[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
And yet the law merely restricted possession, not consumption. Assuming legislative intent followed the lines you suggest (which is admittedly plausible - we are a nation of Puritans, still) the law would explicitly outlaw consumption.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know, would that be the best way to make a law? I mean, it’s probably harder to prove consumption (absent breath/blood testing technology) than it is to prove possession.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
I opened my own checking account and conducted my own business and filed my own tax return as an independent from that point on-- I was about 6 months away from my 18th birthday at that time. I could do just about anything with that little slip of paper with the exception of drink, smoke, or vote.
[/QUOTE]
Related to this last sentence: I’ve heard from several sources, including an attorney, that people under the age of 18 cannot ever legally have sex (even with other minors) unless they’re married. Even if they’re emancipated. And that married minors, even though marriage automatically emancipates them, can only legally have sex with their spouse, not anybody else. In other words, if they do have sex, it’s always at least a misdemeanor.
Anybody know if this is true or not? Or if it’s only true in some places and not in others?
[QUOTE=chorpler]
Related to this last sentence: I’ve heard from several sources, including an attorney, that people under the age of 18 cannot ever legally have sex (even with other minors) unless they’re married. Even if they’re emancipated. And that married minors, even though marriage automatically emancipates them, can only legally have sex with their spouse, not anybody else. In other words, if they do have sex, it’s always at least a misdemeanor.
Anybody know if this is true or not? Or if it’s only true in some places and not in others?
[/QUOTE]
I think it varies from state to state. Some states have really bizarre laws about minors and sex. It was my general understanding that minors could have sex with one another with abandon as long as they were both under 18, and also that statutory rape laws do not apply if the woman is older than 18 and the man is younger. But I believe ultimately the answer to that question is for each individual state to determine.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Minors can enter into contracts for “neccesities” like food, clothing, and shelter. How electronics or jewry fit into this I’m not sure.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s necessary to drag the Jews into this argument. :mad:
[QUOTE=PaulParkhead]
I don’t know, would that be the best way to make a law? I mean, it’s probably harder to prove consumption (absent breath/blood testing technology) than it is to prove possession.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. Possession can be a bit of a grey area, especially if you’re in a car or something.
Plus, why “absent breath/blood testing technology”? The law was written is the mid-80s.
[QUOTE=chorpler]
Related to this last sentence: I’ve heard from several sources, including an attorney, that people under the age of 18 cannot ever legally have sex (even with other minors) unless they’re married. Even if they’re emancipated. And that married minors, even though marriage automatically emancipates them, can only legally have sex with their spouse, not anybody else. In other words, if they do have sex, it’s always at least a misdemeanor.
[/QUOTE]
As with most legal questions, this question is not possible to answer without knowing what jurisdiction you’re talking about. For instance, it would not be an accurate statement of the law in Canada, but it may accurate in the jurisdiction where the lawyer you spoke to practised. This is the sort of issue where there can be tremendous variation in the details from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Not really. Possession can be a bit of a grey area, especially if you’re in a car or something.
Plus, why “absent breath/blood testing technology”? The law was written is the mid-80s.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right - I was thinking of Prohibition, and thus missed your point. Apologies.
I don’t know any more about the specifics of this case than those in the linked news articles. That said, when a parent purchases a car for a resident child’s use, it has been my experience that the title and insurance remain in the parent’s name. I believe the parent was legally disposing of the parent’s property.
[QUOTE=Strain of Thought]
All that said, again I still question what the mother from the news story did. I don’t know the son’s general behavior, and the details of their agreement and the car’s disposition aren’t available, so I can’t say how severe a punishment was in order. But: from my reading of the article, the alcohol was unopened. I believe it is strongly suggested by the article’s wording that she put the car up for sale and then told her son she had found the alcohol, which would mean she decided on a severe punishment before giving him a chance to defend himself. Furthermore, in many places automobiles are vital for transportation, and being 19 I’d like to think this woman’s son has a few places he needs to be. I don’t know what alternative transportation is available to him, or what the financial burden of maintaining the car was, but it seems very severe restrictions on the car’s use would be just as effective discipline as selling it, while still allowing the son to get things done and aquire further driving experience. Even total grounding from the vehicle can at least be reversed later on; now before he can ‘own’ a car again one has to be found for purchase. Most importantly by far though, I believe the mocking newspaper ad was totally inappropriate. Disciplining a child is not exclusive of respecting them, and publicly humiliating a 19-year-old is not contributing to his upbringing. Again, I believe she placed the ad before talking to her son about the alcohol. That’s not parenting, it’s theater.
[/QUOTE]
There are probably as many different theories on discipline as there are posters on this board. 
Mother was certainly being harsh. In my opinion, she wasn’t being unduly harsh. Whether the bottle was opened or unopened, and whether it was put in the car by the son or by one of his passengers is beside the point. The car had been “given” to the son conditionally and he violated the conditions. If the son truly needed the car, he should have obeyed the established rules for operating it. The mother is not to blame for his loss of transportation; he broke the rules.
Parenting as Theater: I’m in favor of it. Son obviously didn’t believe Mother was serious about the rules. He’s a believer now. The newspaper publicity is clearly empowering to other parents (woo hoo!) and frightening to young rule-breakers.
That said, if the offense didn’t involve car and alcohol, I would probably support a less harsh punishment. Kids have already seen enough gory movies in health class to know that car and booze shouldn’t mix. Some young drivers simply don’t fear becoming the next after-school special. (“That would never happen to me!”) But fear of losing the car? Now that is frighteningly possible. :eek:
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
And yet the law merely restricted possession, not consumption. Assuming legislative intent followed the lines you suggest (which is admittedly plausible - we are a nation of Puritans, still) the law would explicitly outlaw consumption.
[/QUOTE]
For the same reason that use of marijuana isn’t prohibited, but possession of it is.
Specifically, because there are proof problems with the one, but no real proof problems with the other. So the possession prohibition, which acts as a good proxy for the consumption prohibition, is used.
Among other reasons.