't handle the responsibility of saying no to their teenagers would perhaps cause at least some of these people to think twice.
I agree that kids have been drinking and driving and probably drinking on horseback before that--however combine this with a generation of parents who think it's cool to be a kid too--and I think a legislative solution might be necessary.
On the other hand, if one of the players gets in a car and kills 2 people, you're frickin' right there should be some charges brought.