|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 1, 2009 17:16:18 GMT -6
"undue risk"? I would say a safer wording would be: "This freedom shall not be abridged, except in cases where neighbouring law enforcement officials may take action against the proprietor for breaching that nation's code of law."
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 1, 2009 17:30:08 GMT -6
The Minimum Drinking Age Act
WHEREAS it is necessary to set such an age for the consumption of alcoholic beverages in public settings and/or establishments;
WHEREAS it is equally necessary to distinguish our great nation from that of the US state of Wisconsin;
WHEREAS It should be noted that, at present, any law not defined by Talossan statute is defined by Wisconsin State Law;
WHEREAS in Wisconsin the legal age for the consumption of alcoholic beverages is 21 years of age;
WHEREAS said age requires a Talossan citizen to wait up to seven years before attaining legal drinking age;
WHEREAS in Talossa, citizens are considered adults after attaining the age of 14, as defined in the Organic Law;
WHEREAS Talossan adults should be able to consume Alcohol in public within the boarders of their own country;
THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that
1. The minimum drinking age for all Talossan citizens is set to 14 years of age.
2. All citizens having attained said age shall be permitted to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages at Talossan consulates and embassies, or in establishments owned by Talossan citizens within the Greater Talossan Area.
3. The freedom to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages extends only to said consulates, embassies, and establishments meeting the criteria in section two (2). This freedom shall not be abridged, except in cases where neighboring law enforcement officials may take action against the proprietor for breaching that nation's code of law. The decision on whether or not to distribute or sell alcohol to a Talossan of legal age rests solely in the hands of the proprietor.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Flip Molinar (MC-FGP)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2009 19:05:15 GMT -6
I appreciate the spirit. But since the borders of Talossa are disputed by the U.S. and said consulates would be held accountable to the U.S. Officials (as you mention in Section 2), it kinds of makes the law pointless, doesn't it?
Essentially it is saying "X is not illegal unless the U.S. says it is, which it does"
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 1, 2009 19:18:47 GMT -6
I appreciate the spirit. But since the borders of Talossa are disputed by the U.S. and said consulates would be held accountable to the U.S. Officials (as you mention in Section 2), it kinds of makes the law pointless, doesn't it? Essentially it is saying "X is not illegal unless the U.S. says it is, which it does" Then my dear friend, lets pass it for its spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2009 20:18:07 GMT -6
I am not a fan of passing laws for their spirit. Aside from the point raised about the efficacy of this, I prefer alcohol consumption to be a personal/familial choice, not a state-mandated issue. I disagree with the Wisconsin law, and on principle, disagree with this one for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Apr 2, 2009 1:18:56 GMT -6
Personally, I disagree with this bill as well. It seems pointlessly ineffective, and even if it was effective, a Talossan adult would still have to wait 4 years upon becoming an adult until he or she could drink alcohol, if he or she wished to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 2, 2009 8:28:48 GMT -6
That'd be my main objection - the base point is that an adult Talossan has to wait 7 years in the US to drink, or 4 years in the UK, or 2 years in the Netherlands; this act simply matches it to the UK limit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2009 22:57:05 GMT -6
I don't feel the act would do any harm if passed, but I won't make an effort to push it through due to its woeful ineffectiveness. I will abstain on this measure if clarked.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Apr 4, 2009 9:51:33 GMT -6
Seriously? Again?
If so, then again my vote will be NO.
Among other reasons, I really don't like the language "This freedom shall not be abridged..." Purchasing/consuming alcohol is not any sort of inherent right or freedom. There are plenty of appropriate restrictions on consumption, regardless of age.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 14:14:27 GMT -6
Indeed. Also, don't forgot we are governed by the Wisconsin criminal code which would make it illegal for us to serve drinks to anyone under 21. I did some research into this. Wisconsin, like NYS, allows for parents/guardians/spouses to give folks who are not 21 alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 14, 2009 17:02:08 GMT -6
I would say that if this Bill is to have any MORAL point, as it has little legal point and is liable to fall anyway, it should peg the putative drinking age to 14. Talossa recognises 14 as the age of responsibility. Unless there's a convincing argument to give parents power over the Talossan till they are an older age, a THEORETICAL drinking age of 14 is the only logical conclusion.
Might as well see the Bill fail whilst it's saying something worthwhile, as opposed to something legally and morally empty.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 14, 2009 17:08:52 GMT -6
I would say that if this Bill is to have any MORAL point, as it has little legal point and is liable to fall anyway, it should peg the putative drinking age to 14. Talossa recognises 14 as the age of responsibility. Unless there's a convincing argument to give parents power over the Talossan till they are an older age, a THEORETICAL drinking age of 14 is the only logical conclusion. Might as well see the Bill fail whilst it's saying something worthwhile, as opposed to something legally and morally empty. It has been made so.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 15, 2009 7:51:13 GMT -6
I would say that if this Bill is to have any MORAL point, as it has little legal point and is liable to fall anyway, it should peg the putative drinking age to 14. Talossa recognises 14 as the age of responsibility. Unless there's a convincing argument to give parents power over the Talossan till they are an older age, a THEORETICAL drinking age of 14 is the only logical conclusion. Is there some reason there must be one age of responsibility that applies to all activities? Under U.S. law, one must be 13 years old to register an account on a web site without parental consent, and 21 years old to purchase a handgun. Assuming that some kind of age-based restrictions or protections are acceptable for both activities, is the U.S. Congress morally obligated to either require parental consent for anyone under 21 who wants to create a Facebook account, or allow 13-year-olds to purchase handguns?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 9:02:53 GMT -6
Sorry, I can't vote for this one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 9:11:00 GMT -6
Indeed. Also, don't forgot we are governed by the Wisconsin criminal code which would make it illegal for us to serve drinks to anyone under 21. I did some research into this. Wisconsin, like NYS, allows for parents/guardians/spouses to give folks who are not 21 alcohol. Right, but that is different from "serving a minor alcohol." Essentially, the NYS (and Wisconsin) permission to give a spouse or relative alcohol means that when I have kids, I don't have to worry about the purple ties (NYS Police) kicking in my door if I give the kids some wine at seder. It does not mean that a minor can walk into a bar and order a round for his cub scout chums. This act started out as "let's lower the drinking age from 21 to 18" and that is a spirit I can agree with, at least enough to only abstain. I agree with that because virtually every country has a drinking age of 16-18. However, 14 is entirely too young to allow unrestricted purchase and consumption of alcohol, even if that permission only exists on paper in the form of an unenforceable bill. I worry about the perception in the global community. First, we extend rights of adulthood to 14 year olds, then we want to make it legal to liquor them up? Sounds like what a nation of perverts would want, to tell you the truth. Not only can I not put my name to it, but this present draft crosses a line. I will be forced to vote against it.
|
|