Many people think it is illegal for people under 21 years old to drink beer in the state of Kansas. This is simply not true.
Built into Kansas statutes is an exemption that says people can drink 3.2 beer if they are under the age of 21 if the person’s legal parent or guardian provides it and supervises the minor while drinking.
For example, “Frank” and his 19-year daughter “Sally” and 18-year old son “Jack” are tailgating at an Emporia State University football game and sharing a Bud Light 30-pack from the nearest gas station. While enjoying the frosty 3.2 beverage, an Emporia Police Officer comes upon the trio. That officer has no legal right to arrest or ticket “Frank” for providing alcohol to “Sally” or “Jack” for minor in possession or consumption.
“The exemption pertains to, specifically, cereal malt beverages,” said Emporia City Attorney Blaise Plummer. “Which is a beer that’s not more than 3.2 percent alcohol by volume. The exemption is for the parent or guardian of a minor to permit that minor to consume CMB.”
K.S.A. 41-727(e) states “This section should not apply to the possession and consumption of cereal malt beverage when such possession is permitted and supervised, and such beverage is furnished, by the person’s legal parent or guardian.”
This exemption does not include liquor store beer or hard liquor. The 3.2 beer must be furnished by and consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian.
When the Emporia Gazette asked “What do you think of a currently established exemption to a state of Kansas drinking law that allows parents to furnish their minor children 3.2 percent alcohol by weight beer and drink it under parental supervision?” On its Facebook page on Dec. 28, 2011, there were 45 comments made with several points of views represented.
“Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right,” commented Emporian Marsha Ohmes Peterson. “These are still children.”
“Seriously?” commented former Madison resident Kenny Elrod. “I will say though, if you’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to have a beer.”
“My dad is from Denmark, moved here when he was about 23,” commented Emporian Maggie Danborg. “They grew up drinking with their family, but no one can drive until you are 18. He swears that being allowed to drink with family taught them moderation and control. He also said it helped prevent kids from drinking out of control during college years because they already knew how to handle it, and it wasn’t the highlight of a weekend.”
“Wow,” commented Sarah Risner. “Now we’re encouraging our children to be alcoholics? Any parent stupid enough to do this should have their children taken away. And what kind of responsible parent parties with their child? Seriously, Kansas, get it together.”
Plummer’s opinion is that the intent of the exemption is a recognition of the reality that parents may allow their children to drink under parental supervision and allows it without any repercussions.
“This was just an attempt by the legislature to grant an exemption in those situations where a parent would perhaps allow a child to taste a beer or have a small drink of beer, maybe when they are 18 or 19, I would hope,” said Plummer.
Result of an alcohol industry lobby?
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman thought that the exemption was the result of a lobby group that wanted to allow 18- to 20-year-old college students the ability to share a drink with their parents.
“I’m assuming it’s going to have relate to ... a graduation in a university town,” he said. “That would be my first thought ... retail liquor establishments, their lobby, or the beer and distilled spirits, their lobby, went in and said this is a real problem. You know we can’t have these people getting arrested when they are sitting there with their child and overseeing it and consenting to it.”
Teresa Walters, director for Regional Prevention Center of the Flint Hills, a program through the Mental Health Center of East Central Kansas, said there is more influence from the alcohol industry than from alcohol prevention groups.
“When you look at who has the most money to lobby or advocate, the alcohol industry by far outdoes the prevention agencies,” she said. “I’m sure that they are there advocating for their industry as much, if not more so, than we in prevention are. So we are constantly providing information to the legislatures on the impact of underage drinking in our state and hope at some point it will make a difference and they’ll take another look at that part of the law.”
Employees of Mallards and Mary’s Place, 3.2 drinking establishments in Emporia, said that even though the exemption makes serving minors with parents legal, they choose not serve any minors.
The exemption was added to the books in 1992. The phrase “and such beverage is furnished by the person’s legal parent or guardian” was added in 2004.
Inconsistency in minor drinking laws
Goodman said the K.S.A. 41-727 exemption is inconsistent with other drinking laws established by legislators.
“I have no clue who would come up with seeking the cereal malt exception for parents or legal guardians to a parent’s child or ward.” said Goodman “And somehow that’s okay because they consent to it and supervise it. Then they turn right around and have a state statute against hosting minors that says providing them anything or even knowing or having a reason to know that it’s happening on your property is illegal.”
The same year that the phrase “and such beverage is furnished, by the person’s legal parent or guardian” was added to the K.S.A. 41-727 exemption, a law with the nickname “Paul’s Law” was passed. “Paul’s Law,” “the social hosting law” or K.S.A 21-3610 c, states “(a) Unlawfully hosting minors consuming alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage is intentionally or recklessly permitting a person’s residence or any land, building, structure or room owned, occupied or procured by such person to be used by an invitee of such person or an invitee of such person’s child or ward, in a manner that results in the possession or consumption therein of alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages by a minor.
“(b) Unlawfully hosting minors consuming alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage is a class A person misdemeanor, for which the minimum fine is $1,000. If the court sentences the offender to perform community or public service work as a condition of probation, as described in subsection (c)(10) of K.S.A. 21-4610, and amendments thereto, the court shall consider ordering the offender to serve the community or public service at an alcohol treatment facility.”
The hosting law was a direct result of a lobby from Debbie Riggs. Riggs’ son Paul was killed while driving home from a friend’s party in Lenexa. Walters was involved with a revision for the social hosting law.
“I wasn’t (involved) initially in 2004, but I was a part of when we looked at the law later and referred to a minor as anyone under the age of 18,” she said. “That left that 18- to 21-year old age group not addressed, which was real important. I was part of going back and taking out that loophole and revising the wording.”
Walters said evidence supports that alcohol consumption is unhealthy to mental development for 18-year olds.
“As far as handling alcohol, that’s a whole different issue,” she said. “Because alcohol gets into the brain and then it can cause dependence and the brain is not fully developed until they are in their early to mid-20’s ... Science came along and showed the pre-frontal lobe area that controls judgment and decision making and risk-taking doesn’t develop until they are in their early to mid 20’s.”
Goodman said that contradictions in laws, like the K.S.A. 41-727 (e) exemption, give people a bad attitude about legislation in general.
“Unfortunately, to me, when you get faced with cases like that, what you do is foster a contempt and a disrespect for the law,” he said. “Most people can think through that it’s contradictory and, if contradictory, it’s a short step to being ludicrous.”
Goodman continued, “... Most people, even if they don’t know how the law operates, can figure out that there’s something logically out of sequence, or logically inconsistent.”
Walters agreed.
“Even if it’s a parent doing it, it sets them up for dependency and seems like a contradiction in rules,” she said. “Telling them on the one hand they cannot drink until they are 21. Then their parents have this loophole where they can serve.”
In 2011, Lyon County had 53 minor in possession/minor in consumptions cases, up from 47 in 2010. The City of Emporia had 31 convictions of minor in possession/minor in consumption and 58 diversions in 2011.
Fighting the
exemption
In the upcoming legislative session, several substance abuse and treatment agencies are hoping to be able to address the K.S.A. (e) exemption and lobby to modify it or eliminate it.
“We’ve got the regional prevention centers, Safe Streets in Topeka, Kansas Addiction professionals, they’ve all kind of set their legislative agendas for the year,” she said. “And I know there are several different agencies that have kind of looked at addressing that or the hope that they could bring that up this session or have it even considered.”
Walters said she is not getting her hopes up though, as it is an issue that may never see discussion in front of legislators.
“On one hand it’s great to have a list of things that you’d like to see addressed,” she said. “But in reality, a lot of those things don’t even get discussed or don’t even come out of committee. We’re not sure where we’ll go but it’s one of those things we’d like to keep in front of everyone to let them know it’s not an issue that we feel is not important.”
bubbadleroy (anonymous) says...
Uncle Sam say's! Hey son I see you are fresh out of high school! Y yes uncle sir, I am!
Hey son how about you come join me in fighting for your country's freedom, it's the honorable thing to do son, and we need you. because I have screwed up and over extended.
Well Uncle I sure will because I want to be patriotic.
Damn brother ,that was some fire fight, say's the son to his buddy. Sure was say's the buddy.
Son gets lucky comes home and attends a BBQ in his Honor for his service, drink cool aid say's Mrs. do goodie, you don't deserve a cool frosty beer, you might get drunk and puke on my designer shoes.
End of story!
January 11, 2012 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
How about everyone stay out of each others damn business? Alcohol is used is consumed by FAMILIES is Europe, they don't have our problems.
The problem is that when you mandate what people do they do the opposite. Good grief is an 18 year old drinking beer really a pressing matter?
It was recently brought to light that high fat foods scar the brain, if you buy into the alcohol argument, you better make fast food 21 and over too.
Idiots.
January 11, 2012 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
owenrhys (anonymous) says...
Are people really shocked that the law allows a parent to determine if their ADULT child can handle a 3.2 beer? This continues to be a "Backwardsland" issue, where, somehow, we have taken away the rights of adult citizens based arbitrarily on their "under 21" age.
Here's a bit of irony ... Newman Hospital is not allowed to tell you any medical information about your child who is 18 or over, without your child's consent. So, your 20-year old kid could make her own decision about dangerous or life-altering medical treatment, but not whether she would like a cold Coors Light.
What's the matter with Kansas? Same old thing.
January 11, 2012 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Richie (anonymous) says...
Having a parent/guardian monitor, and thus teach, a young adult's responsible alcohol consumption is much better than the youth learning on their own.
January 11, 2012 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
I'll say it again. When it comes to sex and alcohol, America is the laughing stock of most of the world.
Matt
January 11, 2012 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I agree %100 Matt, anyone who has traveled outside the bubble will will acknowledge this.
January 11, 2012 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
nothing to see here folks , please move along..
January 11, 2012 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
This is a non-issue to me, wasted Gazette resources. Please put something useful in my newspaper!
January 12, 2012 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Malique (anonymous) says...
I don't support your position, Ms. Walters.
January 12, 2012 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
I don't support Ms. Walters, Ms. Walters. You've been in everyones business all these years and nothing has changed, could it be time for you to change and try a different way of imposing your morals on everyone you disagree with?
January 12, 2012 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
custom (anonymous) says...
I honestly think Emporia has had all the Ms. Walters it can stand.
January 12, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Aww cmon people, she knows what is best for us!
January 12, 2012 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Yes, I still remember when she thought we needed to tag all the kegs purchased with the info to trace back to who actually bought it. Everyone tried to tell her that keg sales would drop off drastically and case sales would skyrocket. Guess what happened???
January 12, 2012 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yet she gets the votes, doesn't she? I guess that's what happens when you can convince the "silent majority to vote for you. You can destroy keg sales but not case sales, and you can stop smoking inside of establishments but cause sidewalks to be littered with butts.
Teresa Walters, pay attention, lady. Cause and effect. You can't just do one thing without something else happening in its place.
Oh, wait a minute, didn't she just cast a "yes" vote on the frontier extension service against the wishes of her constituents because "I thought it was a good idea." How about that for a reason.
And what will happen as a result of her vote? We all get to pay more taxes.
Wow!
January 13, 2012 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyankee49 (anonymous) says...
Here we go again having people tell us how to raise our kids. I would rather be around when my kids were growing-up and drinking, that way if they didn't know when to stop I could have steppd in. I don't need people to tell me how to raise them I think I did just FINE Thank you.
January 13, 2012 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
americus1987 (anonymous) says...
Prohibition sure worked out well Ms. Walters. Do you really think this law would have the slightest difference? If your evidence suggest alcohol could effect the developing brain since it isn't fully developed until our mid-20s, then why don't lobby for getting the drinking age pushed back to 25?
January 13, 2012 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
This law has been on the books for years. Not sure why it was brought up now, public service maybe?
But it has stirred up some comments, hasn't it?
January 13, 2012 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
St. Teresa strikes again. Think many of us would love to look her right in the eye and shout a resounding "Shut up!" to her, unfortunately she knows what's best right? I keep reading these tear jerker stories about this drunk driver, or this minor that was intoxicated, but the TRUTH is its bull. I can state dozens if not hundreds of stories where people drank beer and what do you think happened? Nothing, laughs, card games, maybe some coyote ugly moments the next day, but no deaths, no fights, no driving drunk, just general good times.
If you allow minors to drink, even if its just 3.2, they learn how to control it. Most of us drank before hitting 21, the majority went through it with no notice, no lawsuits, and no bitching. Walters for once in her uppity little overprotective life can just shut the hell up!
January 15, 2012 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
Exposure to Theresa Walters is more dangerous to a 20 year old than drinking a 3.2 beer with their parents. The college experience has changed in Emporia under her influence, now the students not only get an education but a criminal record when they leave Emporia.
March 12, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am not going to say that you can' t drink if you are under the age of 21 in Kansas .
However the following just might be of inerest,
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/C...
41-727a: Use of minors to determine compliance with law, limitations. (a) Any person listed in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3) may engage or direct a person under 21 years of age to violate the provisions of the Kansas liquor control act in order to develop a program or system which determines and encourages compliance with the provisions of such act prohibiting the furnishing or sale of alcoholic liquor to a person under 21 years of age or the consumption of alcoholic liquor by such persons.
(b) No person shall engage or direct a person under 21 years of age to violate any provision of the Kansas liquor control act for purposes of determining compliance with the provisions of such act unless such person is:
(1) An officer having authority to enforce the provisions of the Kansas liquor control act;
(2) an authorized representative of the attorney general, a county attorney or a district attorney; or
(3) a licensee under the Kansas liquor control act or such licensee's designee pursuant to a self-compliance program designed to increase compliance with the provisions of the Kansas liquor control act if such program has been approved by the director.
Continued,
March 12, 2012 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Continued,
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/C...
Chapter 41: Intoxicating Liquors And Beverages
Article 7: Certain Prohibited Acts And Penalties
Statute 41-727: Purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverage by minor; penalty; exceptions; tests. (a) Except with regard to serving of alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage as permitted by K.S.A. 41-308a, 41-308b, 41-727a, 41-2610, 41-2652, 41-2704 and 41-2727, and amendments thereto, and subject to any rules and regulations adopted pursuant to such statutes, no person under 21 years of age shall possess, consume, obtain, purchase or attempt to obtain or purchase alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage except as authorized by law.
(b) Violation of this section by a person 18 or more years of age but less than 21 years of age is a class C misdemeanor for which the minimum fine is $200.
(c) Any person less than 18 years of age who violates this section is a juvenile offender under the revised Kansas juvenile justice code. Upon adjudication thereof and as a condition of disposition, the court shall require the offender to pay a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $500.
(d) In addition to any other penalty provided for a violation of this section: (1) The court may order the offender to do either or both of the following:
(A) Perform 40 hours of public service; or
(B) attend and satisfactorily complete a suitable educational or training program dealing with the effects of alcohol or other chemical substances when ingested by humans.
(2) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this section, the court shall order the division of vehicles to suspend the driving privilege of such offender for 30 days. Upon receipt of the court order, the division shall notify the violator and suspend the driving privileges of the violator for 30 days whether or not that person has a driver's license.
continued,
March 12, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
continued,
continued,
(3) Upon a second conviction of a violation of this section, the court shall order the division of vehicles to suspend the driving privilege of such offender for 90 days. Upon receipt of the court order, the division shall notify the violator and suspend the driving privileges of the violator for 90 days whether or not that person has a driver's license.
(4) Upon a third or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, the court shall order the division of vehicles to suspend the driving privilege of such offender for one year. Upon receipt of the court order, the division shall notify the violator and suspend the driving privileges of the violator for one year whether or not that person has a driver's license.
(e) This section shall not apply to the possession and consumption of cereal malt beverage by a person under the legal age for consumption of cereal malt beverage when such possession and consumption is permitted and supervised, and such beverage is furnished, by the person's parent or legal guardian.
(f) Any city ordinance or county resolution prohibiting the acts prohibited by this section shall provide a minimum penalty which is not less than the minimum penalty prescribed by this section.
(g) A law enforcement officer may request a person under 21 years of age to submit to a preliminary screening test of the person's breath to determine if alcohol has been consumed by such person if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has alcohol in the person's body except that, if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has been operating or attempting to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, the provisions of K.S.A. 8-1012, and amendments thereto, shall apply. No waiting period shall apply to the use of a preliminary breath test under this subsection. If the person submits to the test, the results shall be used for the purpose of assisting law enforcement officers in determining whether an arrest should be made for violation of this section. A law enforcement officer may arrest a person based in whole or in part upon the results of a preliminary screening test. Such results or a refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test shall be admissible in court in any criminal action, but are not per se proof that the person has violated this section. The person may present to the court evidence to establish the positive preliminary screening test was not the result of a violation of this section.
(h) This section shall be part of and supplemental to the Kansas liquor control act.
So now make up your own minds as to what the minimum drinking age is in Kansas .
Have a nice day.
March 12, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Don' t like the Law, then change it .
But if the change does not suit your or agree with you . Don' t bitch about your changes, " YOU " insisted on making .
JMO
March 12, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tourguide (anonymous) says...
Thats right Meth, I'LL DRINK TO THAT!! 1st round on me...
March 12, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
The whole thing is stupid, trying to inhibit drinking by means of law is a waste of time, just look at what a raging success prohibition was.
March 12, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Several changes in liquor laws may be coming.
Happy Hours allowed again
Wine and strong beer in grocery stores.
March 13, 2012 at 6:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tourguide (anonymous) says...
Open up Liquor sales. Let liquor stores sell what they want, not just booze. Im from California where IF you are 21 you can enter a liquor store in the middle of nite, buy a t-shirt, fish bait, sandwich and a 6pack to go. In AZ. & TX. they have drive up windows. How about Oregon truckstops with a bar inside. I DO believe if your old enough to go to war, you should be able to have a drink. And not because you are military.Anyone 18 & over. I have seen drunks of all ages. I WAS 1...
March 13, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )