Drug Crimes, Substance Abuse Challenging the MIP if you're legally not a minor

[maeyako]

I have never been arrested or questioned or have any unsavory contact with "law enforcement" officers. However, this law that brands me a CHILD (aka Minor) even though I am LEGALLY an adult (I am 20, therefore over 18 and therefore an adult) so how is it possible that I could be charged with a MINOR in possession, consumption etc?

Yes, there is a law. But how is it valid? How can someone who is legally an adult in the eyes of the law ever be charged as a minor? (Does this kind of second-class citizen type treatment sound like something familiar to you --- like discrimination)

Wouldn't it be possible to argue as a defensive measure that I am AM and adult and therefore DEMAND to be charged as such? (which would immediately invalidate the charge, I assume, if this system works properly)

Again, I have NOT been charged with such a ridiculous "offense" I simply want to change this discriminatory law and been seen as an adult... because of such... I AM.

 

[CdwJava]

Forget what the shorthand is, it is what the statute says that really matters. For instance, in CA a "minor in possession" is the common shorthand for B&P 25658 which says, in part:

25658. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), every
person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished,
or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of
21 years is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Any person under the age of 21 years who purchases any
alcoholic beverage, or any person under the age of 21 years who
consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of
a misdemeanor.​

Sorry if you feel offended if someone abbreviates it as "minor in possession" ... but, it's not an issue if you just don't drink until you are 21. Most states don't differentiate between "young adult in possession" and "minor in possession" ... you'll have to live with it.

- Carl

 

[maeyako]

Oh I will drink and drink and drink and drink (I will not drive while drunk nor die of alcohol poisoning because I happen to be responsible and value my life.)

Plain and simple this law needs to be changed. I am over 18 therefore no one has the right to treat me like a child, incapable of handling a beer. (yes I am extremely angry and passionate because discrimination is NEVER acceptable)

 

[CdwJava]

Oh I will drink and drink and drink and drink (I will not drive while drunk nor die of alcohol poisoning because I happen to be responsible and value my life.)

Then you run the risk of a criminal record. Your call.

Plain and simple this law needs to be changed. I am over 18 therefore no one has the right to treat me like a child, incapable of handling a beer. (yes I am extremely angry and passionate because discrimination is NEVER acceptable)

Well then, advocate for a change in the law in this country to allow 18 year olds to drink. It won't happen, but you are certainly welcome to petition your Congresscritter for his or her support in such an endeavor. But, being that in my lifetime that national drinking age has gone from 18 to 21, and alcohol is still the largest contributing cause of death to kids between 16 and 22 (or thereabouts) I doubt such a movement will get any headway.

But, if seeking legislation lowering the drinking age gives you purpose in life, go right ahead and try it.

- Carl

 

[Sibee]

If you think your adult enough to handle a beer then take it up with your local authority and try to pass a measure saying 18 year olds can get sloshed off there ass, but posting about it here wont do you any good. beside the law is in place because many of study have shown adverse effects to alcohol are more prominent in those under the age of 21 and also it is shown that people under the age of 21 are more likely to be irresponsible with alcohol. I guess if you don't like it you can move to Germany.

 

[pxdetroit]

This thread is a year old but I have to agree with the author, Maeyako.

Carl, isn't it true that legal motions (etc) get turned over on technicality regularly? Isn't it also true that unconstitutional or otherwise "bad laws" are overturned regularly?

The "MIP" problem has more to do with our American culture than age. My understanding is that some parts of Europe are so lax that youth can openly drink wine with the family dinner--and there isn't nearly the binge drinking problem that America has. Sounds like a personal responsibility and education issue, not age. And Japan has a good personal responsibility system: I heard they take your license for a year (1st offense) and for life the second time.

So in America we can send a 20 year old to Iraq but he can't have a beer?

As a 38 year old mother of two sons (20 and 17) and former taxicab and truck driver, I encourage Maeyako to do exactly what Carl said and organize something. But be warned--you'd be taking on an all-consuming, nearly insurmountable challenge. Take strength from the fact that you are correct: the law is conflicted. And in America we can change conflicted laws.

Sibee, why so sarcastic? We're just having a discussion here, feeling out the issue and tossing around ideas. Maeyako makes valid and articulate claims, so why not? Let's really encourage our young people to stand up for what they believe in, and be involved with our democratic process.

On a slightly different plane: We now have drug-gang violence in the southwest from Mexican cartels. We have inner cities where it's not safe to walk to school. Wouldn't it make more sense for America to devote tax dollars to serious crimes like that instead of some of the more irrelivent laws like MIP and marijuana? Take stress off our cops and courts, and also take away a large part of the cartels by legalizing some non-violent recreational activities, like MIP and MJ. A percentage of the population are going to be drinkers/addicts whether its legal or not. The vast majority of adults will recreate (or not) fairly responsibly and live as productive citizens, whether MIP or MJ is legal or not. So why waste the government's time and tax dollars? My favorite example for pro-MJ is Carl Sagan, a lifetime smoker, who was so smart and did so much good.

THANKS!

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, isn't it true that legal motions (etc) get turned over on technicality regularly? Isn't it also true that unconstitutional or otherwise "bad laws" are overturned regularly?

Yes, but he provided no grounds to believe that the any case against him might be overturned. The law is based upon the statute and not upon the shorthand people give the law. So, all because someone somewhere refers to the code section as being a "minr in possession" does not give anyone grounds to dismiss it. If the law states that anyone under the age of 21 cannot possess or purchase alcohol, then that's what it is.

The "MIP" problem has more to do with our American culture than age. My understanding is that some parts of Europe are so lax that youth can openly drink wine with the family dinner--and there isn't nearly the binge drinking problem that America has. Sounds like a personal responsibility and education issue, not age. And Japan has a good personal responsibility system: I heard they take your license for a year (1st offense) and for life the second time.

What the law should be or could be is not the issue here, it is what the law IS.

Most other nations also have far more stringent DUI laws than we do here. But, we're not talking about Europe, we're talking about the US.

So in America we can send a 20 year old to Iraq but he can't have a beer?

Apparently so.

Wouldn't it make more sense for America to devote tax dollars to serious crimes like that instead of some of the more irrelivent laws like MIP and marijuana?

That's a fallacious argument. The police can do both without taking away from the other. If the police stopped enforcing marijuana laws and alcohol laws tomorrow, it would not do one thing to prevent more serious crimes. In fact, it would almost certainly lead to greater criminal activity and we'd have more inebriated minors running around. It is like saying that as long as their are rapes and gang violence, the police should not be issuing traffic tickets. It just doesn't fly.

Arguing that people are just going to do it anyways can be said about any crime. Why enforce laws against unlawful intercourse with minors - they're just going to do it anyway. Shoplifting ... people are still going to do it. Domestic violence ... people are still going to do it. Using that kind of an argument we might as well not have any laws at all.

- Carl

 

[lroche08]

i know that this post is a little old. but I do have a few opinions on this matter. I use to live in Texas when I was growing up. When I reached the begining of high school I began to be curious about alcohol. Well, the law in Texas is not as strict and as long as your in parental vision of have consent then your ok to consume alcohol. When I was 16 we moved to Michigan (the most anal state in the US when is comes to teenage drinking). I remember it was the graduation party and we had drinks there, it was loud, kind of isolated from other houses (which didnt matter because neighboors were there) my parents, and of course all my classmates who have graduated as well. Everyone was drinking socializing and having a good time (parents took keys from everyone who was drinking), cops showed up and issued all minors MIPs without even any consideration. My parents also recieved a citation as well. I think that it was uncalled for, and completely pointless. Most cops when it comes to MIPs are on power trips. I don't see how the Government can classify you as a legal adult and give you all these responsiblities and harsher consequences when you turn 18, but you technically are able to do just about the same things you were doing when you were 12. You can get married at 18 but are unable to have a glass of wine during the special toast, you can put your life on the line but serving your contry at 18, but you are unable to crack a beer with your soliders at the end of a hard working day? You are able to vote our very own president into office when your 18, but unable to go to a 'celebration' party and have a few drinks. The way I see it is that when can trust these "adults" with very very important decisions in America, their lives, and the lives of others. But when it comes to tipping back a few in innocents you are honestly treated not as you got a misdemeanor, but as if you had just committed a felony or something along the lines. I'm in college now, a place where its suppose to be the best years of your life, where drinking is honestly an every weekend socializing event (not that I do it every weekend, im just saying) cops are said to be there more for your safty that to jump down your throat.. well they have a cop on every corner waiting for any person you accidently makes a wrong step (no joke) So they can flash there blue and red lights for everyone to see, and chase random people down to card/PBT test them. I do understand that law protect people, but I do believe that this MIP law is was over dramatic. If someone is wanting to drink, they are going to find a way to do it, regardless of laws, but I do think different actions need to be taken upon this.

 

[CdwJava]

Interesting that you admit the police are enforcing a law and that because they are enforcing the law they are "on a power trip."

The place to protest these laws is at the legislature as they make the laws that the police enforce.

Alcohol is a HUGE cause of problems and injury among teens so the state has a very real interest in enforcing laws limiting underage consumption. And, I believe that you shall find that underage consumption is generally legal at home with one's parents (when under 18, at home and alone when 18+). It is the group consumption that tends to run afoul of the law and attract the police, not a couple of 18 year olds in the kitchen of an apratment throwing back a few brews.

- Carl

 

[seledorian]

respectfully disagree

That's a fallacious argument. The police can do both without taking away from the other. If the police stopped enforcing marijuana laws and alcohol laws tomorrow, it would not do one thing to prevent more serious crimes. In fact, it would almost certainly lead to greater criminal activity and we'd have more inebriated minors running around. It is like saying that as long as their are rapes and gang violence, the police should not be issuing traffic tickets. It just doesn't fly.

Arguing that people are just going to do it anyways can be said about any crime. Why enforce laws against unlawful intercourse with minors - they're just going to do it anyway. Shoplifting ... people are still going to do it. Domestic violence ... people are still going to do it. Using that kind of an argument we might as well not have any laws at all.

- Carl

I don't want to get into a petty exchange of sarcastic remarks and insults here (I'll go to JREF for that). So I respectfully disagree with the above statements by Carl. If anything I write seems disrespectful, it was unintentional and I apologize.

I dont think that legalizing or decriminalizing underage drinking and marijuana will prevent more serious crimes. But I also think cops dont prevent crimes either -- I mean this generally not absolutely. The only way a cop can prevent a crime is if he had prior knowledge that a crime was going to take place. Often cops file reports, take statements, and pursue suspects after the crime. At best cops stop crimes that are already in progress. These situations are the issue. If cops are busy stopping potheads and high school kegers then they cant stop rape, murder, etc. Its impossible for an officer to do both at once unless the two types of crimes occur next to each other. So the police cant do both without taking away from the other -- generally.

Yes, we do have laws against child molestation and domestic violence. And yes, saying that people will commit those crimes anyway is a bad excuse for decriminalization. But its a bad excuse because there are victims of these crimes. Isnt that why they are illegal? Speeding in a car is illegal for the safety of all (Or so they say. But why can you be ticketed for speeding if going with the flow of traffic is the number 1 rule of the road? never mind).
Underage drinking or smoking marijuana is victimless by itself.

Having "more inebriated minors running around" doesnt necessarily mean they will drive intoxicated, steal, and rape. Legalizing underage drinking or marijuana could lower criminal activity purely because less activities would be criminal. Also it would remove the underground effects that are often illegal anyway. There are already laws against DUI and violence. If an 18-year-old is responsible enough to kill people for his/her country and responsible enough to elect the man that would order her/him to do so, how are they not responsible for their other actions when it comes to intoxicating substances?




The origional issue was over the drinking age and the use of the word minor. I think that is

And the criminal status of these substances can be alluring to people of a rebellious nature.
"Inebriated minors"