Cadet with Alcohol Misdemeanor

[Eclipse]

Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values? 

Everyone agrees with "Moral Values", mostly because here's lots to choose from!

[Nuke52]

Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values? 

Everyone agrees with "Moral Values", mostly because here's lots to choose from!

And for the record, in most cultures, drinking alcohol has nothing at all to do with morality.  Even then, simply because something is illegal does not, by any stretch, make it immoral--in exactly the same sense that just because something is legal, that it is, thus, moral. 

BTW, I believe a "federal" (debate that if you must, but for all intents and purposes it is) legal drinking age of 21 is absolutely stupid and wrong.  Impaired driving aside (which should also remain solely a State issue), enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.

[Eclipse]

enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

Agreed.  Which country is that?

If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.

Not all parents are created equal, either.  Common sense, isn't.

[Nuke52]

enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

Agreed.  Which country is that?

Our beloved US of A.  Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.

If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.

Not all parents are created equal, either.  Common sense, isn't.

I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is.  Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.

[Eclipse]

enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

Agreed.  Which country is that?

Our beloved US of A.  Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.

Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.

[Eclipse]

I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is.  Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.

LCD is pretty much the only reason to >have< laws in the first place.

[JeffDG]

enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

Agreed.  Which country is that?

Our beloved US of A.  Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.

Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.

No, actually they cannot.  Unless they are within 50 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border.

10 U.S. Code § 2683
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2683

[Ned]

Legal trivia.

DUI laws are indeed creatures of state law.  As are "possession and consumption by minors" laws.

The Federal aspect begins and ends with The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 USC 158) which "merely" punishes states that do set their public possession and drinking laws at age 21 by reducing their Federal Highway funds by 10%.  The federal law does not mandate any specific ages for private possession or consumption.

State laws vary considerably in that area.  In California, at least, it is not unlawful for a minor to possess or consume alcohol in a private residence or during a religious ceremony.  YMMV.

And although we have discussed it before, the drinking age is just one of a large group of age-related restrictions in federal and state law.  There are widely varying state laws that govern when someone can consent to sexual activities, gamble, buy a firearm, marry without permission, possess tobacco, get a drivers' license, consent to certain kinds of medical treatment, etc. 

And of course, the age of majority (generally defined as the age at which a child assumes control and responsibility over their persons, actions, and decisions) is 18 in most -- but not all -- states.  The voting age is generally fixed at age 18.

There are even age-related restrictions found in the US Constitution (minimum ages for Representative, Senator, and President.)

Many businesses set minimum ages for certain transactions.  Try to rent a car before age 25, for instance.

It does seem like a veritable hodgepodge of age restrictions when viewed from 20,000 feet.  But the majority of the restrictions were enacted by local politicians responding to local concerns.

Anyway, fun legal trivia.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Nuke52]

I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is.  Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.

LCD is pretty much the only reason to >have< laws in the first place.

Once again you are wise beyond your years  , and though I know it's hyperbole, I agree with you.  However, when laws that are intended to prevent the LCD from harming themselves are imposed on all of us is where I bristle. 

There are stupid people in this world.  Provided there's not an overwhelming risk of them hurting innocent uninvolveds, sometimes you just have to let them be stupid and learn for themselves (or not).

[Nuke52]

enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.

Agreed.  Which country is that?

Our beloved US of A.  Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.

Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.

I think we're talking past each other here.  But, any 18-y/o man (particularly those who have fulfilled their legal obligation and registered with SSS), even if not in the military, should not, repeat not, be legally prohibited from consuming a substance that is otherwise legal for anyone of an older age.   To be clear, I am saying that if an 18-y/o high-school dropout who has registered with SSS and is thus eligible to be forcibly drafted into the service of his nation, the government, any government, has no moral right to prohibit him from consuming alcohol at any time or place of his choosing (ok, not while driving, flying, etc.).  Assuming he still lives with his parents, they of course have the prerogative to allow or disallow whatever they want under their roof, but the government, no way.

[Nuke52]

Ned's legal trivia...

Copy all, and I agree the situation is how you describe it.  Whether all of those items, particularly the governmental ones, should be that way is a different question.  One of our biggest problems as a society is that parents, teachers, mentors, etc. ("it takes a village," right?), have abdicated too much of their roles in guiding our youth as to what is right or wrong, acceptable or not.  Instead, we've deferred those parenting and guiding functions to an over-reaching government, who "altruistically" or not has its fingers way, way too deep in our personal lives.  [/rant]

On the other hand, I also believe it is CAP's right as an organization to prescribe standards and conditions for membership, and if cadets not drinking alcohol is a condition CAP believes is important, I think they have the right to enforce that regardless of what a parent may allow in the privacy of their own home, even if I as a parent disagree with that wholeheartedly.  Except when it comes to not making an accomodation/exemption for religious reasons... 

Going by the quoted reg above, CAP makes no provision for the allowance of alcohol consumption by cadets in religious practice.  Given CAP's nature as an at-least-somewhat (not going down that rabbit hole in this thread) public/pseudo-governmentally-related-ish organization, to deny members of their free practice of religion is, at the least, problematic and could/should get CAP into some trouble if it's not changed.  And I definitely believe they should change that.

There:  World Peace.  You're welcome.

[lordmonar]

Or....we can execute some common sense at the unit level and bother.

The purposes of regulations is good order and discipline, keeping our people safe, keeping our reputation safe, and being fair and equable where possible.

No provision for religious exception.......use your common sense.
Little Johnny got busted drinking at the prom.....use your common sense.
Little johnny gets busted drinking at the CAP meeting....use your common sense.

use your common sense....use the regulations......use your chain of command and peer network to find out what is the best course of action.

You talk about government hand holding.....but you want to replace it with CAP hand holding.

If Little Johnny is not right for CAP because of his actions.....then by all means 2b him.
But let's not say that everyone who has a drink under age needs to be 2b'ed.

We have to the tools to take action if we need to.    But just becaus we got a sledge hammer does not mean we got to use it every time.....all the time. [/rant]

[Eclipse]

You can't fall back on "common sense" when you pull people off the street with no
relevent experience and put them in positions of authority.

CAP does not train it's commanders and staff to a level that imbues this mystical "sense",
and many of the average parents I deal with regularly certainly don't have it, or have it in
fits and starts.

"Common sense" is also relative, which means if you leave it up to the decision maker,
you can't complain later if one commander is imposing a zero-tolerance termination on
your favorite Spaatz cadet while the slackers in another unit get a "can't be bothered" pass.

You can train and vet people internally to a high consistent standard, and then expect them
to make consistent decisions, or you can define the situation tightly and expect people to
"read and heed", but you can't have it both ways and not expect issues.

[lordmonar]

You can't fall back on "common sense" when you pull people off the street with no
relevent experience and put them in positions of authority.

It's a good thing we try not to do that.

[Eclipse]

It's a good thing we try not to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No#

[lordmonar]

It's a good thing we try not to do that.

If it ever happens, let us know.

Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?

Check
and
Mate

[Eclipse]

It's a good thing we try not to do that.

If it ever happens, let us know.

Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?

Assuming I was a good CC (there are those who would disagree), I had already been
in CAP 5 or 6 years, had been mentored by good (and bad) CCs and staff, and was commanding
a large cadet activity.  I had also attended and presented at SLS and CLC, and had management
and teaching experience and training external to CAP.  Hardly typical.

The random exception that proves the rule.

[Nuke52]

Or....we can execute some common sense at the unit level and bother.

The purposes of regulations is good order and discipline, keeping our people safe, keeping our reputation safe, and being fair and equable where possible.

No provision for religious exception.......use your common sense.
Little Johnny got busted drinking at the prom.....use your common sense.
Little johnny gets busted drinking at the CAP meeting....use your common sense.

use your common sense....use the regulations......use your chain of command and peer network to find out what is the best course of action.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should both use (un)common sense and bother, whenever possible/appropriate and that your description of the purposes of regulations is reasonably stated.  But CAP's regulations are clear (and, I believe, clearly in violation of the law vis-a-vis religious use) and using "common sense" is no excuse to ignore or disregard the regs.  That particular reg needs to be fixed.  ASAP if not sooner.

You talk about government hand holding.....but you want to replace it with CAP hand holding.

You misunderstand:  I absolutely don't want to replace government hand holding with CAP hand holding.  At all.  I said I believe CAP has a right, within certain parameters (i.e., to not discriminate against specific protected groups), to set its own conditions and standards for who is allowed to become/remain a CAP member--that is, CAP has a right to freedom of association.  I believe CAP has that right whether I agree with the particular standards and conditions CAP sets or not.  (And I don't in this case.)

But let's not say that everyone who has a drink under age needs to be 2b'ed.

I would never say that.  I don't agree with doing so.  Having been around the block a time or two, I fully believe a responsible introduction to alcohol during the teen years is a crucial life lesson.  So, so much better to learn those lessons in a safe and controlled environment under the watchful eye of responsible parents or parent-trusted relatives/mentors than on one's own away from home with no "adult supervision," as many a college student does today.  As a former cadet who certainly consumed my share of alcohol while at college and maybe (or maybe not, you can't prove anything  ) consumed alcohol while participating in a certain CAP NCSA (or two) far, far away from home, I disagree with CAP's cadet alcohol policies (don't even get me started on the current IACE prohibitions).  But I still maintain CAP's right to have those policies.  Except for the lack of a religious accommodation.  That's got lawsuit written all over it, if someone ever wanted to push that button.

[Nuke52]

[Eclipse says he is] Hardly typical.

I think we can all agree on that!   

[lordmonar]

It's a good thing we try not to do that.

If it ever happens, let us know.

Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?

Assuming I was a good CC (there are those who would disagree), I had already been
in CAP 5 or 6 years, had been mentored by good (and bad) CCs and staff, and was commanding
a large cadet activity.  I had also attended and presented at SLS and CLC, and had management
and teaching experience and training external to CAP.  Hardly typical.

The random exception that proves the rule.

In my experience.....that seems to be more of the pattern....not the exception.    Do we have commanders thrown in without proper training.....yep we do.

But burdening us with more regulations is not the answer. 

An inexperinced/incompetant leader is not any more likely to read and head it than anyone else.

Point being....CAP.....TRIES.