Universal bans hundreds of under-age drinkers during Horror Nights

12 is a far cry from 16. At one end, you just learn to play with yourself, at the other, you learn to play with others.

Brian Noble said:As it happens, there is a movement amongst many college and university presidents to start a conversation to lower the drinking age, in hopes by bringing it out into the open it will be easier to attack binge drinking.http://www.amethystinitiative.org/President Coleman here at Michigan is not a signatory.

Bernie Machen ain't getting NEAR that thing. He's the guy we got from Utah (just prior to Urban Meyer, the one we actually WANTED from the Utes). Bernie's the guy who insisted that the networks stop calling the annual UF/UGa bash in Jax "the world's largest outdoor cocktail party". Freshies actually have to go through some sort of "online alcohol orientation" so that they learn how they don't have to drink to have fun in college. He's going to change the world, that Bernie Machen. Yeah, right. Seriously, though, why do so-called "civilized countries" without all the puritanical insanity have more enlightened views on dealing with social issues again? ;)

Jeff said:
12 is a far cry from 16. At one end, you just learn to play with yourself, at the other, you learn to play with others.

Heh. Well, if the loss of virginity were really the mark for when one becomes informed enough to vote, then I guess there would be many coaster nerds still waiting for their chance at the polls. And you might be surprised at how many junior high school lads and lasses would actually be eligible to cast a ballot.

In all honesty they should make the event 21 and older. Get rid of the kiddies and let the adults have some fun for crying out loud. I started attending HHN at #9 -13 and the event got tamer and tamer as years went by. At one point there was an age limit of 18 if memory serves me correctly. I don't want to pay $60 for a few hours of mediocre scares, I want to see some crazy $*!% and enjoy my Skyy vodka Jello Syringes! kthx, kick the kiddies out at 6pm and let the rest of us enjoy.

No way... you can't exclude the college crowd. That'd be financial suicide.

Well then that's the dilemma. They make tons of money from college age kids. They make tons of money from selling alcoholic beverages. College age kids under the age of 21, by current law in that state (not what anyone in here feels should be the law, or what laws in other states say), are not allowed to possess or partake in alcohol.

If they want to absolutely make sure only those of legal age have access to alcohol, is the current set up foolproof? Sure they can toss out and ban a hundred of people, and it all sounds good. But if minor #101 goes undetected then gets involved in a driving fatality (themselves or someone else), then what happens?

Could they change the setup to limit alcohol service to certain areas accessible only to those of age, while not "ruining" the atmosphere? Are the college kids there for the event, or just to see if they can get some booze undetected? If they segregate drinking and non-drinking areas, would the college crowd stop coming?

Are you kidding? If college kids want alcohol, they're going to score it. It was never an issue for me, and I sure wouldn't go to an amusement park to find it. It's not even remotely why college kids would go there.

Jeff said:
Are you kidding? If college kids want alcohol, they're going to score it. It was never an issue for me, and I sure wouldn't go to an amusement park to find it. It's not even remotely why college kids would go there.

Agree in full x10. Come to U Dayton, we have a giant student neighbor hood that has tons of houses that throw parties. Freshman and the like come up, get beer, and have a good time. And then when they are 21 and seniors, they throw the parties and have the freshman come up. It's like a college drunken family version of the circle of life...

If kids want to drink, they can talk to older siblings, their fraternal brothers or sorority sisters, etc. People to go amusement parks to have fun, not drink. Why would you pay $50 to get into a place that has expensive alcohol, no/few chicks to hit on, and few bathrooms? Sounds like a drinking hellhole to me...

Jeff said:
Are you kidding? If college kids want alcohol, they're going to score it. It was never an issue for me, and I sure wouldn't go to an amusement park to find it. It's not even remotely why college kids would go there.

No, but since it's there, it creates a tempation and that leads to problems.

Last time I was at HHN in 2003, the park was 90% college-aged guests and a good portion of them were flat-out trashed. It created an obnoxious atmosphere, regardless of whether or not they were of legal age. Sure the park makes tons of money because of these types of sales, but at what cost?

I'm pretty sure that most of the flat-out trashed college kids got hammered in their cars before going in. The in-park booze is pricey. When I was a broke college kid, that's the way I'd've done it.

RatherGoodBear said:
Ifthe policy is zero tolerance, and they're worried about protecting alicense, why create an atmosphere where it's so easy for an underagedperson to get alcohol? With street vendors and carts dispensingalcohol, how could it not happen? And how they be certain that thepeople who were caught were the only ones who did it?

RatherGoodBear said:
Well then that's the dilemma. They make tons of money from college age kids. They make tons of money from selling alcoholic beverages. College age kids under the age of 21, by current law in that state (not what anyone in here feels should be the law, or what laws in other states say), are not allowed to possess or partake in alcohol.

If they want to absolutely make sure only those of legal age have access to alcohol, is the current set up foolproof? Sure they can toss out and ban a hundred of people, and it all sounds good. But if minor #101 goes undetected then gets involved in a driving fatality (themselves or someone else), then what happens?

Could they change the setup to limit alcohol service to certain areas accessible only to those of age, while not "ruining" the atmosphere? Are the college kids there for the event, or just to see if they can get some booze undetected? If they segregate drinking and non-drinking areas, would the college crowd stop coming?

I quoted both posts because I think your line of thinking is a little bit off because (I suspect) you have not been there and have not seen the setup. While the bars and roving jello shot dealers are around in a good number, they all card people. you cannot buy anything without an id. Sure, you can have a fake ID that would be good enough in the low light levels and be quietly slipped in between the busy sales, but they do have handlers nearby and does not in any way make it "easy" for an underage person to get a drink or a shot. The high availability is also pretty tightly enforced this way, and I should also note that I applaud their efforts to deny sales to anyone who appears to have had too much, so it's not like they will sell to anyone waving money at them. They are being somewhat responsible.

Since the first stop is the ID, I would think that they have the same kind of legal protection that a restricted area setup would, and limits their liability to the same as any bar or club would have. IANAL, though. Truthfully, I see most people are there for the event, and teh alcohol is part of the atmosphere, but at least for me is the smallest aspect of it. The event is so big that you're running around the entire time trying to soak it all in.

To the other bear (oddly enough), be thankful HHN is still at least a high quality event with good scares. I disagree and think the event hasn't gotten that much tamer (but does move towards the "look at the detail and quality of these costumes"vs. the scares around every turn you sound like you want). It certainly has expanded in type, but I loved Creatures! as well as Scary Tales and Body Collectors this year.

If you think the kids around HHN are a problem, come up to Six Flags Great Adventure. The kids at HHN mostly seem to understand what they're going to get and have been fairly prepared for the scares. At GAdv, the park gives them whistles as "Ghoul repellent" that lets them force the scareactors to run away no matter what (and they have been used a lot around me inthe past few years). Combine that with this year's two very mild scare mazes and three pretty empty scarezones and perhaps that might explain why I'm so lenient to HHN after that.

I think it's probably important for the park that peole like Viands are vocal in their complaints about enforcement. Means the park might get a little "benefit of the doubt" when the alcohol-enforcement squads rain down like commandos to make sure the park's in compliance. Wonder what the French Vivendi would've thought about our "alcohol problem with underage drinking"? ;)

Yeah theme parks (and just about everywhere else) nowadays is RELENTLESS about carding for booze, and I respect that as well. They are doing their job.Hell, at my age I LOVE being carded for anything! Like someone mentioned, they would be crazy to pay for booze at a park anyway. Too expensive.

I don't know about other states but in WV an under-21 drivers license is in red with the words "UNDER 21" in plain view. I am sure it helps. :)

-Tina

<------Who remembers the days when legitimate-looking fake ID's were easier to come by! ;)

While its been a little while (7 years) since I had to worry about being underage, I still remember that when we wanted to drink, we tried to be as far from security as possible. I'm sure there are some kids who get off on the danger of it, but 99% of underage drinkers don't want the hassle. And while they may do some pre-partying, getting caught drunk isn't nearly as severe as getting caught WITH a drink.

While the story talks mostly about 1 guy and his daughter who got ejected because he handed her a jello shot, it doesn't say how many of them were ejected because they showed up drunk. How many of the minors ejected did a little pre-drinking at their hotel or college and then got too rowdy at the park, questioned by police and sent out?

Rob Ascough said:
No, but since it's there, it creates a tempation and that leads to problemss.

Could you afford enough $7 beers in college to get drunk? I sure as hell couldn't.

Brian Noble said:
I'm pretty sure that most of the flat-out trashed college kids got hammered in their cars before going in. The in-park booze is pricey. When I was a broke college kid, that's the way I'd've done it.

I totally agree, people I don't think get it. Just because it's there doesn't mean jack ****. I had tons of alcohol in my parent's house and only snuck some ONCE (bad vodka). Just because it's there doesn't mean you will get it. And if you do want to get it, you'll go and get a cube of Natty or Beast for $12 and split it with your buddy. There, 15 beers for $6. Or one for $7 and risk getting your fake taken away, caught, and/or kicked out of the park.

If you are under 21 (or hell, around that age), you don't go to a risky place and pay lots of money to drink.

thrillfan, thanks for your thoughtful response, unlike some of the others. I have no doubts that the park is aggressive in carding people at the stands. My concern was more that with the roving carts, etc., a person of legal age could purchase alcohol, then give it to someone underage away from the stand out among the crowd. Isn't that the case in the story mentioned in the article?

If people are showing up at the gates already trashed, why are they allowed in? Obviously, despite a few people in here saying it's too expensive, it's not happening-- it must be happening if over a hundred people have been banned from the park. Why bother posting the article here in the first place then?

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're arguing. Are you criticizing the strict policy or something else?

On busy days at CityWalk, they wristband people. I assume they're doing this for HHN? I'd be shocked if they weren't. If that's the case: Person with drink - wristband = law breaker. Seems pretty simple to me.

The article was posted because it's newsworthy, and no one here is contending that it doesn't happen. Certainly the scope of it isn't that huge though. 155 citations among how many tens of thousands who show up every night for the past several weeks? I think the Sentinel has a legit story because of the seriousness for which Universal takes the issue.

I'm asking whether having designated drinking areas (or for lack of a better word, a beer garden) where you have to show ID to enter and be served would reduce much of the underage drinking. And in turn reduce-- not totally eliminate-- the need for resources they currently spend looking for underage drinkers. Or would doing that spoil the atmosphere?

My opinion is that the scope of the problem isn't significant enough to change anything.