Did Joe break the law?

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

At 8/17/2013 6:23:42 PM, Subutai wrote:
In the eyes of the law, Joe did break the law. It doesn't matter if the consumer is 10 or 20 and 364/365ths years old. In both cases, the costumer is below the age of 21.

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

At 8/17/2013 6:37:37 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

I think that Cats was thinking about consent laws, but no, the analogy doesn't jive.

At 8/17/2013 6:43:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:37:37 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

I think that Cats was thinking about consent laws, but no, the analogy doesn't jive.

Why? The 18 year old still had sex with a minor.

At 8/17/2013 6:44:11 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:43:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:37:37 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

I think that Cats was thinking about consent laws, but no, the analogy doesn't jive.

Why? The 18 year old still had sex with a minor.

Irrelevant. The 18 year old did not intend to have sex with a minor. Most states, though, do not recognize 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds as a crime.

At 8/17/2013 6:51:41 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:44:11 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:43:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:37:37 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:34:02 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:32:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/17/2013 5:22:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
Let me tell you of a hypothetical. A store owner, Joe, has a 20 years and 364 days old customer who want beer . Joe sells. Did Joe break the law?

Yes.

Age-specific laws are unambiguously defined. Close-enough is not good enough.

So if a 16 year old rapes a 18 year old, who should go to jail?

umm, the 16 year old would likely be charged as an adult and sent to jail, and even if he was charged as a minor he would still be convicted and sent to some alternate detention center. How on God's green Earth is this even remotely relevant to the question originally posed?

I think that Cats was thinking about consent laws, but no, the analogy doesn't jive.

Why? The 18 year old still had sex with a minor.

Irrelevant. The 18 year old did not intend to have sex with a minor. Most states, though, do not recognize 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds as a crime.

Is it really? I bet the 16 year could be the one feigning rape. This is why I don't like age-related laws.

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

At 8/17/2013 7:03:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

You realize that, once age is considered a valid reason, the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? Why not 1 hour, why not 2, why not 200, why not 2,000,000 hours?

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

At 8/17/2013 7:04:55 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:03:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

You realize that, once age is considered a valid reason, the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? Why not 1 hour, why not 2, why not 200, why not 2,000,000 hours?

Thus why I don't like age laws.

At 8/17/2013 7:07:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:04:55 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:03:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

You realize that, once age is considered a valid reason, the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? Why not 1 hour, why not 2, why not 200, why not 2,000,000 hours?

Thus why I don't like age laws.

So age is never a valid consideration in your estimation?

At 8/17/2013 7:06:20 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

Looks like we agree on something.

At 8/17/2013 7:09:21 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:06:20 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

Looks like we agree on something.

I think that in principle, we agree completely, we just differ in the extent to which certain principles should apply. For example, I think 16 for beer/wine and 18 for liquor (or pot, if it were legal) would be acceptable too. If we had kvasks (idk what the english spelling is) which is a Russian dark beer like beverage, I'd even be ok with 14 for that (it's only about 1.5%/abv).

At 8/17/2013 7:20:53 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:09:21 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:06:20 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

Looks like we agree on something.

I think that in principle, we agree completely, we just differ in the extent to which certain principles should apply. For example, I think 16 for beer/wine and 18 for liquor (or pot, if it were legal) would be acceptable too. If we had kvasks (idk what the english spelling is) which is a Russian dark beer like beverage, I'd even be ok with 14 for that (it's only about 1.5%/abv).

How much alcohol is in beer and wine (abv)?

At 8/17/2013 7:22:38 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:20:53 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:09:21 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:06:20 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

Looks like we agree on something.

I think that in principle, we agree completely, we just differ in the extent to which certain principles should apply. For example, I think 16 for beer/wine and 18 for liquor (or pot, if it were legal) would be acceptable too. If we had kvasks (idk what the english spelling is) which is a Russian dark beer like beverage, I'd even be ok with 14 for that (it's only about 1.5%/abv).

How much alcohol is in beer and wine (abv)?

Depends on the beer or the wine, but usually about 4-4.5% for beer and 12-14.5% for wine (sometimes more or less depending on the beer/wine).

At 8/17/2013 7:28:08 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:22:38 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:20:53 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:09:21 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:06:20 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:05:03 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

A person who is 20 years, 364 days, 59 minutes, and 59 + 99/100ths of a seconds old, they are still not 21 -so selling alcohol to them would be a violation of the law, so they should be fined.

I think that a drinking age of 21 is stupid too, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't consult my opinion when they lobbied to have the drinking age raised to 21 a few decades ago...

I also happen to think that MADD is a fairly pointless organization, but again, that's another issue.

Looks like we agree on something.

I think that in principle, we agree completely, we just differ in the extent to which certain principles should apply. For example, I think 16 for beer/wine and 18 for liquor (or pot, if it were legal) would be acceptable too. If we had kvasks (idk what the english spelling is) which is a Russian dark beer like beverage, I'd even be ok with 14 for that (it's only about 1.5%/abv).

How much alcohol is in beer and wine (abv)?

Depends on the beer or the wine, but usually about 4-4.5% for beer and 12-14.5% for wine (sometimes more or less depending on the beer/wine).

Wine is about 8-14%

http://www.alcoholcontents.com...

At 8/17/2013 7:08:33 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:07:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:04:55 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:03:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

At 8/17/2013 7:01:32 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:59:18 PM, YYW wrote:

At 8/17/2013 6:56:16 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

But the OP. Should Joe go to jail?

No. A fine would be appropriate, though.

Why a fine? Why not jail?

Well, probably because that is the most common consequence for selling underage kids alcohol... though, I am admittedly biased to Massachusetts state law (i.e. that with which I am most familiar).

Even still, I think a fine is more reasonable because it neither places a burden on the state nor does it prevent a person from economically productive activity -it only penalizes them for illegal economic activity.

Why though? How about if the buyer was 1 hour away from his 21st birthday?

You realize that, once age is considered a valid reason, the line has to be drawn somewhere, right? Why not 1 hour, why not 2, why not 200, why not 2,000,000 hours?

Thus why I don't like age laws.

So age is never a valid consideration in your estimation?

Pretty much.