A Glass of Chianti

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The preface is: Don't get me wrong

... because I'm pretty sure I can get behind this if I think about it a bit more. Certainly it makes sense that if a minor is not intoxicated but has clearly had something to drink at some point that there should be something with which they could be charged. But "internal possession" just kind of strikes me in an odd way. Could a person with access to certain sensitive documents and forgets the contents of a file be charged with "internal destruction" of fancy super-secret things? How about if he doesn't forget the contents, but simply takes his knowledge home with him? That's removing sensitive information and it would most certainly be a crime if he didn't have authorization to do that, right? Underage drinking is stupid, especially if you're going to be walking home past a police officer and not smart/sober enough to balk when he asks you to "blow [him] a kiss," but really, coming up with a new category of possession seems a little nutty.