tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post1360699695719474978..comments2024-03-29T05:58:25.823-04:00Comments on Seen Through a Glass: South Carolina magistrate finds constitutional right for 18 year old drinking ageLew Brysonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04084380741402026573noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post-19704990286905150792009-08-06T11:57:16.535-04:002009-08-06T11:57:16.535-04:00Of all the "you can do this at 18, but not dr...Of all the "you can do <i>this</i> at 18, but not drink" examples I know of, owning the bar license is the most jaw-dropping. Unbelievable.Lew Brysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04084380741402026573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post-81815534859081004542009-08-06T11:55:08.020-04:002009-08-06T11:55:08.020-04:00I've always had a problem with PA's approa...I've always had a problem with PA's approach. You can serve alcohol (tend bar)in a licensed establishment at age 18. You can own the building that houses a licensed establishment at age 18. You can OWN THE LICENSE to serve alcohol at age 18. But you cannot have a drink in said establishment.<br /><br />We can only trust you so far.<br /><br />Such BS!sam knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post-27982557411697251792009-08-05T21:00:54.457-04:002009-08-05T21:00:54.457-04:00I have too much time on my hands:
"Under the...I have too much time on my hands:<br /><br />"Under the NMDA law, “purchase” means “to acquire by the payment of money or other consideration.” Although some states also prohibit the “attempt to purchase” and the “selling,<br />giving or serving” of alcoholic beverages to underage individuals, these prohibitions are not required under the federal law. “Public possession” is defined as the possession of a beverage<br />containing 0.5% or more of alcohol by volume “for any reason, including consumption on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public (including a club which is de facto open to the public).”<br /><br />From: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/95wb3.pdf<br /><br />Seems there is no problem for SC if under 21's can't buy and can only drink at home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post-76401034015886928932009-08-05T20:45:55.051-04:002009-08-05T20:45:55.051-04:00Unless the law has changed, people under 21 in Wis...Unless the law has changed, people under 21 in Wisconsin can drink as long as their (over 21) parents or spouses give it to them. This hasn't prevented Wisconsin from getting their highway funding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315262155858800734.post-80803113156116004802009-08-05T17:26:40.752-04:002009-08-05T17:26:40.752-04:00"How come no one else is admitting this?"..."How come no one else is admitting this?" The answer to this question is that we need to recognize the strength of the New Drys. MADD started out as a anti-drunk driving group. It was hijacked by the New Drys when they realized it would be an excellent vehicle to push their platform. We need to have people recognize that alcohol can be consumed socially and not automatically harm anyone. Those that do not believe this can happen will oppose any change in alcohol laws. Kudos to Obama for showing that responsible beer drinking has a place and shame on those who see otherwise. The New Drys strength can only be countered by education and a little political courage. The responsible alcohol message still fights the unfortunate experiences of the past. It will be tough to change some perceptions.thbeernoreply@blogger.com