Magic Bus replacement denied permit

[DwayneTwill]

You're really quite clever, aren't you?

Seriously, I wouldn't care if they didn't feed everybody that crap about looking out for the students, because that's not what they're doing.

So you honestly believe that the university doesn't care at all about the well-being of its students and is only in this as part of a super-nefarious plot to protect its own image? Seriously...go back to high school if that's all you can do.

 

[tm3308]

So you honestly believe that the university doesn't care at all about the well-being of its students and is only in this as part of a super-nefarious plot to protect its own image? Seriously...go back to high school if that's all you can do.

When it comes to that particular ordinance, yes. Because it's not going to do anything to stop students from drinking, just where they do it.

 

[DwayneTwill]

So the city should just allow underaged kids to drink wherever they want?

 

[tm3308]

So the city should just allow underaged kids to drink wherever they want?

I'm saying that if they're going to do it anyway, it might as well be in a safer environment (not to mention an easier one to catch the overly drunk student in, underage or not)

 

[HawkForce]

They're not going to take alcohol away from everyone.

At least not right away...but eventually...it will be all university property (almost all area near stadium) then it will have to all be in private house yards and property that people park cars on...then they will go after the people who are parking cars...you just wait...it's coming. And I don't care if they get rid of it all together...as far as personal, I don't drink enough to care. BUT the principles really tick me off.

 

[DwayneTwill]

So they should turn a blind eye to it, as long as they're drinking illegally in a 'safe environment'?

 

[DwayneTwill]

At least not right away...but eventually...it will be all university property (almost all area near stadium) then it will have to all be in private house yards and property that people park cars on...then they will go after the people who are parking cars...you just wait...it's coming. And I don't care if they get rid of it all together...as far as personal, I don't drink enough to care. BUT the principles really tick me off.

Ah yes, the slippery slope. Watch out! They're coming for your children next!

 

[tm3308]

So they should turn a blind eye to it, as long as they're drinking illegally in a 'safe environment'?

You apparently don't read very well.

Letting them into the bars makes it easier for them TO BE CAUGHT. The police have said that they are going to put a lot of responsibility onto residents in Iowa City to report house parties. And I think it's a safe bet that that won't happen unless the party is just getting completely out of hand and loud.

So really, they ARE turning a blind eye to it. They're just putting the students out of sight.

P.S.- you would prefer that they drink illegally in an UNSAFE environment?

 

[DwayneTwill]

You apparently don't read very well.

Letting them into the bars makes it easier for them TO BE CAUGHT. The police have said that they are going to put a lot of responsibility onto residents in Iowa City to report house parties. And I think it's a safe bet that that won't happen unless the party is just getting completely out of hand and loud.

So really, they ARE turning a blind eye to it. They're just putting the students out of sight.

That's a bridge too far there. By that reasoning, underage drinkers shouldn't care that the bars are now 21+, because it'd be so EASY for them to get caught by the cops there. Now they're 'out of sight' and should never get caught. LOL.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The parking lots are university property and I drink in them every tailgate.

property

At least not right away...but eventually...it will be all university property (almost all area near stadium) then it will have to all be in private house yards and property that people park cars on...then they will go after the people who are parking cars...you just wait...it's coming. And I don't care if they get rid of it all together...as far as personal, I don't drink enough to care. BUT the principles really tick me off.

 

[tm3308]

That's a bridge too far there. By that reasoning, underage drinkers shouldn't care that the bars are now 21+, because it'd be so EASY for them to get caught by the cops there. Now they're 'out of sight' and should never get caught. LOL.

Again, I'm not an underage drinker. But I would get upset with any ordinance that does not do one of two things: 1. It actually does curb the underage drinking problem, or 2. Makes it easier for underage drinkers to be caught. This ordinance fails at both.

It's not necessarily EASY to be caught drinking underage in the bars. But an underage drinker is far more likely to be caught downtown than they are at a house party.

 

[tm3308]

Not to mention the fact that it's a pretty logical conclusion that moving the parties off campus will increase the liklihood of drunk student driving.

 

[DwayneTwill]

If underage kids REALLY wanted to be safe, they could abstain from drinking, or not get so **** drunk that they need bar staff (who have been selling them drinks all night) to watch over them. Students need to be responsible for themselves.


Anyway, this thread isn't about the 21 ordinance.

 

[tm3308]

If underage kids REALLY wanted to be safe, they could abstain from drinking, or not get so **** drunk that they need bar staff (who have been selling them drinks all night) to watch over them. Students need to be responsible for themselves.


Anyway, this thread isn't about the 21 ordinance.

No it's not, but it's principle is essentially the same. And YOU are the one who accused me of being a "whiny student who feels entitled to do whatever I want on university property", so therefore I am less of a person than university administrators. So don't pin the direction of this discussion on me, because all I did was make one insignificant comment, and you chose to make conclusions about my character from it.

I never said that the students wanted to be safe. But the university is kidding themselves if they think what they are doing makes the students more safe. I agree that students should be more responsible, but the university would be foolish to put that much blind faith into its students.

Also, if the Magic Bus was just run by a guy who pocketed all the proceeds, I wouldn't mind this too much either. But for crying out loud, the money goes to charity. What's the real harm in it? Ticket the people who get exceedingly drunk, I'm totally fine with that. But taking away a tailgating spot doesn't really accomplish much except to **** people off. Drinking has long been a part of tailgating, and not just at Iowa.

 

[homerdance]

If underage kids REALLY wanted to be safe, they could abstain from drinking, or not get so **** drunk that they need bar staff (who have been selling them drinks all night) to watch over them. Students need to be responsible for themselves.


Anyway, this thread isn't about the 21 ordinance.

Folks like you make me scared, you think the government needs to "save" people from themselves. So tell me, what is the magical transformation that happens when a youngster turns 21? when they are 20 years and 364 days they are unable to make their own choice, but once they hit 20 years and 365 (21 years) they are some how smart and able to drink responsibly? please


I don't get the anti-drinking crowd, they are so hell bent on their agenda that they will distort facts to promote their agenda.

It is to bad that all of a sudden, the ICCC sees fit to attack a cash cow like tailgating, makes one wonder who votes for those yahoos.

 

[bws258]

I've enjoyed going to at least one game and usually more every year since 1995 and I don't know if I ever laid eyes on the Magic Bus. I maybe spent a grand total of $50 at the private vendors around Kinnick in that time. For me the outside atmosphere is alright, but the real atmosphere starts when I get my first peek into one of the corners as I am headed inside. If they didn't allow alcohol within 20 miles of Kinnick, I'd be just fine, I'd still have a fvcking blast, and I'd still yell loud as hell for 3.5 hours in the stands!

On the other hand, I despise overbearing know-it-all government types who try and impose their sense of morality on the rest of us. Read that as righties and lefties, BTW.

 

[tm3308]

Folks like you make me scared, you think the government needs to "save" people from themselves. So tell me, what is the magical transformation that happens when a youngster turns 21? when they are 20 years and 364 days they are unable to make their own choice, but once they hit 20 years and 365 (21 years) they are some how smart and able to drink responsibly? please


I don't get the anti-drinking crowd, they are so hell bent on their agenda that they will distort facts to promote their agenda.

It is to bad that all of a sudden, the ICCC sees fit to attack a cash cow like tailgating, makes one wonder who votes for those yahoos.

Now that's an argument I don't like (the "what's the difference between the two days" argument). Is 21 years an arbitrary line? Yes, but so is 18 years. There is no God-given law that says a person is an adult at 18 years. It's just a line that we create.

While the person may be no different from the day before their 21st, it's like putting a frog in two different glasses of water. One is full of boiling water, and the frog jumps out immediately. The other is cold, and slowly heated to boiling. The frog will stay in the water and boil to death because of the gradual increase.

But I do think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 (and not so I can drink). If a kid can sign up to die for his country, he should be able to have a cold one.

 

[tm3308]

I've enjoyed going to at least one game and usually more every year since 1995 and I don't know if I ever laid eyes on the Magic Bus. I maybe spent a grand total of $50 at the private vendors around Kinnick in that time. For me the outside atmosphere is alright, but the real atmosphere starts when I get my first peek into one of the corners as I am headed inside. If they didn't allow alcohol within 20 miles of Kinnick, I'd be just fine, I'd still have a fvcking blast, and I'd still yell loud as hell for 3.5 hours in the stands!

On the other hand, I despise overbearing know-it-all government types who try and impose their sense of morality on the rest of us. Read that as righties and lefties, BTW.

This is my stance in a nutshell. Arrest the ones that get out of hand, that's fine. But let everybody else enjoy the pre-game atmosphere. Don't just take it away.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Folks like you make me scared, you think the government needs to "save" people from themselves. So tell me, what is the magical transformation that happens when a youngster turns 21? when they are 20 years and 364 days they are unable to make their own choice, but once they hit 20 years and 365 (21 years) they are some how smart and able to drink responsibly? please

I don't get the anti-drinking crowd, they are so hell bent on their agenda that they will distort facts to promote their agenda.

That's not my position at all. I'm not anti-drinking. I''m pro-drinking, if anything. I think the drinking age should be lower. I think underage people should drink, I just don't think that the city and university should be expected to accept, embrace, and turn a blind eye to it, just because underage drinkers feel entitled to break the law and bar owners want to sell drinks to them.

 

[H8IAST8]

THE MAGIC BUS ID's at the DOOR so this part of the argument is stupid. We can go down the 21 path if everyone wants to. We can then talk about the 1,000's of 18-20 year olds who can fight wars and die for this country but they can't have a beer? Please.

We can talk about being an adult (18) and adult laws, rules and consequences. We can talk about the right to vote, etc and being able to have a beer. The 21 law is stupid to begin with.