NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, what I'm saying here, is that if someone commits a crime 'because' of alcohol, you should take their booze away.

For example, say somebody is caught driving while intoxicated. Depending on the risk to others... (say, driving down a city street as opposed to driving down a road only you live on) they should be banned from buying alcohol for a certain period of time.

Likewise, this guy who threatened a woman and her child with a knife because he was so drunk he thought it was his house. No booze for him, it obviously leads to bad things.

This should be attached to a campaign to make it seem as though giving alcohol to these people is especially bad, so as to try and prevent somebody else from buying them their drinks.

What do you think?

nah. You should just burn them at the stake and charge admission. Shit, we could fund REAL prison systems then;)

I should point out, I'm not advocating that banning alcohol for these people should be the only step taken, merely in addition to whatever other punishment is deemed necessary.

How on earth do you enforce that? I don't want a background or detailed ID check performed on me everytime I go to buy beer.

yeah, but if we actually soaked them in alcohol BEFORE we tied them to the stake...

How on earth do you enforce that? I don't want a background or detailed ID check performed on me everytime I go to buy beer.

National database of alcohol based offenders. Liqour stores/bars just run your I.D. through the database to make sure you're not on the list, and then you get your precious booze.

Hardly much more invasive than checking to make sure you're not underage.

As the recipient of a DUI, I am banned from possessing or consuming alcohol for the duration of my probation.

So the government is ahead of you.

but they would be in rehab/prison anyway alcohol doesn't really got in legally

But no once they get out they should be allowed to drink you the experience will teach them not to drink much

How on earth do you enforce that? I don't want a background or detailed ID check performed on me everytime I go to buy beer.

They don't.

You only get in trouble for it if you get in some other sort of trouble.

Hardly much more invasive than checking to make sure you're not underage.

but they don't...

but they don't...

Well, I think that's a problem that requires adressing, don't you?

National database of alcohol based offenders. Liqour stores/bars just run your I.D. through the database to make sure you're not on the list, and then you get your precious booze.

Hardly much more invasive than checking to make sure you're not underage.

That'd piss me off having to wait while they run a check on me everytime I go up to the bar to grab a pint.

They don't.

You only get in trouble for it if you get in some other sort of trouble.

Much less cringeworthy than the example provided above, at least.

Well, I think that's a problem that requires adressing, don't you?

pfft no :p

That'd piss me off having to wait while they run a check on me everytime I go up to the bar to have a pint.

It pisses me off that if someone commits a crime and blames it on alcohol, they can go straight on drinking.


Makes more sense and much less cringeworthy than the example provided above.

Oh, does having to put up with a little inconvience before you're allowed to consume a mind-altering substance frighten you?

Much less cringeworthy than the example provided above, at least.

Much better than a five minute waiting period (multiplied by a ten person line).

Repeal of the licensing laws...

Honestly - it don't work!*





*Al Capone, anyone?

It pisses me off that if someone commits a crime and blames it on alcohol, they can go straight on drinking.

Perhaps they shouldn't blame it on alcohol.

I maintain that I was sober at the time of my arrest (.102 BAC), but had I been able to say that I wouldn't have driven without the alcohol, it would still be my fault for taking the risk.

Oh, does having to put up with a little inconvience before you're allowed to consume a mind-altering substance frighten you?

I sense a bias. I have a feeling that it would be more than a little inconvenience.

And anyways, I could get a drink any night of the week as a minor, so the whole id check doesn't work.

How on earth do you enforce that? I don't want a background or detailed ID check performed on me everytime I go to buy beer.

Well we could threaten to kill you if you didn't comply...that might just work...

National database of alcohol based offenders. Liqour stores/bars just run your I.D. through the database to make sure you're not on the list, and then you get your precious booze.

Hardly much more invasive than checking to make sure you're not underage.The feasibility of such a database is questionable.

Perhaps they shouldn't blame it on alcohol.

I maintain that I was sober at the time of my arrest (.102 BAC), but had I been able to say that I wouldn't have driven without the alcohol, it would still be my fault for taking the risk.

Perhaps if there were this kind of penalties for blaming it on alcohol, they wouldn't.



I sense a bias. I have a feeling that it would be more than a little inconvenience.

Not if the government got behind this and started putting together a decent database that wouldn't take more than a few minutes to access.

And anyways, I could get a drink any night of the week as a minor, so the whole id check doesn't work.

A psychopath could kill somebody with an axe any night of the week, does that mean that murder should be legal? Or, rather, that steps shouldn't be taken to try and prevent murder?

Well we could threaten to kill you if you didn't comply...that might just work...

Straw man, anyone?

It pisses me off that if someone commits a crime and blames it on alcohol, they can go straight on drinking.

I think you'll find that most court sentences given in such a case tend to stipulate a requirement for attending some sort of rehabilitation or, as Vittos has demonstrated, a technical restriction anyway. So in most cases, they can't go straight on drinking without the danger of some sort of punishment.

I sense a bias. I have a feeling that it would be more than a little inconvenience.

Yeah.

Perhaps if there were this kind of penalties for blaming it on alcohol, they wouldn't.

It is already a penalty.

A psychopath could kill somebody with an axe any night of the week, does that mean that murder should be legal? Or, rather, that steps shouldn't be taken to try and prevent murder?

I am not saying that the person should not be banned from having alcohol, I just question the point of having a point of sale police record check.

It is already a penalty.


Well, then, I'm pleased with the government. Incidentally, is this a local/state/national law, and where do you live?


I am not saying that the person should not be banned from having alcohol, I just question the point of having a point of sale police record check.

That falls under the area in my OP where I explained that this should be combined with a propoganda, if you will, campaign.

Of course, this proposed system also ignores that offending people will probably end up leaning on their friends and relatives to buy them their booze anyway.

Well, then, I'm pleased with the government. Incidentally, is this a local/state/national law, and where do you live?

As far as I know, it is mandatory minimum sentencing for the State of Georgia.

That falls under the area in my OP where I explained that this should be combined with a propoganda, if you will, campaign.

Anti-drinking and driving commercials are ran often as well.

You are certainly not out of the mainstream with your views.

Not if the government got behind this and started putting together a decent database that wouldn't take more than a few minutes to access.The idea that you'd be able to prevent people from getting around getting their IDs checked when getting their hands on alcohol is easily disproven by going to any given university frat party. You'd need to have this database working in every bar, convenience store, or other establishment that sells or serves alcohol. Each one of these would need some form of access to said database, most likely computerized. And they'd have to check everytime they sell a drink. This is a hefty investment for a lot of stores and will make waiting for drinks in bars a damn long process.

If you can't see how that might be a problem concerning feasibility, then it's probably because you don't go drinking.

That falls under the area in my OP where I explained that this should be combined with a propoganda, if you will, campaign.To be honest, alcohol would be much less of a problem if you could take public transportation to get home. It gets emphasized a heck of a lot more over here than in Germany.

[QUOTE=Vittos the City Sacker;12114965]I maintain that I was sober at the time of my arrest (.102 BAC), (snip) QUOTE]


That's the big problem right there.

That you did not think you were drunk is subjective and has nothing to do with drunk driving.

The objective fact that alcohol affected your ability to drive safely has everything to do with why you were charged.

What do you think?

You can take my booze when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand.

Basically, what I'm saying here, is that if someone commits a crime 'because' of alcohol, you should take their booze away.

For example, say somebody is caught driving while intoxicated. Depending on the risk to others... (say, driving down a city street as opposed to driving down a road only you live on) they should be banned from buying alcohol for a certain period of time.

Likewise, this guy who threatened a woman and her child with a knife because he was so drunk he thought it was his house. No booze for him, it obviously leads to bad things.

This should be attached to a campaign to make it seem as though giving alcohol to these people is especially bad, so as to try and prevent somebody else from buying them their drinks.

What do you think?
What you're saying, in essence, is that the person who committed the "crime," whatever it was, will never complete his or her sentence. There's something I don't like about that idea.

That's the big problem right there.

That you did not think you were drunk is subjective and has nothing to do with drunk driving.

The objective fact that alcohol affected your ability to drive safely has everything to do with why you were charged.BAC isn't all that accurate for determining how drunk you are since it can be manipulated in a number of ways.

That's the big problem right there.

That you did not think you were drunk is subjective and has nothing to do with drunk driving.

The objective fact that alcohol affected your ability to drive safely has everything to do with why you were charged.

The effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Someone who drinks as often as I do is likely to not feel anything with a .10 BAC.

I had made a conscious attempt to not drive until I knew I was safe. The breathalyzer stated otherwise.

From wiki:

Laws establishing maximum blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels for legal operation of motor vehicles do not take into consideration alcohol tolerance. In one study, a group of alcoholics whose BAC was brought to .10, only 24% showed any clinical signs of impairment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance

I say ban alcohol altogether and be done with it.

It sounds nice on paper but enforcing it would be somewhat difficult if not incredibly costly. Why not just enhance the sentence? Which im pretty sure is already done in most places.

Oh and banning it is a stupid idea, we all know how effective prohibition was and the war on drugs is. If someone wants it bad, sure as hell there will be a seller.

Perhaps they shouldn't blame it on alcohol.

I maintain that I was sober at the time of my arrest (.102 BAC), but had I been able to say that I wouldn't have driven without the alcohol, it would still be my fault for taking the risk.



I sense a bias. I have a feeling that it would be more than a little inconvenience.

And anyways, I could get a drink any night of the week as a minor, so the whole id check doesn't work.

HERETIC! BUUUUURN HIM!

*sticks nasty old mole on side of nose*

Buuuurn him!

*throws rock*

Can you float if we tie you up and throw you in the pond as well?

*looks around for some rope*