posted
So I'm doing some research on Florida's laws concerning alcohol, specifically consumption/posession age. I've been told by some people that it is legal (or rather, it's not illegal) for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol, but not buy it or posess it. As far as Title XXXIV, Chapter 562 is concerned, this appears to be the case. I could be misreading something. But I'm wondering what exactly "posession" means. It's used a lot, but as far as I could see never defined. Interestingly, SB 2034 says:
quote: A person having control of any residence may not allow an open house party to take place at the residence if any alcoholic beverage or drug is possessed or consumed at said residence by any minor when the person knows that an alcoholic beverage or drug is in the possession of or being consumed by a minor at the residence and when the person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the possession or consumption of the alcoholic beverage or drug.
Where "Minor" means an individual not legally permitted by reason of age to possess alcoholic beverages pursuant to chapter 562. Interesting part of that bill is that it does specifiy consumption.
I'm probably making this more complicated than it actually is. To be blunt, I'm basically wondering if it's legal to go over to a friends house and have a beer, or if one of my (over 21) roommates offers me a beer, can I legally accept it.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. No, believe it or not I care about following the law, and about my friends following the law. The sheer volume of underage drinking that goes on in this town (Tallahassee, Florida, home of FSU) makes the chances of getting caught very very small, if you're not stupid. I'm not a party person, nor do I enjoy getting smashed. I just want to know if the occaisional relaxed beer (or glass of wine, since I much prefer it) inside my own or my friends house is illegal.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Juxtapose, my theory was that possession could mean being the owner of it, which would prevent someone from saying it was given to them as a gift and that they didn't buy it. Though if that were the case, purchase and posess would be redundant. I gather posession is more like the physical act of holding it (or drinking it). This speaks against the proverbial "I'm holding it for a friend who is over 21 and perpetually not here" excuse. Am I getting that more or less right?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Based on that it looks illegal for the host to furnish you with the alcohol, but not illegal for you to drink it. It also looks like the host would be liable for anything you did under the influence, and that your driving BAC limit is much lower than for those over 21.
I'd say you are safe to accept a beer in a private setting (i.e. only invited guests) but you should not drive after even just 1 beer, and someone could be cited for giving it to you. And you'd probably have to consume it on the premises in order not to be "in possession." I am not a lawyer, and this is probably mostly wrong. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, why would the policy page I linked to make a distinction between consumption and possession if consumption equals possession in a legal sense?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you've got it, Dr Strangelove. From the page scifibum linked, it looks like many states allow for the possession and/or consumption of alcohol in a private residence with your parent of legal guardian present. Apparantly in Hawaii you're fine as long as you're on private property. I'm a little skeptical though.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, why would the policy page I linked to make a distinction between consumption and possession if consumption equals possession in a legal sense?
Consumption does not equal possession. Rather, as the page says, "consumption generally requires possession."
Here's their rationale for treating them differently:
quote:Consumption and possession are closely linked because consumption generally requires possession. State policies for the two are not identical, however. Although all States prohibit possession of alcohol by minors, some States do not specifically prohibit underage alcohol consumption. In addition, some States that do prohibit underage consumption allow different exceptions for consumption than those that apply to underage possession. For these reasons, APIS treats underage consumption and possession as separate policy topics.
quote:Although all States prohibit possession of alcohol by minors, some States do not specifically prohibit underage alcohol consumption.
...is it possible to consume without possessing? Because that sounds like Florida's laws - little to no mention of consumption, lots of mentions of possession. I looked up the definition of "possession" (yes, it's exactly what you said it was Dag ) and that really does seem to indicate that you can't consume without possessing. So then is it the case that by mentioning possessing, some states don't feel the need to mention consumption?
I'm not gonna lie, the concept of possession is confusing me. Is it possible to consume without possessing, in any states? And in those states, is the difference between consumption and possession clearly outlined in a way that doesn't seem to be the case in Florida? (I'm not expecting anyone else to do the research for me, though you're welcome to. I'm just voicing my confusions)
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also confused. Consumption usually requires possession - with you so far.
However, it goes on to say that alcohol possession by underage folks is prohibited in all states.
Earlier in the thread, Dagonee said "Bingo. Possession = dominion and control. Drinking it is an exercise of both."
Now, if possession is always illegal, and I'm right to interpret Dag's comment to mean that consumption *always* (not just generally) means "possession" then it seems to me that any discussion of the regulations would focus solely on possession, and not even bother mentioning consumption separately.
However, since consumption is mentioned separately, and in fact they go to the trouble of pointing out that it isn't always prohibited, I think it seems like there are cases where consumption itself is legal, which would be impossible if it always required "possession" which is always illegal.
I feel like I'm missing something here. Isn't there a middle ground where consuming something that someone provided doesn't constitute possession?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...is it possible to consume without possessing?
Only in cases where their wouldn't be criminal liability for consumption. For example, if your drink is spiked and you take a sip, until the time you become aware of that, you are guilty of neither possession nor consumption in most states, because they require knowledge that what is possessed is alcohol. (This does vary, so don't try to rely on this for any specific situation.)
But I can't think of any situation in which one knows one is consuming alcohol and one didn't also possess it.
quote:So then is it the case that by mentioning possessing, some states don't feel the need to mention consumption?
Pretty much.
quote:Is it possible to consume without possessing, in any states?
I haven't done a survey. But I've seen possession laws and interpreting cases for a dozen or so states, and each definition I know of makes it pretty difficult to knowingly consume without possessing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the reasons these laws are worded the way they are is to avoid making it illegal for an underage person to take communion. You couldn't exactly call that an "open house party".
Ooh, and if the priest holds the wine and you sip from the cup, you could technically be consuming it without possession, right?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the same rationale, if you were at a friend's house (invitation only, small amount of people, no wanton behavior or rowdiness going on) and your friend held a drink and you sipped it through the straw, that's consumption without possession, and not at an open house party...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to disclose: I think underage drinking is a bad idea. Even legal drinking is a pretty bad idea in terms of risk (although I prefer to have the freedom to engage in risky behavior instead of not). Just thought this was interesting. Not trying to invent excuses for the youths among us to imbibe.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ooh, and if the priest holds the wine and you sip from the cup, you could technically be consuming it without possession, right?
No, you are in possession at least of the part you sip. More accurately, you are in temporary constructive possession of the whole chalice.
quote:By the same rationale, if you were at a friend's house (invitation only, small amount of people, no wanton behavior or rowdiness going on) and your friend held a drink and you sipped it through the straw, that's consumption without possession, and not at an open house party...
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I think one of the reasons these laws are worded the way they are is to avoid making it illegal for an underage person to take communion.
Or otherwise consume small amounts of alcohol as part of a religious ritual.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Quebec, the legal drinking age is 18 however, you are perfectly allowed at any age to drink alcohol in your own home. So if I'm 12 and I drink vodka from the beer cabinet its perfectly legal.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... For example, if your drink is spiked and you take a sip, until the time you become aware of that, you are guilty of neither possession nor consumption in most states, because they require knowledge that what is possessed is alcohol.
I don't understand how you could not be guilty of consumption in this case. Unless "guilty" is the key word here, and so you've consumed without being guilty of doing so.
Another scenario in which it is not illegal (I'm guessing) for a minor to consume alcohol is when the minor is forced to drink. Of course, that's rather illegal for the forcing party.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand how you could not be guilty of consumption in this case. Unless "guilty" is the key word here, and so you've consumed without being guilty of doing so.
Yes. I chose the word carefully. In most states, drinking something one doesn't know contains alcohol does not satisfy the elements for consumption. In other states, there might be a recklessness component - if one should have known there was alcohol, one can be guilty.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and that really does seem to indicate that you can't consume without possessing. So then is it the case that by mentioning possessing, some states don't feel the need to mention consumption?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
