Cadet with Alcohol Misdemeanor

[JeffDG]

Federal law says you have to be 21 to consume and posses alcohol. 

Can you cite that law?

[abdsp51]

Burden of proof is on you.

[JeffDG]

Burden of proof is on you.

You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.

You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.

[abdsp51]

Burden of proof is on you.

You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.

You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.

You made the initial claim, so vurden of proof is on you.

[JeffDG]

Burden of proof is on you.

You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.

You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.

You made the initial claim, so vurden of proof is on you.

OK, I'll take that as you made that claim up then.

[SarDragon]

[JeffDG]

I'll even be generous and point you in the right direction:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158

[lordmonar]

Burden of proof is on you.

You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.

You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.

This arguing the non-sequitur......the fact remains.....CAP's regs and policies do in fact extend beyond "CAP TIME".

A commander is charged with maintain the safety, orderly running of the program and good order and discipline.   Whether the regs specifically state that one rule does or does not apply outside of CAP does not mean that principle that it could does not exist.

A member's conduct out side of CAP can and does affect their membership inside of CAP.  Period.  End of Story.   

If you want argue a specific instance, a specific situation....well we there is always a lot of gray area.

Now...on the alcohol issue

c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities. Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.

I just down loaded this reg from the web site...so it is up to day.

Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.

Ergo you whole argument is wrong.

[JeffDG]

Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.

Ergo you whole argument is wrong.

Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then.  How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?

[lordmonar]

Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.

Ergo you whole argument is wrong.

Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then.  How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?

That's what happens when you argue extremes....instead of just being reasonable in the first place.

Sometimes our regulations contradict each other.

That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.

A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.

We write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action.  But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.

No one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.
But if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander. 
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.

On and off duty.  In our out of uniform.  24-7.

Membership is a privilege not a right.

1-1. Policy. Membership in Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a privilege reserved for those individuals who desire to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP and who meet the eligibility requirements outlined herein. In the event an individual does not meet the prescribed criteria and is erroneously accepted, the membership is null and void and dues will be refunded. Additionally, in those cases where an applicant is accepted by a unit commander but not accepted by a higher headquarters, membership dues will be refunded and the membership is null and void. National Headquarters reserves the right to make final decisions on all membership cases and issues that arise under this directive.

[JeffDG]

Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.

Ergo you whole argument is wrong.

Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then.  How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?

That's what happens when you argue extremes....instead of just being reasonable in the first place.

Zero Tolerance policies ALWAYS end up in extremes.  Zero Tolerance = Zero Judgement and they're an incredibly intellectually lazy way to make decisions.

Sometimes our regulations contradict each other.

That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.

Not when they mindlessly make decisions based on a zero tolerance policy.  That's an abdication of leadership.

A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.

How does that work in the Zero Tolerance environment?

We write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action.  But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.

Great idea.  But Zero Tolerance = Zero Judgement

No one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.

Not what's been claimed.  He claims that the regs demand zero tolerance.

But if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander. 
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.

Whole different animal than zero tolerance.

All zero tolerance policies, every single one, are ways for people who are intellectually lazy to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and think.

[lordmonar]

Jeff,

You mistake me for one who said there was a Zero Tolerance Policy (ZTP).   I simply said that a commander could interpret the wording in 52-16 as a ZTP.  I don't....but others could.

I agree the ZTPs are not always good.

But not all ZTPs are bad.  I mean we got a ZTP for child molesters.   You think that's a bad idea? 

[LSThiker]

That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.

A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.

We write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action.  But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.

No one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.
But if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander. 
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.

That is the point that I was stating earlier against absp51.  There is no zero tolerance policy for CAP in this regard because it is really a command discretion.  Before we go further, let us make the claim of what "zero tolerance" is:

A law, policy, or practice that provides for the imposition of severe penalties for a proscribed offense or behavior without making exceptions for extenuating circumstances.

In this definition, there are no exceptions or extenuating circumstances in which a behavior would be acceptable.  As you stated, a reasonable person is not going to kick a cadet out for taking the communion, sipping a beer, having beer battered pancakes, etc.  We are both in agreement on this as well as NHQ, I believe.  A reasonable person would not.  However, we have just violated the definition of zero tolerance as we just made exceptions to a policy.

If there was truly a zero tolerance policy, then cadets that violate this policy in any way, shape, or form would be immediately kicked out without exception.  So a cadet that were try wine at Christmas time would be in violation of this policy and would thus be subject for immediate termination for cause as would a cadet that constantly gets drunk.  A commander would not get the option of saying:  "yes I know cadet Johnny had alcohol but the circumstance was that it was Christmas time, he had one glass, was in the presence of his immediately family (which gave him permission).  Therefore, this is not a violation of CAPR 52-16 and I will not terminate his membership for cause.  However, I know that Cadet Bag-of-donuts is always getting drunk at his frat, constantly talks about it, and sometimes smells of alcohol, therefore I will terminate his membership under cause".  He would be forced to terminate both regardless of the situation.

However, we know this is not the case and that CAP, in general, would never tolerate this.  Therefore, there is no implying of zero tolerance.  It is truly a command decision.  While a commander may interpret CAPR 52-16 as a zero tolerance, he would be in the wrong to apply zero tolerance to all situations.

Implied zero tolerance?  No.  Command decision?  Yes.

 

[JeffDG]

Jeff,

You mistake me for one who said there was a Zero Tolerance Policy (ZTP).   I simply said that a commander could interpret the wording in 52-16 as a ZTP.  I don't....but others could.

I agree the ZTPs are not always good.

But not all ZTPs are bad.  I mean we got a ZTP for child molesters.   You think that's a bad idea?

I've never seen a ZTP that doesn't degrade rapidly.

Take your example of child molesters.  ZTPs there almost always rapidly degrade to branding people on mere unsubstantiated allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensville_satanic_sex_scandal)  Entirely innocent people have had their lives absolutely ruined, but there are people to this day who would exclude people proven innocent as "accused child molesters".

[lordmonar]

I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.

But again......you avoided answering my question.  CAP has a ZTP on child molesters.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[JeffDG]

I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.

But again......you avoided answering my question.  CAP has a ZTP on child molesters.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Due process and respect are wholly incompatible with ZTPs

So which do you want?

[lordmonar]

I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.

But again......you avoided answering my question.  CAP has a ZTP on child molesters.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Due process and respect are wholly incompatible with ZTPs

So which do you want?

Sorry?   Negative ghost rider.  And again this is something that you have to know...so either you being obtuse or just trying to bait me.
So...I'm going to call it a night.

[Storm Chaser]

Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:

From the "changes" section:

In 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.

Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise

Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf
Page 1:  Summary of changes.

Just looked at it try again. Previous prohibition was for senior members.  But nice try at a spin.

I'm not spinning.  Did you see the part about "at cadet activities"?  Are you seriously this dense that you can't see something that, in BLACK AND WHITE, contradicts your position.

You are misinterpreting the Summary of Changes in CAPR 52-16. The sentence you refer to clearly points to Para. 2-4c, which contains the the actual regulatory change (the Summary of Changes in a regulation is not regulatory itself, but only points to the changes in the regulation). The shaded area indicating the change in Para. 2-4c states the following:

Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.

The change you refer to in the Summary of Changes clearly refers to senior members at cadet activities, not cadets per se.

Para. 2-4c also states the following regarding cadets:

Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.

It is clear that cadets are prohibited from possessing alcohol or using illegal drugs regardless of where they are. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are only prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.

Agree.  However once reported it's a different story.  52-16 says cadets cannot touch it. 

Why, exactly, do you think that 52-16 applies to a member's conduct outside of CAP?

By the standard you expose, we cannot have Catholic cadets, because wine is an integral part of their communion.  Many other denominations as well.

The law does not prohibit minors from receiving Holy Communion and neither does CAPR 52-16. You're using a straw man argument to prove your point that CAP does not prohibit alcohol consumption by cadets outside of CAP activities. It is not a valid argument.

[Rafka]

So I guess I should've been kicked out 3 years ago since I drank some beer with my Dad? Guess we should remove a good chunk of our cadet population.

[Alaric]

Now...on the alcohol issue

c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities. Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.

Since there seems to be some disagreement on Federal law regarding alcohol

The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds. A Federal regulation that interprets the Act excludes from the definition of "public possession," possession "for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages",

[23 C.F.R. § 1208.3].



FEDERAL CITATIONS AND RELEVANT TEXT EXCERPTS

23 U.S.C. § 158. National minimum drinking age.
 

(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.

(1) In general. The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.

(2) State grandfather law as complying. If, before the later of (A) October 1, 1986, or (B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect.

(b) Effect of Withholding of Funds. No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State.

(c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined. As used in this section, the term "alcoholic beverage" means:

(1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,

(2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or

(3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)( of such Code.

23 C.F.R. § 1208.3. Definitions.

As used in this part:

Alcoholic beverage means beer, distilled spirits and wine containing one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume. Beer includes, but is not limited to, ale, lager, porter, stout, sake, and other similar fermented beverages brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part or from any substitute therefore. Distilled spirits include alcohol, ethanol or spirits or wine in any form, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof from whatever process produced.



Public possession means the possession of any alcoholic beverage for any reason, including consumption on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public (including a club which is de facto open to the public). The term does not apply to the possession of alcohol for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages.


Purchase means to acquire by the payment of money or other consideration.

Emphasis mine.  So the Feds are not interested when a person is having a drink as part of a religious service, or in the company of a parent or guardian, or when working at the local bowling alley.  I believe the line is more to forbid marijuana use in states that it is legal.