S.20.3-4: Chug It Down Act (Law'd)

[tmthforu94]

AN ACT
to reduce excessive punishment

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be the "Chug It Down Act."

Section 2
a. A maximum fine of $150 per offense may be imposed for the crime of consuming or attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages underage. No other punishment shall be applied.
b. Nothing in this act shall permit establishments to serve alcohol to underage patrons.
c. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to attempting to use or manufacture false identification.
d. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to driving under the influence.

Sponsor: Governor MB

Minimum 48 hours for debate. The sponsor is invited to advocate for the bill.

[tmthforu94]

For reference, here is the debate from last session: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=381893.0

To start, I'd like to offer the following amendment, which MB introduced last session as a result of a couple concerns I brought up:

AN ACT
to reduce excessive punishment

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be the "Chug It Down Act."

Section 2
a. No fine or other punishment shall be applied for the crime of consuming or attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages underage. with the exception of a possible warning.
b. Nothing in this act shall permit establishments to serve alcohol to underage patrons.
c. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to attempting to use or manufacture false identification.
d. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to driving under the influence.

24 hours for objections to the amendment.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Looks good to me.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Rules against underage drinking exist for a reason. Alcohol is harmful to minors development, and underage people can not be trusted to drink responsibly. We should continue to discourage underage drinking via fines. A warning is completely toothless if there is no eventual consequence.

I oppose this bill.

[tmthforu94]

Actually I agree on the warning aspect - I just cut that piece out of my proposed amendment.

[thumb21]

I don't think it makes sense to argue on the one hand that teenagers don't have the ability to drink alcohol responsibly, but do have the ability to deal with a massive fine or harsh punishments responsibly. Underage drinking is a public health issue, not a criminal issue - I support this bill.

[reagente]

Rules against underage drinking exist for a reason. Alcohol is harmful to minors development, and underage people can not be trusted to drink responsibly. We should continue to discourage underage drinking via fines. A warning is completely toothless if there is no eventual consequence.

I oppose this bill.

I concur. Why even have a law against underage drinking if we won't attach any practical consequence to it? Who is deterred by a toothless law?

I would be amenable to removing jail sentence for an "ordinary" act of underage drinking, but fines should absolutely remain. Or, if this is simply a public health crisis, then minors caught drinking ought to have to attend some sort of mandatory sobriety program.

[Dr. MB]

Rules against underage drinking exist for a reason. Alcohol is harmful to minors development, and underage people can not be trusted to drink responsibly. We should continue to discourage underage drinking via fines. A warning is completely toothless if there is no eventual consequence.

I oppose this bill.

I concur. Why even have a law against underage drinking if we won't attach any practical consequence to it? Who is deterred by a toothless law?

I would be amenable to removing jail sentence for an "ordinary" act of underage drinking, but fines should absolutely remain. Or, if this is simply a public health crisis, then minors caught drinking ought to have to attend some sort of mandatory sobriety program.

Just cause someone drinks underage doesn't mean they're an alcoholic. Most people do it and turn out fine. If they do truly have an addiction - having laws like this just deters them from getting help with their problem.

In plenty of countries people do start drinking from an early age. But the difference is they're taught to drink responsibly. Here there's so much stigma around it that most parents won't let their kids drink alcohol under their roof which propels them to develop terrible habits and fuels the rise of alcoholism.

[thumb21]

There are ways to enforce underage drinking laws without criminalising young people for doing something that most young people do anyway. You can put more responsibility on the shops to make sure they check for a form of ID before selling the alcohol, for example.

[tmthforu94]

Seeing no objection, the amendment I offered on 8/1 has been adopted.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Still opposed to this bill. Alcohol is harmful to our youth's development socially, physically, and emotionally.

[Dr. MB]

Still opposed to this bill. Alcohol is harmful to our youth's development socially, physically, and emotionally.

But why/how exactly is putting up heavy fines a solution to it?

[tmthforu94]

Truthfully I'm on the fence on this. My biggest concern is the harm alcohol causes to brain development when consumed at a young age, I worry that by passing this bill, we'd be sending a message that the government is giving the green light to underage drinking.

What would people's thoughts be on an amendment similar to what Delegate Reagente suggested: remove it as a criminal offense, just state that minor consumption results in a fine up to $100 and requirement to attend a government-approved drug and alcohol course. With such amendment, I would vote in favor of this, but I'll wait to hear feedback from both sides of the issue.

[Dr. MB]

Truthfully I'm on the fence on this. My biggest concern is the harm alcohol causes to brain development when consumed at a young age, I worry that by passing this bill, we'd be sending a message that the government is giving the green light to underage drinking.

What would people's thoughts be on an amendment similar to what Delegate Reagente suggested: remove it as a criminal offense, just state that minor consumption results in a fine up to $100 and requirement to attend a government-approved drug and alcohol course. With such amendment, I would vote in favor of this, but I'll wait to hear feedback from both sides of the issue.

I'd sign that bill since it's better than the current situation but I still don't really agree with that sort of punishment.

[reagente]

Truthfully I'm on the fence on this. My biggest concern is the harm alcohol causes to brain development when consumed at a young age, I worry that by passing this bill, we'd be sending a message that the government is giving the green light to underage drinking.

What would people's thoughts be on an amendment similar to what Delegate Reagente suggested: remove it as a criminal offense, just state that minor consumption results in a fine up to $100 and requirement to attend a government-approved drug and alcohol course. With such amendment, I would vote in favor of this, but I'll wait to hear feedback from both sides of the issue.

I'd sign that bill since it's better than the current situation but I still don't really agree with that sort of punishment.

If we aren't going to have any deterrent for underage individuals, why not just abolish the drinking age altogether? I don't see why we should punish only the supply side of this if we don't care at all about deterring the demand side.

[tmthforu94]

Proposing an amendment:

AN ACT
to reduce excessive punishment

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be the "Chug It Down Act."

Section 2
a. A maximum fine of $50 per offense may be imposed for the crime of consuming or attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages underage. No fine or other punishment shall be applied for the crime of consuming or attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages underage.
b. Nothing in this act shall permit establishments to serve alcohol to underage patrons.
c. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to attempting to use or manufacture false identification.
d. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to driving under the influence.

24 hours for objections.

[tmthforu94]

With no objections, the amendment is adopted.

How do delegates feel about the current version, are people more comfortable voting for it?

[reagente]

With no objections, the amendment is adopted.

How do delegates feel about the current version, are people more comfortable voting for it?

I am comfortable voting for it.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I don't think $50 is a serious enough deterrent. A teenager can easily make that in a day. I want the fine to be $150 before I vote for this bill.

My amendment:

AN ACT
to reduce excessive punishment

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be the "Chug It Down Act."

Section 2
a. A maximum fine of $50 $150 per offense may be imposed for the crime of consuming or attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages underage. No other punishment shall be applied.
b. Nothing in this act shall permit establishments to serve alcohol to underage patrons.
c. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to attempting to use or manufacture false identification.
d. Nothing in this act shall prohibit punishment being imposed for charges relating to driving under the influence.

[thumb21]

I don't think that a $150 fine vs a $50 fine will really make much difference, but if the amendment gets the bill the support it needs to pass, then fine.

[tmthforu94]

I'm also fine with this change. 24 hours for objections.

[tmthforu94]

DTC's amendment has been adopted.

Any more discussion before a final vote?

[reagente]

DTC's amendment has been adopted.

Any more discussion before a final vote?

I am ready to have a final vote.

[tmthforu94]

24 hours to object to a final vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.