In the spirit of the Arizona immigration law, a proposal
…I’d like to propose another law that will uphold the respect for the law, and prevent much harm to befall an innocent, law-abiding populace.
The police will have the right to enter and investigate any house they suspect of having a party where alcohol is available to people under the age of 21. (“Reasonable suspicion,” of course, should suffice.)
There are many reasons why I think politicians—especially Arizona governor Jan “Chosen by God” Brewer—should support this:
- the law simply enforces a law that prohibits adults, even a child’s parents, from allowing a child access to alcohol
- if a parent doesn’t break the law, s/he has nothing to worry about; only those who would violate the law should feel put out as policemen storm their house looking for underage drinking
- in a recent survey, 28% of teens had been to a party where alcohol was served to minors and parents/adults were present
teens who start drinking at age 15 are 5 times as likely as those who start after 20 to end up abusing or becoming dependent on alcohol- 23% of the teenage drivers involved in deadly car accidents had a blood alcohol level of above 0.08%, about 1,100 per year, and with the economic equivalent cost of over $9 billion annually, nationally
Obviously, parents turning a blind eye to—or even encouraging—drinking among children under their care are responsible for an enormous cost financially and in terms of lives. Should innocent, law-abiding taxpayers have to pay the price for other people breaking the law?
Parents who are found providing alcohol to children under the age of 21, even a glass of champagne on New Year’s, should:
- be imprisoned
- have their children put in foster care
(I mean, we can’t deport them, right?)
Much like the illegal immigrants knowingly violating our nation’s laws, and, in many cases, breaking other laws and causing crime, these parents who ply their children with booze are violating our nation’s laws, leading to their children breaking other laws and causing crime, death and destruction.
SO…when can we expect the law-abiding, proudly conservative folks who supported Arizona SB 1070, to support this as well? Unless they’re utter hypocrites, they certainly should!
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
I respect your intentions, drunk-driving is selfish, stupid and dangerous.
However simply stating: “if a parent doesn’t break the law, s/he has nothing to worry about…” as a reason to sacrifice our civil rights, is not sufficient.
220 years ago our founding fathers introduced the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, called the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The authors of our constitution were much more aware of a governments ability to abuse absolute-power than we are today.
You are playing on a slippery slope when talking about giving up the basic human right to privacy.
Comment by Todd — June 30, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Destruction! Look who’s talking! When a country that makes all weapons deliveries throughout the world and making wars around the world also.
Trying always crushing the weaken.
The Mexicans did not cross the border the border crossed them. Try to change the path of a river to see what happens!
If instead of creating hate and making weapons you help solve the problem from where it came other think we will be talking. If we could unaided all raises in any country as human bin a stronger country would be, but as you continue to see differences of skin color we will always be making useless laws that they do is more violence and crimes like killing another human because it looks different to you.
DO YOU RESPECT THE LAWS OF OUR CREATOR (God)?
Comment by Giovanni — December 13, 2010 @ 1:25 am
Gentlemen, it’s clear you two have never read The Onion or Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’ in your lifetimes; this is clearly an article written in jest. The evaporation of personal privacy is precisely what is being lambasted here.
Comment by A. — March 10, 2011 @ 11:43 am