RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Bat cave party leads to arrests



Toolbox

By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: July 10, 2009

DORSET — A drinking party at the bat caves off Dorset Hill Road late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning led to three arrests, a number of citations and a broken police cruiser windshield, according to state police.

Four state police troopers and one officer from Manchester were called to the caves about 11 p.m. for reports of heavy, loud and "reckless" traffic on the remote roadway leading to them.

"Many of the cars were driving recklessly and well over the speed limit with music blaring from within," Trooper John-Paul Schmidt said in a statement on the incident.

Schmidt said officers found several vehicles parked at a trailhead along the road that leads up to the caves.

As the officers prepared to set off up the trail, people in trucks, sport utility vehicles, on ATVs and on foot began returning to the cars. Schmidt said "most" were under the age of 21 and the "majority" showed signs of alcohol and other drug use.

Schmidt said police screened those returning to their cars and "took appropriate action" including making arrangements for transportation and calling parents so those who had been drinking could get home safely.

When police walked up the trail, they found more inebriated people and a large volume of litter, including empty alcohol containers.

The cave entrance was also littered with trash, Schmidt said.

A state Agency of Natural Resources spokeswoman said Thursday that the cave was probably empty, since the hibernation period for the animals is over. However, she said zoologists trying to explain a widespread epidemic that has been killing bats have been trying to minimize human traffic in caves because it's believed that people may be tracking the disease to new sites.

When the officers returned to the trailhead, they found that someone had thrown a large rock into the windshield of one of the cruisers. The damage rendered the cruiser temporarily inoperable and amounted to a "felony level" of damage, although Schmidt did not specify an expense.

By the end of the evening, police had arrested three people: Thomas Elam, 20, of Dorset; James Haffner, 17, of Bondville and Sabina Formanek, 19, of Manchester. Schmidt said the three were arrested due to prior histories of alcohol possession. Police also issued several diversion tickets, he said.

Schmidt said many of the people police saw in the area had been kicked out of another underage drinking party off Rocky Lane earlier Wednesday night.

Police are now investigating the vandalism to the cruiser and have "several" leads, Schmidt said. Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call state police in Shaftsbury at 442-5421.

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


So, Maureen, you approve of your kid and his or her date having a few drinks on prom night? Or skipping Project Graduation in favor of a home-spun version of an open bar for kids in your basement?

Join the crew in that cell over there, Maureen. We'll be having a mass trial for you fools next week. The first accusers against you will be the parents of the kids you lied to about what goes on at your house. Let's see how that works out for ya.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 10:04 pm EST

report this comment


I dont beleive anyone on here promotes alcoholism in kids> my interpertation is that they are talking about prom,grad parties that WILL happen SOMEWHERE, not weeekly drinking parties for their fifteen yr.olds. Get over it and face reality.
-- Posted by Maureen Gould on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 9:12 pm EST

report this comment


Well, Comfy, you certainly have my apology. Thanks for accepting it in advance. You seem to be closer to my position on alcohol abuse by teeenagers than most people here on this forum. My quotes were from CF Reality on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 4:51 pm EST.

Hey, CF, smarten up and stop feeding the neighborhood kiddies a toxic substance like alcohol. Bad things seem to follow when adults promote drinking among the high school set. The authorities might even have a few questions about your motives.

I stand by my suggested enforcement of the laws regarding the use of public education funds for those who think it's a big joke to break the law, but expect the rest of us to contribute to their educations - or their college partying - as the case may be. I think that giving every high school kid in Vermont - and their parents - a written warning and a verbal lecture about the losses they can incur as a result of their "good time" games. It might make them think seriously about deferring their alcohol use until they are of legal age. It MIGHT make their parent realize the seriousness of the problems of teenage drinking too. There's a lot of ignorance about the subject.

Hey, someone has to believe that kids need to be protected from themselves and their over-solicitous parents. If that's me, then so be it.

Once again, Comfy, I'm sorry to have misidentified the quote with your name.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 8:37 pm EST

report this comment


Notta, I don't know if you have me confused with another poster or are deliberately trying to misrepresent me, but the following segment of your earlier comment is incorrect. You have quoted me as saying things that I did not say and crediting me as promoting actions that I do not condone. I accept your apology in advance.

"Also, Comfy, you said this: "Personally, I feel it's safer for my children to be in my presence or in the presence of another trusting adult. Majority will be more respectful in the presence of an adult."

Your feelings about this have no bearing on the law nor do they reflect the scientific facts that children who drink alcohol are at risk for retarding the development of their brains which are not fully developed until their early 20s. So, if you want to put your children at risk for permanent brain underdevelopment, whether supervised or unsupervised, continue to do as you are doing. Do it very carefully, though, Comfy, because if some of those kids at your underage drinking parties aren't your own, you risk being confronted by a very irate parent who doesn't see it your way and ... you are breaking the laws regarding underage drinking as well as the moral issues of child abuse. Yep, child abuse. Is alcohol use by the underaged all that important to you? You'd risk breaking the law, irate parents banging on your door in the middle of one of your little parties and destroying whatever chance your kid might have to free him or herself from your obviously misdirected parenting?

Think it over. Is it worth it? Isn't this really all about you? Are you using your kid(s) to make a point?
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 2:34 pm EST"

Jeez, Notta, if you're going to quote me, at least quote something that I said!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 5:29 pm EST

report this comment


Notta, there is a difference between molly coddling someone and ruining their lives over a youthful indescretion. Sure there should be consequenses, but they are supposed to be in line with the caliber of the crime. Losing driving privileges would seem appropriate, or community service or a hundred other things that drive the point home without destroying some kid's chance at a future.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 5:07 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy,

Molly-coddling kids has no effect on their behavior. If some hotshot athlete with straight A's but with a penchant for booze, drugs and mischief were held up as a negative example of what can happen if they insist on displaying anti-social behavior I have no problem at all at denying him or her any public funds as a reward for being a law-breaker this on top of whatever criminal or civil penalties they might suffer.

I'd also make sure that every kid in Vermont (and their parents) had oral and written notice that if you play you'll pay. No excuses. No exceptions. No second chances.

Also, Comfy, you said this: "Personally, I feel it's safer for my children to be in my presence or in the presence of another trusting adult. Majority will be more respectful in the presence of an adult."

Your feelings about this have no bearing on the law nor do they reflect the scientific facts that children who drink alcohol are at risk for retarding the development of their brains which are not fully developed until their early 20s. So, if you want to put your children at risk for permanent brain underdevelopment, whether supervised or unsupervised, continue to do as you are doing. Do it very carefully, though, Comfy, because if some of those kids at your underage drinking parties aren't your own, you risk being confronted by a very irate parent who doesn't see it your way and ... you are breaking the laws regarding underage drinking as well as the moral issues of child abuse. Yep, child abuse. Is alcohol use by the underaged all that important to you? You'd risk breaking the law, irate parents banging on your door in the middle of one of your little parties and destroying whatever chance your kid might have to free him or herself from your obviously misdirected parenting?

Think it over. Is it worth it? Isn't this really all about you? Are you using your kid(s) to make a point?
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 2:34 pm EST

report this comment


What was the topic of discussion again?
Oh yes, broken records and dead horses.
-- Posted by capttam on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment


Oh.. I was speaking to this NoneNone...

"Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 10:59 pm EST"

He thinks liberals have come up with all of the wacked out laws. That try to govern people on every little thing.

I guess he's never heard of conservatism.. lol.

Conservatism has made up many of our "wacky" laws throughout the states.

Stuff like..

Sex in the missionary position is the only "legal position". Anything else is considered sodomy. I imagine the majority of ALL people are guilty of sodomy now...lol.

Same with oral sex....

There is plenty of other wacky conservative laws. But I guess if it's silly and stupid. They have been brainwashed into believing it's liberal... lol.

Silly RWNJ's, out of all of the extremists. They are definitely the most annoying and pathetic. They are destroying the Republican party and they do not even understand why!
-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 8:22 pm EST

report this comment


Notta

I see you are pretending to be another None None and back to your wild dreams of your buddies Arnie and OJ? ROFLMAO you are obessed, with what I don't know, but you are obessed. You are one heck of a ticket notta, nice try pretending to be a none none.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 6:06 pm EST

report this comment


CF Reality,

After reading your last post, maybe it wasn't me you were referring to, seems we are both on the same sheet of music. My Apologies.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 6:04 pm EST

report this comment


CF Reality

What the He** are you talking about? Who linked the parties to Liberals? Nice speech though.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 6:02 pm EST

report this comment


none none

Better not let you find out or you will what? ROFLMAO where are you going to find ten MEN in a hurry? ROFLMAO
Go preach elsewhere, you are good little Nazi, now run down and report for your Neighborhood duty like a good little nazi.... ROFLMAO

Get a life and grow up.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 5:56 pm EST

report this comment


Notta...

Kids WILL experiment. Either it's with supervision or without.

Personally, I feel it's safer for my children to be in my presence or in the presence of another trusting adult. Majority will be more respectful in the presence of an adult.

I hope your "future kids" do not attend one of these parties, and ruin it for the rest of the kids/parents that are accepting of these gatherings.

Which shouldn't happen since you will teach your children to be respectful and to always follow your orders. They will never go behind your back and do something you do not approve of..... o..k.. lmfao..

I guess I'm just a realist. And I'll always choose the safest route for my children. Being too controlling and stern will never work. I'd rather have an open, and honest, relationship with my children. Than having a constant battle of "control" and Rebellion.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 4:51 pm EST

report this comment


Notta, eliminating what may be a high school kid's only shot at college seems a bit harsh for one episode of poor judgement.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 3:59 pm EST

report this comment


None None,

You assume everything wrong in this country is a "liberal" problem. Even down to drinking age's?

www.dumblaws.com

Check out this site. And then check out the very conservative states. I assume you, Allen, and Joe all listen to the same "garbage". Where all of the RWNJ's think "liberals" are the root to all evil.

Are you capable of commenting on any topic without bashing liberals? I know they certainly are not capable.

This topic had NOTHING to do with liberals. These laws were made before the liberal party was formed. Conservatives wanted to stop people from drinking and have wanted to take simple rights away from people based on the "bible" and "religious beliefs". They were afraid the American public were indulging themselves too much and making themselves "weak". It WAS a conservative idea.

I understand your leader wants you to believe everything negative is a Liberal issue. But it's just not true. Anyone that believes that is brain washed and grossly misinformed.

Why do you think liberals are the only ones at fault? Is that even rational? Seriously, do you think it is?

Is it possible for RWNJ's, Rush Limb., and others to realize they have had more Government influence in the past 12 years than Dem's or Lib's? Look where we are... Look who had the most power and influence. Look where it got us!

Get off your high horse. You are not perfect. If you were. Your party wouldn't be the ONLY one declining.

Conservatives don't like change. They like things to stay the same. That's why your "True Blood" conservatives will stick with their side. No matter how wrong, how disgusting, or how corrupt. You will follow them off the bridge. To a slow and steady decay.

The old world is over. Technology is winning. We need new faces. We need people with new and fresh idea's. We need people that are not afraid to ruffle the "old school" feathers and to stand up for what is "overall" best. The world is looking for a New World Order that is fair and accessible. The conservatives have failed.

P.S. Before you bash me. I'm not liberal. I believe in the American way = Liberalism = Freedom and Equality. But, obviously, the liberal party doesn't follow their own "definition". So, I'm an independent.

Only reason I'm posting here, against you, is because of this repeated nonsense. It's sickening. It's disgusting. It's immature. It's bogus and it's irritating.

Why not just give it up? The proof is all around us. Why can you not see it? Why do you still believe the Liberals cause every negativity and the conservatives(GOP) do everything right? When all of the evidence tells a different story?

I'm a median... I see good and bad in all of the partisans. Extremists are what is wrong with this country. They are incapable of understanding reality even when the truth, against their idea's, is tangible. Something is definitely wrong with our education system.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 3:17 pm EST

report this comment


I got to agree with Notta Bushman, you get my kid drunk at one of your little "supervised" parties, you better not let me Ever find out because I will be putting my foot in your ass so far the sweat on my knee will quench your thirst.

And because Notta has a certain view on criminals getting the neighborhood kids trashed makes him arnie thibaults or old jarhead or whatever his name was? Get a life seriously.

I hope the rutland herald tracks that none none down and sends his name and confession he posted on this forum to the police
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 2:17 pm EST

report this comment


Notta,

My apologies for getting off topic and attacking you personally. No disrespect nor offense was intended. I will continue my professional tone from here on out.

Respectfully,
-- Posted by Robert Johns on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 1:45 pm EST

report this comment


Hey, thanks, Robert. Of your 7 paragraph response to my opinion that law-breakers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law I choose to recognize you for the 1 where you agreed with me, not on your 6 paragraphs of personal attacks.

Thanks! Keep that sound thinking going.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 12:18 pm EST

report this comment


Yep Arnie aka notta bushman lockem all up. We have more people in jail right now than anywhere else in the world and the highest crime rate in the world go figure.
-- Posted by David Holland on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 10:21 am EST

report this comment


Yes, kids are going to get blitzed. Parents and other adults should not sanction it. I guess you think you are the cool ones. You are aware, aren't you, that you are breaking the law with your "controlled" parties? Sober teenagers do stupid things. Drunk teenagers do really stupid things. When the kid sneaks out the back of your house with two or three others, drives down the road and kills everyone, how cool are you then?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 6:01 am EST

report this comment


Wow Notta, is EVERYTHING partisan politics with you? Do you truly believe the conservatives are "out ta getcha" on every topic?

I profess to be a predominantly right-winger (though I have an open-minded, balanced foot on the center line), yet I feel the offenders should be made to take responsibility --- doesn't that go against your belief system?

Bashing is your modus operundus --- thanks for throwing your irratic ranting up on the board. As I've noticed, you choose degredation as your debate process and angry disrespect is your calling card.

It would appear that you realize this type of amateur tantrum turns everyone else off and can not be debated with. I can't imagine the "left-wingers" (to use your vernacular) enjoy having you on their bench.

And, if there's some other way for you to maintain your sarcastic, irrational freedom of speech other than having so-called "war mongers" fight for it, I'm sure those "super-patriotics" would take your suggestions.

Your comments are troll-ish and hateful and not filled with any quality or value (yet for some God-forsaken --- oh my, I used a capitol "G" --- reason, I chose to acknowledge your existence).

I'll wait patiently for you to bash me now.
-- Posted by Robert Johns on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 12:53 am EST

report this comment


Why are you all so willing to sacrifice your children on the alter of alcohol? Why is drinking the mark of adulthood? Why is getting drunk or stoned or having sex at wild parties a goal to be reached and for parents to condone? Why haven't you modeled a different form of behavior so that your kids wouldn't find that getting drunk, puking all over your car, attacking the cops and otherwise acting like wild animals is something other than acting "all grown up?" Couldn't you teach them something else?

As for holding "supervised" underage drinking parties? Why do we have laws against such things? Because I don't want you guys acting as drug-pushers and using other peoples' kids as the bait for your self-importance as unknowing and uncaring parents. I would be the first one to turn in anyone who conducts these illegal gatherings. If I were the state's attorney, after ensuring that every kid there was arrested and processed, thus ensuring that any student loan or scholarship that's publicly-supported goes down the tubes, I would throw the book at the child-abusing parents - the "hosts" - who flaunt their irresponsibility by being the antithesis of models of law-abiding citizens.

But, that's just my opinion. On this predominantly right-wing, lawlessness-promoting, redneck opinion site I know I'm in the minority but I know that the super-patriotic war-mongers among you are just lining up to be the first to defend my right to say my piece. Thanks for that ...
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 11:54 pm EST

report this comment


Perfectly put, Robert Johns.
-- Posted by Maureen Gould on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:36 pm EST

report this comment


None None,

You are obviously a responsible adult who has faith in young ones and sees the good in them. In general, I do as well. It's admirable and I respect it.

And I know many young people who drank responsibly while underage --- heck, our senior party in high school was in a field in East Dummerston and the sheriff's department stood by to make sure no one left driving drunk; true story. I turned out well as did most of my friends. Again, it is possible for young adults to act responsibly if given the chance.

My argument is only that, in this case and this case alone, the young persons involved did not excercise that same level of responsibility. I don't see any reason why, no matter where they chose to congregate, they couldn't have done so peacefully while still having a good time.

The partiers knew there was a chance someone would find out where they were if they caused a ruckous. They made the choice to call attention to themselves.

Sometimes the actions of the participants ruin the activities as much as the laws they are skirting. In this case, the police responded to reports of mayhem. In THIS case the young adults behaved in a reckless manner. And in THIS CASE the youngsters should take responsibility for their actions.

That's all I'm saying.
-- Posted by Robert Johns on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:31 pm EST

report this comment


My daughter is not old enough yet that I have to make any of these decisions yet but I do beleive a parent knows their child enough to know if they are responsible enough to handle hosting a party at their house with safe drinking going on because it is going to happen anyways so why not try to make it as controlled as possible. There should not be police interfernce as long as it is controlled, no one leaving, and all the kids parents aware of the party, best case scenrio in my mind but I'm sure not in all others, but point being parents should have more control to know whether they can trust their kids and not cause unneccasary rebellion by restricting things that are going to be tried no matter what, most times.
-- Posted by Maureen Gould on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:31 pm EST

report this comment


Ah yes, The Manor, Hampton House, Sbardellas, etc., etc. Lots of fun, lots of one eyed drives home. We were stupid kids, is what we were. Doctors and lawyers? Many of us didn't make it home in one piece. Many of us didn't make it home alive.

Are kids going to keep being stupid? Of course. And the police should keep doing what they are doing. The thing about their line of work is you can't count the numbers of kids NOT killed.
-- Posted by SC Boy on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 8:49 pm EST

report this comment


Robert

I had parties at my house and as I said in an earlier post, they treated me with respect and thanked us for allowing them a place. I had the car keys, that is how I would know a Supervised party would turn out different.

These kids are results of todays arrogance and laws that do nothing but make people feel good and make revenue for the state and give the kids growing up a bad impression of law and people who have Zero judgment and enforce them.

As humans we shouldhave the ability for logic and reasoning and it sure seems to me that the laws in place ARE NOT working, otherwise why is it continuing? I'll tell you why, cuz as long as we play ignorant and feel piling more laws onto the books is going to solve the problem, we are only pi**ing the kids off and making them inherit a give a sh** attitude. RESPECT people goes a very long ways, but RESPECT is a two way street and not a one way. Who the He** is going to behave when you keep throwing restrictions at them?

The Bat Caves were a last resort because over the last decade the cops have been uniting with multi departments and doing secudled busts as if they were hunting Bin Laden. I have lost respect for the cops who think it takes 6 depeartments to bust a secluded party at the lake.

When I was their age, there was a farm we were welcome on and we partied and we drove to the Manor, The Inferno, Hampton House, Gilligans and Spardilli's to get our booze and then drove all the way back to central Vermont to party. Look at us today, we are respected citizens, Doctors, Lawyers, Policemen, Teachers and parents to name only a few. Now we think the kids today are incapable of making sound judgments, well maybe we should look at the parents and I think the ones who oppose allowing them to make decisions are the ones who are at fault for poor rearing.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 5:31 pm EST

report this comment


Sounds like devil worshipping to me. Should have shot the whole damn bunch as they made their way out of the forest! Then you wouldn't have to come up with any programs for under aged kids to keep them from partying out in the middle of nowhere, and the cops could get busy with violent crimes. You know, like in the old days when people had common sense. Instead of going up there like John Wayne in the "Sands of Iwo Jima" (I know that was probably more fun), they could have set up a road block before they came out on Rt 30. But noooooo, they had to go up there and scatter them like quail, and get them all up and out on the roads so they could do some real damage. Now the cops and the "good people" will be justified in locking us down just a little bit more. Wake up people, it's not so much the enforcing of laws that gets me, it's when the "mission" becomes more important than the lives at stake. Doc
-- Posted by David Holland on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 4:44 pm EST

report this comment


will gormly- very nicely and succinctly stated:)
-- Posted by Teri J. Dluznieski on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:59 am EST

report this comment


None None (two below): You assumption is that they would have behaved better had they been given an area to drink in. Though I respect your opinion and would hope for the same, you have no reference on which to base this guess. Why would another area have prevented them or deterred them from racing their cars and driving home drunk? And as I stated in my first post, a supervised party is no guarantee that someone will not make an irrational choice. That's the point: you say give them the responsibility, yet they didn't act like the adults you claim they actually are.

And I am back to post because I happen to have three children over the age of 18, two in the military and one attending LSU, thanks for assuming! And they've each proven to me they can be responsible with alcohol prior to the legal drinking age (i.e.: I trust that they have never driven drunk). I'd like to know where you chose to conclude I'm a child without children.

I am not saying I don't trust those between 18-20 to drink; I'm saying THESE PARTICULAR YOUNGSTERS did not act in a responsible manner before or after drinking. Why would a change of venue mean they would not have driven home drunk?

This is not a debate about the legal drinking age. This is a conversation about adults below the legal drinking age who chose to act irresponsibly and therefore should face ADULT consequences.

I am all about 18-20 year-olds being able to drink and believe the 21 age limit is stupid (point of information: it was 18 in VT when I was a kid). Once again you make an assumption: this time that I support the minimum age of 21; I do not. Being able to drink in VT as a young adult, then to have that taken away when I joined the Army as a Military Police specialist was a slap in the face, and I shouted the same arguments. And though I still drank at that age, I did not call attention to myself.

But if you can draw the conclusion that a change of venue would have tempered these peoples' actions, I can conclude that, had they been drinking peacefully and RESPONSIBLY, no attention would have been called to them. And then, they would have had an uninterrupted party --- free from law enforcement.
-- Posted by Robert Johns on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:39 am EST

report this comment


we are a generation of children raised by children. We have continually designed programs that alleviate our responsibilities, yet responsibility breeds maturity.
-- Posted by will gormly on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:15 am EST

report this comment


Robert

The point that you have missed is that the kids would not have been at the Bat Caves, nor would they have been driving fast nor would they have thrown the rock at the crusier if there was Supervised Parties or if they were allowed to drink at remote and secluded areas, what the Bat Caves are all about is what happens when the kids have no where else to go and they have been painted into the corner.

No! It is not cop outs and when you have kids of your own, at the age in question come back and post.

Underage is ADULTS and two of the ones who were arrested were over 18 and were allowed to do everything in Society except have a beer. I guess you trust them when they Vote and you trust them when they want a loan or to enlist or even to have an abortion but heaven forbid let them think they want a beer. At 18 they are ADULTS and there should not be this silly Grey Area. Either make it all 18 or make it all 21.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 6:29 am EST

report this comment


Understand my confusion: lately whenever an article pops up about teens doing something illegal, supportive commenters pour out of the cracks and crevices with posts like "kids will be kids", "let them grow", "they need to learn responsibility", "they weren't hurting anything", and "you did the same thing...", blah, blah, blah.

Cop outs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that for every law broken someone needs to lose an eye or be hanged. But honestly: at what point --- at what AGE --- do WE as ADULTS say, "enough is enough"? People preach about lowering the drinking age, hosting supervised parties and easier law enforcement.

Wasn't it an underage drinker who left a "supervised" party in Burlington and ended up killing others while driving?

Funny: the cops in the case above were dispatched to the bat caves after reports of vehicles driving recklessly and at excessive speeds. These would end up being kids who you say were "growing" and just sowing their oats, as it were.

Someone at that same party was "responsible" enough to throw a rock through a cruiser window. There's acting grown up for you.

Admittedly, we all did things as we were growing up; I don't deny that. My folks let me drink in the house (albeit it was Miller High Life, a beverage that would deter any novice drinker) when I was only 15; and when I did get tipsy at a party, I had the wherewithal to call home for a ride. But the kids in this story were leaving the woods already in "trucks, SUV's and ATV's" AFTER drinking, apparently heading back to other vehicles and doubtfully to call mom and dad for a ride.

Yet according to many of you here, these intoxicated kids with likely less than two years of driving experience, still at the tender "learning responsibility" age, and having already proven they were reckless behind the wheel, should not have been rousted by the big bad police and should have been allowed to carry on their merry ways. On roads WE would be driving on.

I don't think so, captain.

You say they should be allowed to drink as it would show we trust them to make good choices. Yet the choices these kids had already made were poor at best. We're surely only having these conversations because no "serious" law was broken. had someone been killed, the path of these comments would likely be different.

Rewind to not long ago when a group of intoxicated boys in Rutland were involved in an "accident" with a death resulting. Though there was little evidence that these boys had caused the death, so many commenters were up in arms that the state's attorney wouldn't convict these guys. But per the definition of the comments here, the boys were at an age where they were sowing their oats, growing and learning responsibility.

Do we wait for someone to die before we decide it's right for a young person to take responsibility for their actions?

Again, I'm not saying that anyone involved at the bat caves needs to do time breaking big rocks into littler rocks. And it is true that they are at an age where they should be learning responibility. To that end though; if they make adult choices, they should have to face adult consequences.
-- Posted by Robert Johns on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 12:20 am EST

report this comment


Teri

I do not disagree with you but they can not learn if they are not given the chances. They need experience to gain their knowledge. All knowledge does not come from a book, nor doe sit come from a teacher, a lot of knowledge comes from trial and error or from learning on the road of hard knocks. You can read about the forest all you want, but until you walk in it and experience it, you will never know.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 11:11 pm EST

report this comment


Also Northstar, I don't claim to be an English Major, but you claim to be a Faculty member and your spelling is worst than mine.

As far as the credit Cards, most colleges have allowed it because thy get a KICK BACK from the credit Card companies, so YOU as a faculty member is the guilty one and not the young and inexperienced, YOU have set the Fox to feed within the Chicken Coop. So please don't blame the kids for your greed.

I have lived by a motto by entire life and let me share it with you. KNOWLEDGE REPLACES FEAR. So give the kids a chance experiment, allow them to learn and allow all of us to learn that are young can be trusted and be responsible, just let us do the guiding and not smother them with idiot laws created by paranoid and fearful people. Get you and our government out of our faces.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 11:04 pm EST

report this comment


Northstar

It isn't up to you because you have teaching background or even military background. If the age is going to be 18, then it is 18 for all or nothing. If you don't think you can trust and American teenager with a beer, then make it 21 and end it.

The point I was making is simply I am far better qualified to supervise a party that my own kids are at, than some person in a Police uniform. Having a cop host a party is not what cops are paid for, they are a REACTIONARY FORCE and not a PREVENTION FORCE. You seem to imply that only teachers, cops and the Govt knows what is best for us. How wrong you are and you must feel right at home with the Man from Kenya at the controls. I am fed up with Liberals and their paranoia created laws and their fears that prevent people from living. They have regulated, govern and just about changed everything we all have known to the point, I am not even sure I am an American any longer. I am tired of everyone trying to tell me that they know better what is best for me and my family than I do. I too! have served and I have served for many years and I have seen abuse both in and out and by the young and my the old, I will not say that a 18 year old abuses his booze any more than the older ones do at the local pubs.
All my kids who are all but one grown up, do not hardly drink at all, they don't smoke pot and they don't do drugs, they have B.S. degrees and are Professionals, yet I allowed them to drink at home whenever they wanted to and I drank with them. We allowed them to have their parties at our place and we supervised and yet my kids and most of the kids that grew with them, turned out pretty da*n good. So where is your logic that they turn evil and become corrupt because they wan tto let their hair down and have a beer? Who are you to judge what parents can judge better? You claim youhave experience that sets you apart from the parent? B.S. take your experience and 50cents and go buy yourself a coffee, for it means nothing. Everyone is different and I have found in my many years on this God forsaken planet, that when you trust people, they can be trusted and when you challenge their trust, then they retaliate with reasons for you to think you can not trust them. Respect and you will be respected. Our kids are not evil and they can be responsible but not if nut jobs are going to run around and bust them and claim they know more than the parents do, you included.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 10:59 pm EST

report this comment


see my earlier post about fostering responsibility.

also- agreed none none about who is allowed to make decisions re their children. I am fairly progressive, but in that same vein.. believe that there is something about personal responsibility and ownership that is a non-partisan issue.

I remember when I was young.. if you went to a restaurant with your children.. the parents had the option of deciding if their children could be served.. ie wine with dinner etc.

However, in today's society.. we live in a " world" in which anything that goes wrong must be someone's ( someone else's) fault. if a child goes to a party and gets drunk, and injured or worse yet, killed. It must be the fault of the person who served them, or sold the alcohol, or hosted the party. NEVER the individual who drank the alcohol, and made the decision to drive or do drugs or have sex.... nooo. they are what.. an innocent victim? teach them how to be responsible.. to know down to their very cellular level- who they are.. identity goes beyond grades and cheerleader squads.. it's knowing strengths, weaknesses.. knowing how to fail and recover from that.. how to stop, step back.. and NOT make the decision of the moment.. NOT be influenced by the need for peer acceptance.. and to have the kind of friends who are not going to dis someone for asserting their needs and wants..

I think it might be called respect.. in the very broadest sense of the word. respect for self, respect for other, respect for community etc...

be well and play nice
-- Posted by Teri J. Dluznieski on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 7:25 pm EST

report this comment


I don't deny that I am biased. I've been a faculty member at state colleges in NY and in VT and watched how college age kids act and make decisions. I've also been in the armed forces and I've gone aboard several military bases over the past 20 years and seen how the young men and women in the service deal with life.

It always amazes me when I realize that these individual are the same age as most of those students on campus. I have a h ell of a lot more confidence in a 19 year old Pfc that a college student of the same age and I do feel that they have earned certain privileges that college students have not.

I have also watched how they handle their credit cards and personal finances. I understand why credit card companies target student. Most of them haven't a clue on how to manage their credit cards. Banks make a fortune on the fees that kids that age incur. As for voting, well I do wonder how they make their informed decisions when so many haven't a clue who's running until the day they go to the polls.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 6:36 pm EST

report this comment


One could argue that it would be far better to get it out of their system with loving supervision than to make it so attractive because it's illegal.

All kids want to push the outside of the envelope a bit for the thrill. It's different for everybody. For some it's beer, others liquor, others wine. Maybe it's driving fast. Maybe it's smoking weed. For some it's sex. Maybe for some it's a combination of all these.

I think that parents and other adults can be the best role models by teaching, through practice, the responsibilities of the actions they choose. If that means hosting a party where keys are taken and nobody gets sloshed to the gills then I think this is much better than driving to some out of the way place and getting totally SMASHED, then either driving or riding with someone else who is BLITZED.

Unfortunately, the same crowd that thinks only THEY know what is best for you and your children have taken that responsibility and opportunity away from you. Think about what other things your parents taught you when you were young that you can't teach your children because they've already been indoct---instructed to be good little liberals.
-- Posted by Bart Logan on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 6:22 pm EST

report this comment


Well then Northstar, if you feel not every kid that is 18 is capable of making good judgment to have a beer, then why give them the right to Vote? Why allow them to get loans on their own? If you feel it is only SELECTED individuals that should be allowed, then raise the age for everything back up to 21 and you will see that Bernie will not be re elected. You sound prejudice in your selection of who is entitled and who isn't.

Colleen,

I have a big yard and way out in nowhere and I had parties and now we have the Nieghbor Turn In Neighbor Programs and some neighbors are all too willing to comply. Look at the world we have and look at what the adults have done to it, look at the huge debt awaiting these young people, look at the astronomical costs of college, price of a first home and everything else these kids are going to be thrown into with the idea it is a Sink or Swim world and yet they are not able to have a beer,because you have the busy bodies who were probably never invited to a party trying to disguise a law with some sort of insane logic.

LET them drink, let them do so with guidence and someone who will induce good judgement. I have more knowledge of raising a kid then some 22 year old State Cop who wears a uniform. I know how to have a party and make sure no one leaves and is repsonsible, I don't need anyone in a uniform who by the very nature that they have a police uniform happens to know more about responsibility with children than I do who has raise many of my own. If they are not endangering anyone, then I really do not see where it is anyone else's business. Do you all really feel that you are entitled to tell others how to live and when and how they can? I don't care about your B.S. of it the LAW, why do you think it is a law? Do you realize that for a long time they were issuing tickets for underage drinking and it was under VSA 23? Even if there wa sno automobiles involved, they were cited under VAS 23. They had to pay to watch a Video and attend Evergreen or some silly excuse of someone ele's idea of what a perfect soiciety is, then on top of that they had their Auto Insurance go up and they were never in a car. Wher eis th elogic in these laws? Where is th elogic that it is legal for everything but drink for a 18 to 21 year old? Who were the drafters of that piece of insanity?
In so many foriegn countries children can drink at almost any age and yet in our Gossip ridden society we have the busy bodies who know best.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 5:54 pm EST

report this comment


Now that is a laugh mav eric, are you serious? Those drugs have been readily available since the early 90s.

and maureen you didn't see those drugs because you didnt hang out with that crowd, I promise you it was around back then you just didn't know it.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 5:34 pm EST

report this comment


Its easier for kids to get heroin, crack and prescription drugs these days than it is to get cigarettes and beer. They are starting to rebel with the harder stuff because its more available. Prohibition didn't work for adults either...
-- Posted by Mav Erick on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 4:45 pm EST

report this comment


i didnt read all the posts so dont know if im repeating something already stated but I beleive kids are more risky and experimental then they seemed to be when I was in school(just ten yrs. ago). It seems like kids are starting to drink and use drugs at such a younger age nowadays. Its not just trying pot and alcohol now. Kids middle school age are using and selling prescription drugs, cocaine, and everything else, we never had to worry about that stuff even in HIGH school nevermind middle school. What will it be like in another 10 yrs.??? Something needs to be done to crack down on this or we are going to have a whole generation of addicts and alcoholics. Beleive me I was no angel, just seems like it is all happening at younger ages.
-- Posted by Maureen Gould on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 4:35 pm EST

report this comment


Lowering the drinking age will also mean that it will be easier for 15 year olds with 18 year old friends to get alcohol.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 12:35 pm EST

report this comment


IMHO, I do believe that lowering the drinking age is a good idea. I think it takes the excitement and drama out of the whole process, and they don't need friends who are 21 and hanging out with 18 year olds (not a good scene) to buy booze.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 10:19 am EST

report this comment


none none-

some really interesting and insightful comparisons that painfully illustrate how much our culture has changed, becoming one of fear and opposition. I note also.. many years ago.. police were visible.. seeing them was a good thing.. they were on the same side. when they pulled you over they would ask: is everything okay. Now.. it is an atmosphere of suspicion.. where are you going... as though i would accidentally let slip that I was on my way to a heroin deal.....??????? yeah...


anyway- I don't know what a good solution looks like. I think the dilemma lies in a few things. we have created a culture that * unconsciously* defines being an adult with drinking, partying, socialising etc. teenagers, and every age, learn their behaviours from watching/ modeling the next group up.. mimicking their slightly elder peers. That is a sociological-biological phenomena.. any species wants to learn what is needed to survive/ fit in..

culturally most societies have " rites of passage".. for these transition periods. Our culture has spontaneously re-created. gangs are another example of this.. initiations, belonging etc.

But if we want to keep our kids safer.. learning to let them make choices YOUNGER.. to make decisions about their lives.. BEFORE it has life and death consequences.. let them fail a class.. less intervention.. not more! let them stay up late to watch a movie, or do something.. when they are 10-12.. and instead of they SEE.. now you feel like crap.. or.. see.. you FAILED.. to process with them after the choices they made. Ask them- how did that work out for you? Let THEM learn to come to the insights on their own. THEN.. the first decision they make for themselves WON'T be one of rebellion, and unwise self-empowerment.

additionally- on the show weird connections, a study was done where college students did not know half of them were drinking fake-beer. ALL OF THEM.. exhibited identical signs of drunken-ness.. not sure what that says about the belief causing the affect...but it is very interesting...

be well. play nice.
-- Posted by Teri J. Dluznieski on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 9:53 am EST

report this comment


W. G. suggested that police should "host" alcohol parties at their homes for proms, graduations, etc.
I can see the law enforcement community falling all over themselves, rushing to sign up for this event." Outta my way!!, Me First! Me First! "
Fast forward to their home that night, "Hi honey, I'm home. Guess what I signed us up for today. What's that? Get my head out of where?"
-- Posted by capttam on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment


What was once...

America - The land of the free.

Has quickly become.

America - Where you must watch your back.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 8:32 am EST

report this comment


Very true Colleen,

But, like I said earlier, they had many BETTER places to do these actions. I agree, the bat caves was a bad idea.

But the Cops are patrolling and watching the better area's more and more. They don't have the opportunities we had.

If you want people to do the right thing. You need to give them space in which to do it. You have to give them some level of trust. Our society has given up on "trust".

As for supervised house parties. There are too many parents against it, busy bodies, willing to throw the police at them.

It's sad but there are people, and cops, that will bust the party even if it is PERFECTLY controlled and monitored. Underage drinking is illegal... And if someone wants to make an example out of someone, even if their intentions are the *"best" option, they could be prosecuted and put in jail for their actions.

When people say, "It's a different world out there and it's more dangerous." I don't think about crimes. I think about the white collar corruption that is willing to sue anyone for anything to make a buck off good people doing the right thing.

Hell, you can try and save someone's life and get sue'd for it. To me, that's how the world has become more dangerous. You could have the best intentions and lose everything you have ever worked for.

* Since the majority here have agree'd that the safest place would be at a supervised house party.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 8:21 am EST

report this comment


PS, NN, nobody is forcing anyone to get drunk, drive drunk or engage in any of the unacceptable behaviors described in this article. These behaviors are deliberate and chosen. Nobody put a gun to their heads and made them do it.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 7:44 am EST

report this comment


None none, please tell me where it is that I said I wanted more laws. What's that, you can't? Oh that's right...because I never said any such thing.
That doesn't mean that anyone, at any age is entitled to trash a public area and/or and important environmental effort to save a rapidly declining and important species for the sake of getting bombed. What these kids did was stupid, destructive, wrong and an excellent example of the behavior of unsupervised people whose brains have not yet developed enough to have sound judgement. Public drunkeness and destruction of property are already against the law. If the cops didn't try to enforce the laws, I have a funny feeling you would be the first one complaining about that too. There is a big difference between some kids kicking back and having a few beers at a party and what happened here.
Has it occurred to you that if a person engages in adult behavior, they should expect adult consequences, including responsibility for their own actions? Who do you suppose will take responsibility for the damage that has been done here, the ones who caused it? The parents who prefer to send their own kids out on the road to get drunk so that they don't have to be responsible for supervising them? No wonder these kids have no qualms about the harm that they are doing, they have excellent examples set for them by their own parents.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 7:26 am EST

report this comment


I have no problem with the idea that the men and women who, at the age of 18, are serving in the armed forces of the USA and have demonstrated a maturity and disciplne that is certainly not present in the general population. Having a cold beer on base after returning from a patrol or from a week in the field seems to be a reasonable privilege to extend to these individuals who are putting their lives on the line every day in combat or in training.

On the other hand, extending those same privileges to the boys and girls who at 18 have the serious problem of trying to select an academic schedule that does not include any 8 am classes, or courses from teachers who do not take off for spelling seems a little bit of a stretch.

I find it offensive to use the men and women of the military and their sacrifices to justify privileges for the boys and girls who just want to have fun and for the most part have shown no inclination to act responsibly..
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 7:17 am EST

report this comment


CF, if something were to go wrong, anywhere, it is because of the behavior of the kids at the party. These kids are (your) kids. (I don't know if you have kids, so lets pretend) Why should I have to pay to repair the police car that your kid trashed? Why should I have to pay to repair the bat cave to a natural state because your kid destroyed it? Why should I have to repair trails used for logging/recreational vehicles because your kids drove 100 cars over them in the mud, got stuck and pulled out? Why should I have to pay the police to bust them, when there are lots of other things they could be doing?

Accept responsibilty for your kids. Teach your kids responsibility. Want to destroy stuff? Fine- do it at your house. Want to drink? Fine- do it at your house. You take the responsibility. Hire security. Hire a band, have a mini-woodstock- its a great idea. I know people are "sue" happy today, but is it better to monitor your teens parties, or hope they party in a safe place with safe people and a safe way to get home?
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 3:58 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy and to anyone else who wants more laws to restrict kids and everyone else.

What are you achieving with your method? You seem to think kids are safer because you have a law in place? What do you really think that law does other than turn neighbor against neighbor?

I think we all need to either lower everything to the age of 18 or raise everything to 21 and have nothing left in the GRAY AREA. If a person can be trusted to enlist and lead men into combat before 21 then they should also be able to decide to have a beer. If they can Vote and decide who is going to rum this country or make our laws, then they too should be able too decide to have a beer. If they can decide to have an abortion or a loan, then they should not laws preventing them from having a drink. Your paranoia only accompishes them from being able to drink with the same trust that you have entrusted them with in almost every other aspect of life. It seems you doubt yourself and therefore doubt others, so you set laws in place.

If they are a at a party, they will sleep at thhe party and not drive until the next day, if they knew that was ACCEPTABLE. It was acceptable in my day and the State Police knew that giving us tickets, threating us, or forcing us onto the roads was only going to make bad things happen out of a otherwise controllable action.

I had parties for my daughter, and I took the keys and I am just as responsible as any cop, no one was allowed to leave until the next morning and after a good breakfast. I was thanked by the kids and everyone respected us. They got a little wild but were very controllable and listened to what we told them and asked of them. They respected us, because we were respecting them. They cleaned up the next morning, thanked us and left. They have memories of a great time and my wife and I know we supervised and watched and felt our daughters would stay safe. The parents who kids were at the party called and thanked us and a few of the busy bodies on our road, threaten to call the police. I can only think what would have happened and if any of the kids would have been killed had they not had a refuge to have their fun at. I feel good about it and I feel my wife and I did the right thing and would do it again.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 3:04 pm EST

report this comment


I have read the long trials and tribs from all of you. I must add that growing up 30 years ago from legal drinking status, I had a few beers before hand. I had a few shots on another occasion and my father taught me my lesson one evening when I thought TOM COLLINS tasted so much like lemonade. All occasions ended in the same way, I got very sick and paid for it the next day. Back then I feared my parents as well as respected them, that has gone away today. Back then if I got in trouble, the answer was that I was going to stay in jail and figure it out myself. Today the process is so laxed that kids don't fear the consequences. I say that if you want to dance, be prepared to pay the fiddler. If you are of age (over 18), I say it should be okay to drink but be prepared for the results. I think the court system should revert back to the days where there were two choices...Jail or Military. That usually sobered up som many people. I enjoy the stories from ole timers that were given that very decision.
-- Posted by annoymous none on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 2:53 pm EST

report this comment


CFR, you make a lot of sense. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, wouldn't a solution be nice? Personally, I think that your fairgrounds idea is an excellent one. Possibly the best one that I have heard yet.
It allows kids to be kids while trying to learn about being grown up, gives them a fun and safe place to let loose. I think even the sobriety tests that you mention could be a lot of fun for them.
The world is a different place now. There are so many more rules and consequenses involved with every little thing. Younger people are more aggressive and grow up a lot faster while maturing at the same rate as before and oppressive rules do create the forbidden fruit situation as Marc points out.
NN, teenagers are smarter in many ways than they used to be, but they still have not developed sound judgement. What little ability they do have in this area (it is a matter of physical development) is the first thing to go when alcohol is consumed.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 1:50 pm EST

report this comment


I don't trust the judgement of any drunk teenager.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 1:37 pm EST

report this comment


So we need to get them... really, really drunk?

LOL.. just kidding.

But I do see your point.

Maybe we'll just have to hire some real drunks, to get wasted, and do the tests. So they can see what NOT to do.... LOL.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 1:27 pm EST

report this comment


the only problem with CF Reality's plan is that the buzzed/drunk participants who pass the tests will feel emboldened and rationalize that they could probably drive drunk. Assuming that everybody who drinks will fail is a bold risk.

My suggestion is to allow underage parties at the houses of police officers (on prom night/graduation/similar occasions).

Parties that happen on other nights and in different locations are unenforcable, and the only hope lies in the judgment of the attendees.
-- Posted by will gormly on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 12:17 pm EST

report this comment


And @ 12AM .. When I said the party ends... lol. I meant the alcohol will be shut off. Obviously, the party will continue for a few more hours. May need to start it earlier.. :-)
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 11:10 am EST

report this comment


Sorry, permamanent marker!

And I was just thinking.. For their first drink. They will be allowed one shot. Which only will be available for the first 30min. And only 1 drink that must be taken right there and right then. (Just to make sure no one is sharing drinks. And no one get's too much. Different color perm. marker.)

I think it would be funny for them to watch themselves and their peers fail at simple tasks. In the right atmosphere. I think it could be more educational than anything else we could do.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:54 am EST

report this comment


I got an idea...

Let's try an experiment. And let's use the Rutland Fair grounds since they just sit there and rot.

Once a month we throw a big party. Music, the works.

We don't actually want to "promote" drinking or anything else. (And I hope you understand that. It's not about promoting. It's about understanding it does happen. There is a difference. And hopefully about education.)

Ages 15-21. Liquor will not be served. But beer will be at a normal store fee.

The gates will be locked once everyone is in. There is no leaving once you have entered unless you pass the breath test. Or have a guardian pick you up. Or there is an emergency. But emergency personnel would obviously already be there.

Party starts @ 8PM, Gates lock @ 8:30PM. Party Ends @ 12AM. For every drink you get served you get a "magic marker line" marked on your hand. After 12PM. You must stay "that many marks/hours past 2 marks" afterwards before you get a "test" to make sure you can leave or have a guardian pick you up. (Size/Age will matter. Intelligent officers/someone will be doing this.)

Now the "good stuff" because I know you think this idea is stupid and crazy already.

Around the fair you can have "fun tests", games, etc....

Stuff like..

The game of Twister..... "The 5mph to dead stop - Instructional Machine for Drivers Ed.", etc...

Tons and tons of things that will test their ability to function. Test their wits. Their balance. Their reflexes.

In the end....

What harm would it do. Don't you think it could be a "Good" and "Safe" educational experience? Or is it just a too hands on approach?

The kids will learn the true effects of alcohol. And they will learn, truthfully, how it WILL affect them.

They will be partying, dancing, and having a good time in our presence. They will be safer, they will be able to blow off some steam and have fun.

Truth is, someday, my children will probably have a few drinks in my presence before they are 21. I'll allow it if they are still respectful. I don't really see the difference.

But I know there would be a LOT of naysayers out there. They would still assume it's too "promotional" and not enough "educational".

Perhaps we need to do it for our education too. It couldn't hurt. What we do now... Isn't working!

Hands on approach... Could be more useful.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:31 am EST

report this comment


I have long suspected that it's the prohibition of alcohol to minors that makes them try so hard to drink it. Maybe if it was legal for teens to try beer and wine-- say, in their own home-- maybe we would all be much safer. And I think the attraction to the "forbidden fruit" would be greatly diminished if it was not forbidden in the first place.
-- Posted by mark on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:08 am EST

report this comment


Colleen,

If something were to go wrong. The land, house, and possibly everything they own will belong to someone else.

These are the laws inplace now.

There was a time it was great that we knew "Where our kids were and what they were doing."

But some children made horrible decisions. People got hurt. Their parents needed someone to blame. They sued these parents for everything they had.

It sucks... but this is the day we live in. Even good parents who are willing to be there and do this. Find it too risky. It's just not worth the risk not knowing what every child is capable of.

You, literally, could lose everything.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:59 am EST

report this comment


Comfy, I think you grasp some but miss the point.

You want to trust your daughter to make the right decision. That's great and I hope you are willing to praise her when she does. And not punish her like many parents did. Which sends the wrong message. And I hope she knows that you will be there when she needs you without "repercussion" that may make her choose an alternate, risky, and uncertain future, in the future.

From what you are saying...

You will teach your daughter and hope she does the right thing.

But you just don't trust the other kids? And their influence on her?

Is that what you are trying to say?

So you don't trust her if she is influenced by others?

I guess I'm confused. Your daughter will go to the party and not get into the vehicle of someone else? Or your daughter will not go? Or you will deny them any life?

Back then.. Really wild parties would get broken up.

Today, people get busted. People get records. Some go to jail. Some parents have lost their home and land for trying to respect children and allow them to experiment in their presence.

What used to be considered a good thing. "We know where the kids are and what they are doing." Has become a bad thing. Those parents are considered reckless. Laws have been placed to prosecute these parents. The good parents today are afraid to allow any of this in their presence. Because the repercussions are severe.

Now kids have no where to go. Many just drive around and experiment. Smaller and smaller groups of people doing who knows what.

I, personally, think that is worse. Bad things happened, usually, in the smallest groups. Rape and worse.

You may think it's safer because your daughter has no where to go. But I think it's deadlier. It's just my opinion. I honestly think we were safer back then. Even though everything around us, cars, etc..., were not.

In closing...

Yes, you are correct, comfy. Some kids cannot handle responsibility. Some kids do get into bigger trouble. Some kids do make bad choices and get themselves killed. Some kids DO need these new laws, protections inplace to try and help keep them alive.

But truly think about who get's hurt by it. The good kids. Do you think it will really protect those kids that are that naive and ignorant anyways? You don't think they will find some other place or just drive around and experiment?

I think people are being a bit ignorant and naive to the simple truth.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:34 am EST

report this comment


I feel bad for the bats. How would you like a bunch of fools wrecking your home? In fact, why don't the parents offer their homes for parties instead of making the kids go to the woods? Lots of people have big backyards, and 10 acre lots- what a great idea!

Note: the cleanup costs will ultimately fall on the taxpayer
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:16 am EST

report this comment


I agree with None None...

I think some people have forgotten what it was like to be young. Or remember perfectly and are scared to allow their children to do the things they did.

Now our children have more pressure on them than ever. Athletics can help some escape and burn off some steam... But it's not for everyone. And even those children that do excel in sports/academics like to have fun.

I disagree Comfy...

In regard to what we are talking about...

How is it a new world out there?

Crime? It's the same. People are less afraid to talk about it and are more willing to prosecute one another.

If anything, I think it's safer. We used to hold a blind eye to all of that "evil stuff". It still existed. Many people back then just kept their mouth shut. Which resulted in more people getting hurt and afflicted. (Kids getting abused and telling their parents who did not believe a "Priest" would do such a thing.) It's more common, today, for people to turn someone in. Even a family member. Which is a good thing. We have become more educated to the truth. It's not happening more. We just recognize it better and sooner.

Cars? Cars are safer than when we were young. Some of the cars we drove around didn't even have working seat belts. It wasn't law then. Airbags didn't exist in my first few vehicles. There were no antilock brakes, safety glass, and many other safety features.

In the end, I had very understanding parents. Because they were so understanding and willing to be there for us if we ever felt endangered. We respected them for their willingness and understanding. Instead of taking advantage of this. We respected them back by being more aware. And by being more thoughtful.

I never was arrested. Was never in an alcohol related wreck. Unless we stayed somewhere... We had a Designated Driver.

Yes, I did smoke pot recreationally from time to time. Yes, I did smoke cigarettes while drinking from time to time. Some of those times were the best times of my life. I wouldn't trade them in for anything.

It saddens me what society has become. Parents forcing Cops and officials to constantly treat our children like criminals. Look below.... Some people think they are ALL criminals.

Yes, I'll be a worried parent. But I would have accepted being worried and allowing them to have the experiences I had.

Unfortunately, the lazy, crazy sinners made this world unavailable for my children. The opportunities we had will not be available.

All because the people incharge forgot what it was like to be young and trust our young adults. They have ruined it for the good children. Yes, good children like to have fun and release steam too. It's healthy.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment


None None, when my teenage daughter drives to a party in the woods, it is safe to assume that she is planning on driving home. How is this keeping them off the roads?
I think that sending your kids back to the road to get drunk so that you can cover your own butt indicates a need for a serious restructuring of your prioroties as a parent.
There actually are kids out there who are not participating in this type of behavior.
Of course kids will experiment..and it is better for them to have a safe place for innocent fun, but that is not what this was.
Sure, kids today are more sophisticated, they are also more aggressive and more vulnerable to a host of consequences that we rarely had to consider.
NN, if your daughter was at that party, then clearly you have failed in your goal to see that she comes out of it safe and alive since she was presumably, at best getting into a car with an inexperienced, judgement impaired, drunk driver. Coming out of that safe and alive is purely a matter of luck. I would hope that any daughter of mine would make decisions that were safe for her and that she would reach out to me or another responsible adult if she got in over her head.
If wanting teenagers to be safe and alive at the end of the night without trashing the environment that they occupy and/or hurting themselves, each other and/or someone else makes me stuck in my ways, I think I will stay stuck thank you very much.
In the town where I live, there is a spot where the kids go to hang out on the weekends and somehow they miraculously manage not to wreck the place or get hurt or arrested. Imagine that!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment


Yeah welcome to reality comfy anon, your kid is going to party whether you like it or not and that is a fact. What you can do is teach her to be safe and if she does end up having sex, to use protection. But you are probably too stuck in your ways to realize that you cant control her, you can only show her how to make the right choice.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 8:02 am EST

report this comment


Comfy

The teenagers of today are actually smarter than the we were 30 and 40 years ago.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 6:49 am EST

report this comment


Comfy

Your teenage daughter wil either be at a party in the woods or she will be on the road. You decide.

I have been through it several times and I hosted the parties for my kids and I suppervised, but now the Society we live in want the Neighbor turn in Neighbor, so back on the roads the kids go.

If you think for a second that you are controlling it, you are a fool. Kids will experiment and they will do so with or without your blessings. Personally I would rather have some control to ensure my daughters are SAFE and alive at the end of it.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 6:48 am EST

report this comment


Yeah yeah yeah, we all drank when we were underage. Do I want my underaged daughter at a drinking party in the woods at night, I think not! How do you all think these kids got there, by microwaving their vehicles to the spot? How do you think they were all leaving....calling taxis, using designated drivers? You can say we all did it all you want, it is scant comfort though when your child is hospitalized or dead from alcohol poisoning, drunk driving or other types of drunken accidents, or victimized by other drunk teenagers who have not yet developed any real sense of judgement. This is not the same world that it was thirty years ago. The rules have changed as has the world.
There has got to be something better than allowing a bunch of kids to spend their time getting trashed in the woods. These are not the innoccents that so many of us wish that they were as evidenced by their attack on police property.
Then there is the issue of the cave. It is a hibernation ground that is being studied to try to prevent the rapid extinction of an important species. This in itself is a very serious violation.
Sure kids drank in the woods thirty years ago, but to my memory, trashing them in the process and vandalizing government property was not part of the fun.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 8:44 pm EST

report this comment


Such Bogus Bull Cr**

The litter is one thing an dneeds to be cleaned up, but as far as UNDERAGE DRINKING what a pile of B.S. He who is without sin may cast the first stone.

When I was a teenager and the drinking age was 21 in Vermont. The State Police told us to get off the highway to have our fun and make sure we didn't endanger ourselves or others in our fun. What is now the Fish Hatchery near Tozier's was a CCC Camp and it had a nice area for swiming and old remenants of firepaces. We would go there and party and the Police would come down and check on us and ensure we were not hurting anyone. They would come down again around midnight and do a head count and once again ensure we were ok, then again at around 5am the same thing. We all grew up respecting the Police and we party just like any other NORMAL teenager growing up.

What I think is crazy, is that we hear about multi Police deptartments gathering together for these underage parties as if they were doing a SWAT operation. Have we become that ridiculous that we think that forcing kids from a safe area and pushing them back onto the highway is going to solve problems? Then we have nut cases trying to label these kids as tomorrow's Serial Drinkers? What?
Kids are going to drink, with or without your approval and I for one do not like this new society whereit is neighbor turning in neighbor so the Police canb get their rocks off by busting another underage party.

Per Vermont Statutes a minor is anyone under the age of 18. That would make an adult 18 and over but because we have a few who feel they can vote, go to war, get an abortion, get a loan, when they come home on leave they can't have a beer.

Underage Drinking has been going on for as long as there has been booze and teenagers, now as some who were never invited to one, grow up, they want laws to prevent anyone elese from going.

The reason why the teenage fatality rate went up in the highways is because we have chased them out of SAFE areas and back on to the roads, they run in fear of being busted. Smarten up people.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 5:03 pm EST

report this comment


Kids will be kids. Everyone knows that. I do hope however, that they find the lowlife scumbags who broke the windshield and put the screws to them.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment


I am sorry Northstar62 but if Joe Arapiao is your model of how law enforcement should be administered you are a seriously sick deranged individual. With a view of the world such as yours you would have been comfortable doing the goose step under the fluttering flags of the Third Reich.
-- Posted by nh forester on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment


Well, I didn't want to disappoint you, Northstar62.

When I was younger. We had many places to go and gather to socialize in the Rutland area. Experimentation happens and it's very natural. Yes, it can be dangerous. But it will happen here, there, or somewhere. It WILL happen. It's just a matter of where, when, and how.

Which is another major issue with this state.

There are no places for kids to do these activities anymore. Atleast in my area. There are no places for young adults to loiter without being harrassed by cops. In just 1-2 years after I graduated from high school, every area was being shut down.

The lazy parents are happy. They can sit around and not pay attention to their kids. The cops will do their job by making sure where the young adults are NOT.

Trust me.. I am concerned, as are many parents. I have 2 daughters that will be in middle school and high school in just a couple years. I'll be worried like any parent.

But I don't want them to live those years in school not being allowed to have any fun. Or have any room to grow. We grow by learning from our mistakes. All we can do is teach them the best we can and pray for the best.

For me.... I think it is safer for my children to be around many of their friends and peers. If they are forced to drive around, all of the time, and hang in groups of 2-4. I feel that is more dangerous. If they got with the wrong people at the wrong time. Bad things could happen and they may have nobody there to help them. Driving around excessively while experimenting obviously would be more dangerous for everyone.

Here is a few questions for you.

If your child called you up, and asked you to pick them up because they drank too much.

Would you punish them?

Seriously, think about that. Most parents would punish their children. But really think about it. What kind of message is that sending your child? Don't be safe? It's better to hide it and risk their life?

Wouldn't you rather have your child call you and be safe?

Isn't that what they want us to do when we are 21 and older? Why would it be any different when they are young adults?

I know it's scary... But I will make sure my daughters know I'll be willing to come and get them, anytime, anywhere. Because I know these things will happen. I'm not going to be a naive and ignorant parent. I was young once. And I'd rather them be safe. I'd rather be understanding than make them choose a truly stupid decision assuming they had no other choice.

Sometimes being honest with yourself and being understanding to your children will send the right message. Afterall, it is the SAME message we expect them to follow in 3-4 years.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 6:54 am EST

report this comment


Where was Bruce Wayne when kids were messin' with the Bat Cave?
-- Posted by mark on Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 2:03 am EST

report this comment


I expect we will see the posts of 'But they are only children', 'They made a bad decision, who hasn't done the same'. Bull, please note that some of these kids had been chased away from an earlier paraty and some had past drinking violations. I think that some of these good kids will become the counties future serial drunk drivers. They don't have any fear of being arrested and charged abecause they know that the apolgist in the state will let them off easy.

This state needs to get tougher on convicts and develop programs along the lines of sheriff Arpaio of Arizona. Make jail much less acceptable and somewhere that you don't want to go. Create work programs/schedules to keep convicts busy from 8 am till 5 pm, Mon. - Fri. doing constructive things in the community or in the facility. And if they want to participate in education programs they have to earn the right to apply for them by their cooperation and their work performance. No work = no education or recreational programs. All Education/recreational programs will not begin till after evening meals.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 6:58 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout