Re:

Okay, here's the op-ed for those non-fascist localities which do not have this unconstitutional and ridiculous measure in place; the other op-ed will be completed shortly.

No ordinance

Party's Over: Social Host Law Will Reign in Teen Drunk Driving Deaths

Talking the talk on underage drinking is easy enough. Now it's time for (locality) parents to walk the walk as well.

A 2007 survey found that one hundred percent of parents agreed with the statement that "It is not okay for teens to drink when parents aren't home." Nonetheless, private homes remain the most popular place for teens to gather for illegal drinking sessions of the sort that rarely stop with just a few beers.

In light of this crisis, many local governments have adopted a new tactic to thwart this dangerous practice. Social Host laws, now in place in more than 150 cities and counties and 24 states place a new and justified legal onus on adults who own the property where such illegal gatherings take place.

(Locality), though, has yet to follow their lead. This is unfortunate; with binge drinking among teens reaching epidemic proportions from coast to coast, and with the effectiveness of these laws in preventing drunk driving deaths becoming more evident with each passing year, the implementation of a Social Host ordinance in this jurisdiction ought to be a no-brainer. That, as one might expect, is the opinion of (locality) (name and title of high-level police official). "Police officers are often unable to determine who supplied the alcohol when they arrive at a teen party," (he/she) says, "but they can easily determine to whom the property belongs and then charge the individual in question with allowing the underage drinking party to take place."

Underage drinking parties are crimes of opportunity; teens will hold such things in pastures that aren't visible from nearby roadways, campgrounds surrounded by trees, on ranches located far from prying eyes, at remote lake houses, and homes in which parents are nowhere to be found. Though often written off as a harmless "right of passage" by teens and even some adults, these sorts of activities are far from benign; a recent study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation found that such parties "can be particularly problematic because of the number of drinkers involved and the large quantities of alcohol consumed. Reports of alcohol poisoning, traffic crashes, property damage, community disturbance, violence, and sexual assault are all too common as a result of these parties."

The success of Social Host laws in preventing such tragedies in other jurisdictions has provided further evidence for what common sense tells us anyway if we want to prevent our children from being dangers to themselves and others, we must cut off the underlying cause of such dangers at the source. The Social Host approach helps to do just that by providing a strong impetus for parents to keep tabs on what crimes may be committed on their property, lest they face the just legal consequences of aiding illegal activity.

Today, studies continue to indicate that about half of parents do not know what their legal liability would be if someone else's child were to be caught drinking in their home. Some of these same parents actually host teenage drinking parties themselves, relying on the argument that, if kids are going to drink, they'll be safer doing so in the home. That, of course, is a big "if" - kids can indeed be prevented from engaging in underage drinking if they receive responsible guidance and are otherwise prevented from doing so. As (local police official) says, "They won't drink if they don't have a place to hold the party. We would love to have a law like this in place, as they send a clear message to parents who are considering hosting a party, or who are looking the other way while a party takes place, that they will be prosecuted for their role."

The experts agree that it's time to put an end to the party. Do you?

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Will have the op-eds in soon; our new address will be:

48 Morgan #4R

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed I am. Here's the other one.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

Heheee, you so funny.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, here's a revised version of the counties-with-no-ordinance press release. Though I have made it more literate, I have left the incredible degree of dishonesty intact, so MADD will be pleased. Will get the other one to you in a bit.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe it's only the first paragraph or two that are different. The remaining text is same in both, I think.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, okay. I'll take a look in a second.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I sent you the two different files?

One is for cities who don't have the ordinance, trying to create P.R. so they may adopt it in the future.

The other is for communities who have already adopted the ordinance, kind of an educational, did you know this is a law now kind of thing.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

What's the difference between these two files?

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com

--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com

--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com