Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 7 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
EDITORIAL: Council made right move with 'social host' ordinance
Published Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Austin City Council made the right move Monday night when it unanimously passed the ‘social host’ ordinance.
Austin now joins roughly 30 other cities and counties in Minnesota that have passed similar laws.
As reported by the Herald’s Mike Rose, the ordinance means that people who allow minors to drink — without taking steps to prevent it — will be slapped with misdemeanors.
Some may argue the law is too invasive into peoples’ homes, but we don’t for two reasons.
First, there are exceptions to the ordinance for religious observations or instances when a minor consumes alcohol with only his or her parents around. And second, the law could be a valuable tool when it comes to fighting underage consumption.
Is this ordinance going to stop underage drinking? No.
But it may help decrease the problem and that would be a significant step in the right direction.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you start making some sort of point instead of rambling on?
Posted by Grumpus (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lefty means stop being lazy, and use things like sentences, paragraphs, punctuation, and the like.
That said, outsideinpov is right. The corporate media whore who wrote this piece should focus on the business of reporting news. You remember news, right? That thing Lee Bonorden used to do, that thing that made civic and corporate leaders nervous?
You libtards in the press might want more government nanny-state involvement in your lives. I don't. I wish the government would get the Hell out of my body bag.
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Saying that all the news media is Liberal is a tired and incorrect argument.
Posted by Grumpus (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your unpunctuated stream-of-consciousness nonsense IS lazy. It may be generational, but so is living with your mom well into your twenties. I'm pretty sure you meet the criteria.
Holding down a job is generational. I doubt you have one.
Having respect for your elders is generational. I'm sure in your self-imposed intellectualism you feel you're above all that. Twenty-somethings always know so much more than their parents did.
And who is this increasingly hypothetical entity Hell-bent on the destruction of America? Some boogeyman mentioned on Alex Jones' website?
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't elders have respect for 20 somethings?
Posted by Littletoad (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quoted...."Some may argue the law is too invasive into peoples’ homes, but we don’t for two reasons"
This editorial I see does not contain an authors name. I haven't seen this practice done in an hard print paper. So whom exactly is the "we" supposed to represent. This seems to be a rather sloppy practice......editor, any comments.....thanks in advance!
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On outsidein's statement above
"the liberal and conservative division is a tool for control"
Follow the below link and learn that there is no true liberal party in the US - just two conservative parties
http://mises.org/daily/3848
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)