what i the consumption of alcohol is not malum per say what you might now for say melon per se relates to the idea that if you have somebody over the head you may cause some heat or lethal or personal  injury going through a stop sign isn't mallon per se because going through a stop sign doesn't necessarily cause personal injury it's when you hit somebody that you injuries caused so when you say mellow prohibitive it means that as a matter of exercise of the police power that the legislature is decided as a matter of public policy they're going to prohibit sanction whatever this action for reasons that are inherently generally with the argument is i didn't stand the emotion and they understand the purpose of it but i am not the legislature nor am i the policy making court in this state of the laws already been determined and based upon legal precedent where in the facts are the same or substantially the same where it's supposed to determine anything of the band apply the law to the facts and follow the law i could accept the argument if this was this illinois or the us supreme court but we don't our first priority is that determine the laws degrees north it usually is because of some intervening factor or factors that have come out either through the evolutionary process of the culture or through legislative w presume that that's what the holding would be i accept your argument the only problem is that there are other factors other than the mere fact that they didn't address  be you know having a bar in the basements and let the kids go down to the basement you're upstairs or do you have to be downstairs in the basement while they're operating the bar i mean you know what think that's been one of the problems that this that has been raised in some of these statutory or in some of these cases that parents didn't know they had you know i guess it's genial your children but you know how do we define that if we're going to be working with this particular practice of yours i think the case i think the definition will one stand sadistic and your question number one and number two this would be one of effect at that time even if you assume counsel's argument is correct that the liver control act and the might of sponsibility act aren't confident even if you take out the minor responsibility and liability had been preempted by the legislature the legislature in this case is in the best position to see those two cases to be able to process the raw data whether it's from a public company private company as well as the s science norms and the environment to determine what is the more appropriate course of action and addressing alcohol related civil liability field and then case they get the have nots instituted any type of act or  again you apply the supreme court's analysis that this is something that the legislature has who will roll in after moss to address it and i think they have and they figure they have the ability to address these for certain people over the age of twenty one the same meeting there whether you're eighteen or twenty two of your social hosting you're serving them you're serving alcohol to that person and they get injured you can be responsible i've say that i was under the impression that once one isn't at all one is responsible the window of non liability from all adults to all adults was anybody between the ages of eighteen a day and adults i  the ability to look at the record with that mindset and under the assumption that when you're eighteen you're in dallas and you should be able to know right from wrong and you should be able to make a decision for yourself as opposed to when you're a minor and you the assumptions that are made when we when we give an eighteen year old certain rights or abilities or the ability to live by themselves as opposed to a seventeen your twelve year old but it does appear to be some difference to people under twenty one and doesn't talk necessarily about impairment is the issue that we think that people who are between you're more easily paired i mean i guess i do understand the difference why it's in one and not the other industry to look at the raw data to determine is you know basing a person under the age of eighteen more susceptible easily impaired or when compared to other twenty or twenty one year old or twenty three year old again i mean i think those are all this in he talks about a continuous chain reaction to establish the proximate cause and even in looking at the complaint there is a issue with that because it's it wasn't the intoxicating alcohol that cost her section yes but when applying them all no i think you come to the same determination that the defense still will not be held responsible unless they perform some type of rancheria undertaking well my point is whether it's reasonable to foresee that they get it will or die well executed at some point in time after they've left the premises is not so necessarily recently eighteen one montreux nineteen or twenty to drink i think it was a nephew might eventually try to redress the circumstances of that of having ten or twelve year olds or thirteen year olds being supplying drugs or alcohol and that's where created civil liability the