Paying for Underage Drinking

How funny, considering the proportion of bars in Santa Barbara relative to the general population and all the Yuppie wine-swilling events one sees in this area.

I'm certainly against underage drinking in most circumstances. I'm not convinced this measure is the right direction, however.

First, this concerns behavior on private property. If I want to let my children drink (like they can in France or Italy) I don't want police interfering. According to his ordinance, a nosy neighbor can call in the police, and if they see a big family picnic in my backyard where a few kids are drinking (with my approval) I can be cited and charged a few thousand dollars for the fine and the costs of police coming to my house.

Second, you can bet the kids of the rich and powerful, including the police, sheriff and deputies, DA etc are not going to ever be subjected to this. The police just won't respond to calls at the homes of people they know. Wasn't it in Orange County that the son of the Sheriff and his friends committed a rape, and that got hushed up and drawn out? This measure will never be uniformly enforced, and will only be enforced on the poor and badly connected.

Third, complete prohibition on underage drinking is not helpful. A problem in our culture is that kids don't learn how to drink in moderation, so they go nuts when they finally get access to alcohol. Kids need to learn gradually how to drink at home, and never to excess.

Fourth, this money would be better spent on regulating local retailers that distribute alcohol.

You don't even have to swipe your driver's license in a magnetic card reader to purchase alcohol. That is simply insane. Kids still forge drivers' licenses and other ID. Let's put the money that would go into this program making retailers swipe driver's licenses before alcohol can be sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Coun...

Last time I checked local school survey data, the most common source of alcohol for underage drinkers was their parent's liquor cabinet. The most common location for drinking was at an unsupervised party at their own or a friend's house.

Regulation of retail outlets is important, but the level of effort should correspond to their contribution to the problem.

As far as learning moderation at home, fat chance. While this might happen in a few instances, as a matter of social policy it is as likely to occur as learning about safe sex at home.

And with regard to kids of rich and/or influential parents getting off easy, what else is new in our legal system?

Finally, regarding regarding the drinking scene for legal age drinkers, local taxpayers should inquire how much they pay in police overtime and other costs to control the State Street bar scene.

It may well be that parent's liquor is that most frequently obtained by minors. But is the first step to bring in the police? How about a campaign to raise the consciousness of parents to this issue before bringing in the police to regulate behavior inside peoples' homes. Bringing in the police is way too blunt an instrument in absence of efforts to educate and mobilize parents.

Forging of ID is a *huge* problem. Kids from all over the County drive to Isla Vista to use their fake IDs, because the alcohol outlets there are easy and know that if they are fooled by a fake ID, it is not their fault under law.

Why don't we just scan the mag strip on California driver's licenses? You have to wipe your license to get Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) now. Why is it easier to get alcohol than Sudafed, when alcohol is a much bigger societal problem?

If you don't learn moderation at home, where do you learn it? In a college dorm? At a bar where they make money selling you drinks? The problem is the alcohol industry wants maximum consumption, so they lobby against any outreach to parents that would encourage parents to teach moderation.

As for sex, the proper analogy would be: if the police get a tip that two young people might be having sex in a home, then they can investigate, and if the see two young people holding hands in the home, they can arrest them and fine the parents (and charge them for the call). That is not a situation I want to have happen.

Is it the position of the advocates of this measure that parents should *not* teach their children about sex and the use of alcohol? If so, they should state that upfront.

Let's at least not add to the problems of enforcement and hypocrisy in this country.

As for the lower State Street bar scene: the city of Santa Barbara knowingly redeveloped (with public funds) that area to get the economic activity. It was a conscious choice by the city. It is a good idea to find out if it worked.

What about the parents that give their pre-teen and young teen kids booze, like Mike's Hard Lemonaid, in order to get them to pass out early so the parents can go on partying? Oh yeah, just like billclausen says, it's the rich peoples who won't get busted yet they are the BIGGEST offenders.

snugspout,
Take a look at the places where people can buy alcohol. Then look at where minorities live. There are way too many places to buy alcohol in the Latino community. No doubt this contributes to problems with youth and families in these minority and working class neighborhoods.

Yes, the City knowingly targeted this area for redevelopment. Everything that goes on there is the responsibility of the City for creating such an environment. The lower State concentration of bars should be broken up, but not at the expense of the business owners. They should be given the opportunity to move to new places where the City approves the dance permits.

Both the retailers and the bars could be dealt with by the City. But you'll never get anyone on the Council to try. The Downtown organization has too much pull, and with the Council and Mayor lacking minorities and working class folk, they won't stick their necks out to change anything (trust me, I've asked them). Good folks, and I like them. But this is one example of how they'd rather pretend to be progressive, and how they continue to neglect the civic environment and the residents of Santa Barbara.

Yes, I don't really enjoy any part of downtown State Street anymore... only the bookstores, which still don't match Earthling.

The lower part isn't much fun if you're over 25. The only idea I've had is to move the college age stuff to the vicinity of the Elephant Bar by the airport. Where the old Cinema Twin was. Great parking in the offsite Airport lot.

If a deal could be worked out with the City of Goleta to keep the clubs on the City of Santa Barbara property and let restaurants go on City of Goleta property, maybe something could happen.

At least that area is isolated from residential areas, and closer to IV... but not IV. The County has never been able to handle clubs in IV (remember the Anaconda).

This law is a bit invasive. If minors are going to try alcohol they should do it in a social setting.

Seems to be another "mother knows best" type ordinance. All of the laws controlling alcohol seem to fall into this catagory. Alcohol abuse is a problem no question, but teens do not hold the monopoly on this any more than they do on drug abuse or having loud parties.

More laws are never the answer. Higher parental responsibility is the ideal, but imposing fines and "classes" will not accomplish their goal. all that can be hoped for is that underage drinking will be forced out of houses and away from responsible people. if a minor wants to drink they will.

do we want them driving around, or staying home or at least in one location. this will only promote DUIs and other negative elements of drinking. it will not curb drinking in the slightest. do we really want to promote parties in the hills?

once again laws written by people disconnected from the group they are written for.

my 2c