State hands out 65K to Fight Underage Drinking

[VaporLung]

Before I get started, Yes I know this is a 'State' issue, but its also a politico issue in the bigger picture as is the gubbment at a state level. (Think locally act globally kinda thing) At any rate, here is the story -

RICHMOND

The state has awarded eight community grants totaling more than $65,000 in the fight against underage drinking and access to alcohol.

They were awarded to organizations that showed creative ways to promote zero tolerance for underage drinking, reach large numbers of people, gain community support and ensure effectiveness and accountability. Grants were awarded to groups in Alexandria, Front Royal, Grundy, Martinsville, Richmond, Roanoke and Tazewell, and to the city of Waynesboro.

The commenters of this story seem to be rather negative -

Seriously?! You want me to work harder

to pay more taxes for this?!

I don't think so!!!!!!

Giving tax dollars away to enforce a long standing law. Do your job, if not most likely you will be giving the state a nice bonus, a find for serving underage kids. This seems a bit backwards a waste to me.

The government officials are always asking "where should we start cutting" when taxpayers complain about ever increasing budgets. Here is a good place. Yes I know it's a small amount of money, but I wonder how many of these small amounts are given away each year to groups. I'm sure it would add up to a lot more than most politicians would like to admit, and at the federal level I bet it is HUGE. Just another example of government officials wasting money they confiscated from taxpayers.

This will reach about as far as a duffle bag of cash sent to Afghanistan.

The irony here lies in the fact state law allows underage persons to drink alcohol at home, as long as a parent or spouse is there.

Yes the government and tax payers money doing parenting.

We cut funding for food programs, school lunches and then give $65,000 to groups that are against underage drinking. I'm against underage drinking and will tell all the under 21ers I know that they shouldn't drink until they are over 21 and if they are drinking, they should stop. And I won't charge the state a thing.

But I actually see this as a POSITIVE thing in a sense as its acted towards empowering people to make better choices at a younger age, as many of the parents fail to do this. Here was my response -

AM I the only one in favor of this? Or at least the only one who sees the other side of the coin?

Anti-Prohibitionists are always screaming "Treatment and prevention before incarceration" or something along those lines. What is the alternative to keeping this out of the hands of kids? Locking people up that do it?
We all see how well this has worked towards the war on drugs, as people by nature just like the sinful stuff. (Firewater included)

Treatment and PREVENTION are the logical solutions for addressing alcohol, gambling, drugs, sex etc... Whats the big deal?

[blucher]

But I actually see this as a POSITIVE thing in a sense as its acted towards empowering people to make better choices at a younger age, as many of the parents fail to do this. Here was my response -

I agree but wonder why morons are allowed children. Seems we're often paying for the failures of others.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the resident population of the United States, projected to 08/18/11 at 19:35 UTC (EST+5) is 312,016,653

Unless you're planning a land war in Asia that's a lot of people and those born to inadequate parents often become a burden in some form.

You need to demonstrate awareness of motor vehicle laws and ability to drive to get a license but trailerparks turn out juvenile delinquents faster than gerbils.

How about basics like proof of gainful employment and knowledge of parenting needs prior to cloning your useless butt and us paying child welfare to deal with your lusty debris?

[Eddie_T]

It's all a part of the nanny-state concept!