I still don’t see how this law benefits anyone. Who is harmed if there is a person for whom it is illegal to drink near some people who are drinking illegally? Why is it so terrible if there are people near someone drinking illegally and there is no crime with which to charge them?
This law smacks of pure ageism: “It shall be unlawful for any ‘person of nonage’, as herein defined, to be or remain in any room, apartment, house, place or vehicle…” Why single out the persons of “nonage” only for the offense of observing underage drinking? Why not all adults in proximity to this activity?
That’s a good point. Surely ‘adults’ of over 21 should be presumed to be of greater responsibility than those under 21, so the sanction should be even greater for any ‘adults’ being in the prescence of minors with alchohol, or doing something so grossly irresponsible as picking up their 19 year old offspring from a party :rolleyes:
This law is ridiculous, and I don’t see how it can hold up. Basically half the parties I went to at my best friends’ house in high school, which was 10 feet from my own back door, would have gotten me arrested then. Before my senior year, 18-year-olds could still purchase alcohol legally in Wisconsin, which was less than an hour away.
So typically, my friends’ parents, who were lenient hippie types, didn’t mind if one of the seniors who had turned 18 went and bought a case of beer on a hot night and shared it with everyone. The parents were always home keeping an eye on things, many of us didn’t drink, and most of us lived within a ten-minute walk, so nobody was drinking and driving. It was very rare for anyone to drink to the point of drunkenness at one of these parties, which really just consisted of hanging out listening to old Pink Floyd or Dead albums and maybe trading backrubs.
So you’re telling me that under this law, I could have been arrested for hanging out with the math team in an adult-supervised house 10 feet from my own home, with the knowledge and consent of my own parents?
Of course, I will never in a million years understand why 18-year-olds, who are considered responsible enough to drive, sign contracts, support themselves if needed, get married, and join the military and potentially kill people, are not allowed to consume alcohol. If they can’t handle it, fine, then throw the book at them, but to assume across the board that anyone under 21 is irresponsible is completely idiotic.
That is just retarded. Seriously retarded. Stuff like this really rides my shorts up. I’m sure I would be arrested for the verbal barrage at the next town meeting. If this was truly the result of the party incident I don’t understand why they didn’t just hand the overtime bill (police) to the parents involved.
This countermands any good-citizen laws that require aid to people in distress. If there’s any justice in the world the author of the law will absorb the next drunk that comes along as a result of it.
That’s odd… I lived ten feet from your house and I don’t remember any wild parties… 
I’m picturing poor Eva Luna sitting in prison because Jonesey went too hard on the Everclear punch.
Seriously, though… this law in Naperville sounds like the work of a politician who feels the need to show he/she is "doing something about the ‘underage drinking problem.’ " If making underage drinking illegal dosen’t stop kids from getting sauced, why would criminalizing being around an underage drinker prevent anything? Methinks all it will do is drive the squares away from the partyers. For all I know, it was Eva Luna’s moderating influence that kept me from being a complete wastoid…
Perhaps the reason you don’t remember the parties had something to do with the Everclear punch…hey, wait a minute, I don’t recall seeing any punch!
See? Perhaps I was on the clueless side when it came to intoxicants (hey, who am I kidding? I still am), but I’ve been at more than my share of parties where various substances were being consumed of which I was not aware. Would it have been right to throw me in jail basically for the sin of being clueless?
This law is a seriously bad idea. Not only for the picking up a drunk friend and taking them home, but how about this senerio.
Let’s say you are a freshman in college. At some point, while your out at class, or the library or something, your roommate, sweet and innocent and 17, has gone to a frat party. Now, not knowing anyone in said frat, my first instinct would be to call her and see if she was okay. If I got no answer, I would most likely go down there and see if I could find her, just to make sure she was okay. Now, while I’m searching through a crowded party in a place I’ve never been, to find my roommate, who actually is innocent, to be sure that no one slips a ruphie in her drink, the cops come. I’m, let’s say, 18. I’m sober as can be. I’m here looking for my friend officer, didn’t want anything to happen to her. She can get into things and not see the problems, didn’t want her to get hurt. Sounds like I could get arrested for that. What was I supposed to do, sit in my dorm room all night, hoping that she isn’t going to get raped or get alcohol poisoning or anything else like that? Because I would never make that choice, but others might. Let’s punish actual criminals, not people thatare in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Well, I don’t, but apparently my school thinks of the issue differently.
Someone in my class for first-time-marijuana-offender students had never had a puff of dope in her entire life, but she got kicked out of her dorm and put through the first-time-offender program for being in the same room as some kids who were smoking pot.
The free on-campus Safe Ride service has a new rule that they can’t pick up anybody who’s obviously intoxicated.
The way the residence hall rules are written, a student can get in deep shit for being in the same building as another student who’s committing a crime. I haven’t seen that one enforced yet, but one never knows.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Taking away all safe options for alcohol and drug users doesn’t make people stop using alcohol and drugs, it just forces them to stop using them safely. I don’t mean to hijack here, but this is why I believe we would do well with 1920s-style ( ) across-the-board legality with modern-day regulatory and educational systems in place. Educate people on how to party safely and keep themselves out of danger, and regulate the sales and manufacture of all drugs including alcohol. Encourage people to think of alcohol and drugs as potentially dangerous but (if the user is well-informed and responsible) mostly harmless things for adults to use responsibly in appropriate places and situations.
I know this is a controversial view; it makes sense to me, but I could see how others would be a mite uncomfortable with it, at least without another thread’s worth of argumentation. But there’s nothing objectionable about this view, and I’m sure most of you will agree with my viewpoint if you take all mention of currently-illegal drugs out of the above paragraph.
Howe on earth is a person of nonage expected to understand that? And it should be thrown out anyway since ‘nonage’ means nine years old, whereas they should have written ‘non-age’, and a nine-year old certainly couldn’t understand that. Further, should this be tested in court with a jury, I can see the jury throwing it out.