The Real Problem
Related Topics
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
One of the main punishments attached to DWI has been taking the individual's license away, but I don't think it deals with the real problem. The real problem is not the individual's right to drive, but his/her drinking, and taking away a person's license is not addressing this problem.
When I studied for my driver's permit, one quote which I have always remembered, is that "the right to drive is a privilege, not a right." I propose that drinking should be a privilege, obtainable only by those who are capable of ***uming the responsibility. The means of carrying out this proposal is simple, in the form of an individual drinking license. The test to obtain the license would be also fairly simple. The individual would have to take a simple multiple choice test on alcohol use and abuse. Sample questions would test the individual's knowledge of state alcohol laws, how to compute Blood Alcohol Content based on a given weight and amount of drinks, and some basic knowledge on alcohols ability to impair the individual. After the individual p***es the test, which would most likely be conducted through the state Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the individual would have the right to consume alcoholic beverages within state regulations.
Any violation (DWI, open container, drunken disorderly) would result in the suspension of that individual's drinking license.
When a person currently loses his/her license to DWI, the state has very limited means to prevent that person from driving. These people also may have jobs to go to, or children to drive around, and taking away the individual's right to drive isn't really solving anything constructively, but perhaps aggravating things. The real problem is the individual's drinking.
This is where the drinking license is perhaps most significant, since it is easier to enforce. In a nation requiring drinking licenses, any purchase of alcohol will require an appropriate drinking I.D. At a restaurant, grocery store, anywhere. Although this may appear tedious, it will become routine, and an accepted part of life.
My main contention here is that the real problem with DWI is not driving, but drinking. If you want someone to lead a productive, healthy life, you don't take away the privilege to drive, but the source of the problem, the privilege to drink. Most repeat DWI offenders are alcoholics, and it is apparent the driver's license is not their problem. The drinking license proposal may also be an effective reasoning to lower the drinking age. I know of many people under the drinking age who can handle it responsibly, but many over the age who are less responsible. If the reasoning behind the license is responsibility, those who are responsible, at any age, shall be given the privilege.
Basil T. Maglaris
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
This is getting close to Fascism. In Fascism, the state has the right to ensure the protection of its property -- the bodies of the citizens of the country. A modest interest is reasonable, say verifying that "doctors" are knowledgable and "medicines" are effective and unadulterated, but it's extremely easy to p*** "just one more law" for a good cause.
BTW, the drug laws seem rather Fascist to me. Testing someone involved in a transportation accident for intoxicants is one thing, but the FDA attempting to ban 'food supplements' is going too far...
There's another aspect to drug and alcohol treatment -- you must often admit to illegal activities to get treatment, which means that people are forced to get much worse before the treatment is worthwhile.
The situation is even clearer with prostitution. Some people argue against prostitution because some pimps beat up their girls, but the girls are beat up because getting help from the police is nearly impossible. Would *you* file an ***ault report, knowing that the police are going to grill you for your activities as much as your ***ailant's?
You also run into several other problems: 1. Many people brew their own alcholic beverages, complaining about the quality of commerical products. Would you register yeast, tubing, etc. Would you compel them to only consume products they consider tainted? What if they are brewing the beverage for a religious ceremony? (Sounds like requiring pork chops at a Bar Mitzvah!) 2. Many people use alcohol in religious sanctiments. Some Protestant churches substitute grape juice for wine, but not all, and there are other religions where the wine (or mead or beer or ...) is much more central to the ceremony than wine is to the Eucharist.
Would you register it? Remember that Congress recently p***ed a law regarding this.
3. If a person eats too much fiber, they can die of intestinal blockage. Would you require licenses before a person could purchase roughage? What about vegetables, which can cause nutritional problems (either by overdosing on a nutrient, or blocking absorbtion of another). Or fat -- obesity probably kills more people than alcohol!
WHERE DO YOU STOP?
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
ken ...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Warren Edward Kenyon)
Come on, take the next logical step: The US IS a fascist state. It has been for years. Decades. According to the American Heritage dictionary: Facism: A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.
Except for the fact that we have no dictator, we fit that definition to a tee.
---
"The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a m***ive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of incentive, a hundred other factors." Hari Seldon, as written by Isaac Asimov, 1951.
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
Safety belt laws, the criminalization of certain drugs, drivers' licenses, are many laws which restrict behavior. With my proposition regarding a drinking license, it would require a simple multiple choice test and a possible fee to acquire. After that point, if you abuse the privilege by disregarding alcohol laws (DWI, open container, drunken disorderly), you temporarily lose your privilege. I could even do away with the multiple choice test part of the proposition. The idea here is that if you disregard the laws, you are appropriately punished. If you drink and drive, taking away your license isn't really adressing the problem. Alcohol consumption is. I think the idea of a drinking license could be used to decriminalize drugs. The government could decriminalize marijuana, but if an individual is arrested for driving under the influence, he/she temporarily loses his/her privilege.
I agree that it is a difficult question regarding civil liberties.
If the government regulated everything that could hurt us, tobacco, high cholesterol foods, and a long list of life-threatening items would be regulated. But I think if one wants to adequately punish someone who has commited DWI, suspending a driver's license is not the solution.
Basil "Bill" Maglaris
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
One doesn't have to prove one is a benefit to society but that one is aware of state drinking laws.
You may not believe it, but I think that seat belt/helmet laws for anyone old enough to make a rational decision are bad. Whether you wear a seat belt does not threaten anyone but yourself. (the same could be said for eating a pound of bacon every day; should that be illegal?) I consider drinking a privilege in the sense that if one disobeys the laws, one loses the privilege. Drinking and driving poses a threat to others, while most recreational sports in themselves don't. In many states one needs a hunting license. I would be interested to find out your opinion on that. Taking your standpoint, it should be a civil right.
And then, what about gun ownership? The Brady bill? Alcohol consumption can be just as unpredictable and dangerous to others as a loaded gun, especially when combined with a vehicle. And taking away a driver's license does not stop an individual from driving drunk.
Although you disagree, I appreciate the comments. It allows me to look at my idea from a different standpoint, and see it's weaknesses.
There are may be deficiencies in my proposal, but this discussion on the topic of drinking laws is a positive thing.
Basil "Bill" Maglaris
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
You raise many valid points. The main point of my proposition is that when someone does something endangering others, that is when it should be regulated. Laws regarding seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, eating fiber, recreational drug consumption (when not driving) are all things which the state does which are wrong.
According to your definition of Fascism, the state has the right to ensure the protection of its property -- the bodies of the citizens of the country. DWI laws and gun control are fascist, since they are laws to protect the citizenry. Any consumer protection laws are fascist.
Environmental regulations are fascist. Let's do away with these laws, and bring back the Wild West.
If you abide strictly by that definition of Fascism, you could logically argue I think Fascism is good. That is unfortunate, since I don't consider myself a Fascist, and would hate to have that label affixed to me. My proposal on the drinking license is that the "privilege" is only temporarily taken away when the individual abuses that privilege by endangering others (DWI, etc.) In another post I mentioned laws requiring hunting licenses. Hunting licenses, which require firearm education cl***es, are fascist in your opinion. In an ideal state I should be able to buy a shotgun and start shooting whatever moves in my backyard. But these fascist laws limit my rights regarding when I can shoot, where I can shoot, and what I can shoot at. They even limit my right whether or not I can buy the gun and shoot it.
Many people are afraid that if drinking is made a "privilege," what is next? The same illogical thinking leads many uninformed to go with a similar equation used against legalizing marijuana: marijuana consumption -> cocaine -> heroin/crack One thing does not necessarily lead to another, as most of us know.
Do we live in a Fascist state? Perhaps.
c ...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
DWI laws apply only to public property (public roadways), and the owner of any property has the right to establish rules for how you can use it.
There is no law that says you cannot drive drunk on your own property.
Gun control is, in fact, fascist, since it is prior restraint on the law-abiding because they may be potential criminals.
The ones that prohibit fraud are not fascist. The ones that forbid a buyer and seller to consummate a mutually-agreed-upon transaction because "the state knows better" (e.g., cyclamate ban) are fascist.
A number of them, in fact, are.
Funny you should say "the wild west." We might instead bring back, say, colonial Virginia, or canal-era New York, since they all fit the parameters stated. Frankly, even the wild west had a lot to recommend it -- the violent crime rate was LOWER than it is today.
Then I suggest you give some thought to where your line of logic invariably leads.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis You need to understand the difference between a right and a privilege.
A privilege is something that you may not exercise until the state gives you its explicit approval (e.g., issues you a license). A state has total discretion as to who shall or shall not get or lose that approval, and need not even explain its process. It is totally the state's choice.
Liquor license allocation is a great example.
A right is something you may exercise until the state takes it away. The state may not take it away without, through due process, finding you guilty of some offense. But they may not take it away because you "might" do something wrong with it.
If you feel we are safest when we all must get permission from the state before we may drink, you are promoting authoritarianism (fascism).
Yes, they are. I should not require a license from the state, for example, to contract with a private hunting preserve to shoot game in that preserve, any more than I require a driving license to go to an amusement park and drive the go-karts or the bumper cars.
And by the way, hunting licenses don't (in general) require firearm education, any more than fishing licenses require "rod education." Both are simply revenue generators, nothing more. Hunting and fishing licenses pay for state wildlife conservation programs (Bowhunters need hunting licenses, too.) And these states do, in fact, exist. You just have to live in one.
I'm glad you realize that. I hope you're not arguing that since these laws exist, that they must be all right?
Well, let's see. Gun ownership was made a privilege. Starting your own business and making a living was made a privilege. What you could do with your own real estate was made a privilege. Pretty soon, going to the doctor of your own choice is going to be made a privilege. Maybe it's DRINKING that is NEXT to become a privilege.
Why does everybody think that THEIR example is the FIRST step on the slippery slope? You're most of the way down the slope already, and you don't even realize it.
I guess it's hard to expect a person who has never had true liberty to mourn what has happened to it.
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
No, things could be *much* worse. On the other hand, I know someone whose parents lived in Nazi Germany, and he claims his father says in many ways the U.S. is more repressive than Germany ever was (regarding the drug laws and IRS activities).
You can still buy tobacco products, and it's not just because of the Honorable Senior Senator from the Great State of North Carolina.
ahem. (or wherever Jesse Helms is from).
You can buy bacon, eggs, butter, etc. in unlimited quantities.
You can quit your job and move cross country without filing any forms, although some states have a bug about updating your driver's license. You can have consensual sex with (almost) anyone you want, and most "sin against nature" laws are at the state level, not national (transporting minors across state lines may still be on the books).
On the flip side, we are not compelled to participate in physical exercise. We are not compelled to participate in politics (voting for the Right Candidate, etc). We are not compelled to do much of anything; jury duty and registration of 18-year-old males are the only two things I can think of.
(Yes, we have federal income tax, but if you don't have any income you don't have to file any forms or pay any taxes).
Do I have no complaints? Don't be silly. I just think "fascist" is too strong a term except for a few areas.
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
The last statistic is garbage. The fact that a majority of arrested subjects test positive for alcohol or drugs does *not* mean that a significant fraction of alcohol or drug users do illegal activities.
As a concrete example, consider the following numbers: 10,000,000 alcohol drinkers in a region on Saturday night.
1,000 arrests 800 arrested subjects had drunk alcohol within 24 hours.
80% of the arrested subjects had consumed alcohol, but only 0.008% of all drinkers were arrested. Taking actions against a group because of the actions of such a small minority is senseless.
The arguments regarding helmet laws reflect the extreme expense incurred by generally uninsured cyclists. A cyclist traveling at any reasonable speed without a helmet his almost guaranteed of brain damage, with medical costs of 300k+. With a helmet, by the time they have that much brain damage they'll be dead anyway.
Many people have no problem with sufficiently insured cyclists riding without helmets, but the problem is identifying those cyclists.
BTW, similar arguments apply to *bicyclists*. I never ride my bike without a brain pan, even though I rarely travel over 25 mph. That's not very fast, but is fast enough to cause serious brain damage if I flip my bike.
Drunk driving as a recreational sport. Hmm. :-) Seriously, I don't think anyone here is arguing *for* drunk driving, and many of us agree that drunk drivers should have the book thrown at them. That doesn't justify the book hitting innocent bystanders, though.
Hunting licenses generally pay for the local equivalent of the "Fish and Game Commission". That's also why states charge more for out-of-state licenses. I would have to ask a coworker for exact prices, but I think an in-state Colorado big-game hunting license is several hundred dollars; an out-of-state Colorado license is several times that. *But*, I also pay 5% income tax, a steep gas tax, etc.
BTW, Colorado licenses include some money for a rescue fee. In fact, I need to start purchasing a fishing license just for that fee -- if I'm injured while hiking that money makes the rescue free to me.
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
It's more accurate to say that I was claiming that Fascist states consider their citizens the State's property, and that laws to protect this "property" are valid. In contrast, you could argue that in Democracies the citizens consider the *State* to be the citizen's property.
Definitely not. Consumer protection laws exist to protect the citizens from each other. Fascist laws protect the citizens from *themselves*.
E.g., a consumer protection law may prohibit selling wine sweetened by etholene glycol, but if you want to chug antifreeze it's not illegal. A fascist state, however, may only allow garages to possess antifreeze except for the stock actually in automobile radiators.
Many people think that Fascism *is* good. It takes a pretty perverse mentality to realize that you can only really succeed if you have a very real risk of failure. :-) Hunting licenses apply to hunting on *public* land, and there's something to be said for expecting people to demonstrate minimum competency before running around in public with powerful weapons. Every year several hunters die in hunting accidents in Colorado; how many more would die if the we had hunters who didn't realize that you *NEVER* fire a weapon near a trail, and *ESPECIALLY* never fire one *across* a trail?
As it is, I've heard of a hunter firing at a big game animal, missing, and having the shot p*** over the crest of a hill and killing a hunter walking on the far side of the hill!
BTW, Colorado requires people born after 1935 (or something) to have a firearms course before the can get a hunting license.
I'm not aware of any restrictions on private hunting grounds, and I know there are no restrictions on me target shooting on a private range.
Colorado has a "Make My Day" law which is an affirmative defense for using lethal force against anyone in your house, and possibly your property. (I'm not sure of the latter). Theoretically, you could invite the friendly Jehovah's Witness into your living room and gun him down, although I don't know if anyone's actually tried that... :-) Are you taking about firing your weapon in a safe location away from other people, or in your backyard in a large city? Most of these restrictions apply to discharging a weapon either on public land, or on private land where it is extremely likely to affect others.
Don't forget that alcohol is a *food*. Not a great food, being mostly empty calories, but you can live on alcohol until vitamin deficiency (or more likely, dehydration) gets you. Marijuana is not considered a food; a condiment at most (e.g., in brownies. :-) A *lot* of people who don't otherwise care about alcohol-related issues will take notice if you propose making it a privilege to purchase or consume certain foods. Today alcohol, tomorrow eggs and chocolate cake -- and that is *not* a wild jump, considering the amount of sheer bullshit in the cholesterol scare: fact: cholesterol levels are either "dangerous", "borderline", or "acceptable." Never "good." These levels were identified by sampling a large number of people and *arbitrarily* stating that the top quarter (or third?) was in the "dangerous" stage, and the next bracket was "borderline." THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT "DANGEROUS" LEVELS INDICATE IMPENDING HEART DISEASE.
Yes, people with heart disease often have high cholesterol, but that does not imply that high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease. And studies that show *very* high cholesterol (e.g., > 400) is a risk factor does not mean that modest cholesterol (e.g., 250) is a risk factor.
fact: early reports that *low* cholesterol is a risk factor for early death were dismissed because it didn't fit expectations.
Only slowly are medical researchers realizing that low cholesterol seems to be ***ociated with aggressive (and often reckless) behavior. These people don't die of heart disease; they die earlier in car crashes, etc., but they're just as dead.
Of course, since I'm not an M.D. most doctors would dismiss my comments as ill-informed nonsense. Odd, those same doctors don't seem to be actually *talking* with people, to find out if their theories match reality. Oh well....
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
ken ...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Warren Edward Kenyon)
Yes, you can buy tobacco, because the US had found a drug export that we have a virtual monopoly on. If we produced nearly all of the cocaine in the world, you could probably pick that up at 7-11 too. This is a clear double standard on drug policy. Why is there even a drug policy. Treat all drugs like tobacco, I say.
Yes, I freely acknowledge that we still benefit greatly from a market economy, and that food and clothes and jobs are there for people who want them, no questions asked. But consensual sex? It is getting to the point where there is no such thing. Look at Tyson, Judge Thomas, etc. Whether the sex was consensual, whether the relationship involved har***ment is debatable. Point is, all it takes now days is the accusation.
Of course we are not compelled to participate in physical exercise.
That would make us healthy thus alliviating the need for national health care. We are instead encouraged (some might argue this) not to exercise. We watch TV instead.
Of course we are not compelled to vote. We are not even "compelled" to find out about the issues. This would cause office holders to lose their jobs. We are instead encouraged to remain ignorant, being fed sound bites instead of substance. Even so, turning over the personnel is not necessarily enough. Look at the last congressional elections.
Well over a hundred new congressmen, but no change. The real power in this country is not elected.
And of course, we are certainly not compelled to learn about our own constitution. Retro-active taxes? No problem. We'll ignore the constitution, no one will notice. Double jeopardy, forget it. Just put those cops on trial again until we get a jury that comes up with the politically correct verdict. No one will complain.
I am not against income tax, per se. But I think the current system is oppressive, and too complicated. A simpler system would be in order.
I think facist is just the right word.
Read my sig. It is from "Foundation". Asimov wrote Foundation as a futuristic version of the Fall of the Roman Empire, at least, it is that work that inspired him, I have read. What he wrote concerning the fall of a fictitious transgalactic empire was true about the real Roman empire, and is, I think, very revealing about where the US is headed.
Replace "empire" with anything, "democracy" say. Then read it again.
Kind of scary, don't you think? And he wrote this in the forties and fifties, when the US had nowhere to go but up, and no one stood in our way.
-----
"The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a m***ive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of incentive, a hundred other factors." Hari Seldon, as written by Isaac Asimov, 1951.
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
In Colorado, DUI's have been issued to people on bicycle and horseback.
And someone in a wheelchair, but I think that was thrown out after the guy pointed out that while it was true he operated a motorized wheelchair in a public street, that was solely because the lack of "cutouts" prevented him from using the sidewalk. He thus got out under the ADA (since a person able to walk would not have received a DUI ticket).
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
> Definitely not. Consumer protection laws exist to protect the citizens
> from each other. Fascist laws protect the citizens from *themselves*.
> Hunting licenses apply to hunting on *public* land, and there's something
> to be said for expecting people to demonstrate minimum competency before
> running around in public with powerful weapons. Every year several hunters
> die in hunting accidents in Colorado; how many more would die if the
> we had hunters who didn't realize that you *NEVER* fire a weapon near
> a trail, and *ESPECIALLY* never fire one *across* a trail?
My point is that irresponsible drinking is not just a harm to the individual, but others. I think there is something to be said about expecting people to have a minimum competency before drinking. By minimum competency I mean having a basic awareness of state drinking laws and how to calculate one's BAC. Here we go with the "slippery slope" theory again.
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
I wish I could disagree.
??? The Feds are always trying to get people to exercise more.
It's advertisers who want people to be couch potatoes, and who now are willing to pay money so movies will show a star drinking their brand of sugar water instead of just water, or eating at a Taco Bell instead of a "real" meal.
Also, the need for national health care is different -- it's the sheer number of people without coverage (e.g., the grunt at the local video store) or people who have poor coverage because their company changes policies every 12 months to save a few bucks. BTW, that's the problem I have, and ongoing care is a nightmare because one doctor is often unacceptable to the following health insurance carrier.
Bullshit. Often the people who complain the loudest about politicans are extremists who nobody else supports. And while many of the *individuals* involved (as opposed to the policies they support) are less than ideal, better people are put off by the h***les involved... especially the har***ment by all of the True Believers on the edges of the political spectrum.
"being fed". That says it all -- if you're that p***ive you have no room to complain.
BTW, I remember people complaining about the number of position papers, etc., that the Clinton campaign produced in the last election. The Clintonites finally started focusing on a single issue each day, but that was in response to the press, not because they were trying to keep the public ill-informed.
There are some structural issues, but the political situation is *not* the same as it was under Bush. Of course, "deal making" is now called "buying Congressional votes"....
Also, remember that Congress *should* be pretty centralist, and the policies should not change that much from year to year. *You* may feel left out, but there will be people on the other side of the political spectrum who feel the same way.
I've seen this locally; a group of citizens complained loud enough for the city council to adopt some of their issues, then were shocked when other citizens came out to complain about the change. I don't think the first group realized that the city council was trying to *balance* opposing views, instead of just being a bunch of people who enjoyed saying "no".
People *have* complained about both events. And the LA cops were not charged in Federal court with ***ault; they were charged with violation of civil rights. The possible penalties were *far* lighter.
Do you have suggestions? A flat tax is "simpler", but is considered to put too much of the burden on the poor. Deductions are used to promote "social goods", like charity, but then you need to identify acceptable charities. What about deductions for corporate research?
It helps the company, but it also helps the entire industry *and* the public which uses the improved products.
What about the deduction for moving; providing it makes the workforce much more mobile, which helps the national economy since worker skills are better used. And don't forget that other taxes are generally deductable.
I'm not defending the current mess, just pointing out that a lot of the complexity is inherit to the problem. You can have "simple", or you can have "fair", but you can't have both.
Try reading Gibson, instead. Besides, the Senate was replaced by the Emperor hundreds of years before the "fall" of Rome (which is a Western conceit; the Roman Empire decided the cost of the western provinces wasn't worth it and consolidated in what is now Istanbul.
Some people think the Roman Empire became the Ottoman Empire and didn't finally dissolve until the last century).
Yes, the Roman Empire has lessons for us. Primarily related to the "right" people feel for "decisive action" from Washington.
Washington should be a court of last resort, not the first place to go when you want things to change, but the cultural shift may be too far gone to stop.
BTW, did you know that for a *long* time states were not held to the Bill of Rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution? I think the change to the current view was after (and a result of) the Civil War, when the "United States" became singular instead of plural. (E.g., for the first 100 years you would write "The United States are located between Canada and Mexico). Think about what this implies.
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
b ...@tigger.cs.colorado.edu (Bear Giles)
Horse of a different color.
Discharging a hunting rifle has the *immediate* potential to harm someone.
Going to a bar and not knowing that state's drinking laws (because you're a tourist), or not knowing how to calculate your BAC (e.g., elevation changes your reaction to alcohol) isn't an *immediate* threat to anyone. There's no doubt that it's an indirect threat; you go into a bar in Aspen and down three beers in an hour, and unless you've learned to watch for *physical* symptoms instead of memorizing a table you're going to be a hazard to others, but legally there's a tremendous difference between immediate and indirect threats.
Another example: you're walking down a street and see someone on the other side with a pistol. That's an indirect threat, and you can report it to the police, but that's about it.
However, if he points the gun at you and demands your money in most states (some states in New England are different) you can legally kill him immediately, and no DA will prosecute you. Pointing a weapon at you and demanding money (with the reasonable inference that he will shot you if you fail to hand over the money) is sufficent grounds for you to use lethal force in self-defense -- because it is an immediate threat to your safety.
If you can show that taking a drink *directly* endangers another person, you have a strong argument for licensure. After all, that's why you need a license to operate a car, or a ham radio station (since interference could harm others), or to operate a plane, or ... As it is, I think the best you can do is show that alcohol consumption is an indirect threat.
BTW, I understand your concern about "alcohol == food" being a slippery slope, but look at the consequences of the earlier Supreme Court decision allowing the state laws to supercede the First Amendment (freedom of religion) regarding the ritualistic use of peyote by Amerindian faiths. Within a few years Christian churches had been shut down by Fire Marshals for unsafe conditions, the Catholic Church (in New York, I think) was told to stop using wine in the Eucharist for bona fide church members under the age of 21, etc. Any major newspaper should have a number of columnists articles on this recently, since they were discussing the recent bill to reverse this decision.
The slippery slope is very real.
--
Bear Giles b...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
ee33 ...@enchanter.eece.unm.edu (Joe Pepersack)
Run that one by me again. If by "irresponsible drinking" you mean "driving under the influance"; I most strongly disagree... DWI is *NOT* a matter of irresponsible drinking, it's a matter of irresponsible *DRIVING*. Alcohol, as mentioned before, is a _FOOD_. Are you going to require someone to calculate their cholesterol level before you let them buy a box of eggs, and make them sign a form saying that they arn't going to use the eggs in an illegal fashon (throwing them at someone's house, for instance)?
--
Amiga /// "Yield to temptation; it may not p*** void school(double money){ /// your way again" - Robert A. Heinlein while (!graduated()){ \\\/// "Strange situations, wild occupations, --hair; \XX/ 1200 living my life like a song" J. Buffett debt += alot; } }
wha ...@goya.its.rpi.edu (Brian William Whalen)
Please back up this belief of yours with some numbers or don't bring it up. It does the discussion no good but to enforce your opinion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think you have it b***-ackwards. Drinking poses no threat in and of itself, as has been repeatedly pointed out, similar to the eggs, which are harmless. The fact that you would allow regulation of egg purchases to anyone pretty much explains to the rest of us your point of view.
If Johnny had been caught egging a house, you would never let him buy eggs again until he payed his dues? Come on now, let's check out this reality thing.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brian Whalen Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute wha...@rpi.edu | | "What is *strong* wins; that is the universal law. If only it | | were not so often precisely what is stupid and evil!" -F. Nietzsche |
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
Actually, it has been done with eggs. On October 30th, named "Cabbage Night," minors are not allowed to be sold eggs, since Cabbage Night is well-known for youthful vandalism. I think this is wrong, since the right to buy eggs should only be regulated if one throws eggs at an household. Taking away someone's license for a DWI offense is like taking away an individual's right to grocery shop for throwing eggs at a house.
It doesn't address the real problem.
Basil "Bill" Maglaris
bmagl ...@moose.uvm.edu (Basil T. Maglaris)
You're exactly right. I remembered some statistics from Driver's Ed, but I should research them to strengthen my arguments.
You're correct that drinking poses no threat in and of itself, but neither does driving. But when you combine the two, there is a potentially dangerous situation. What do you propose we do to punish DWI offenders? My proposal targets drinking, but your argument appears to contend that there must be a third means of punishment, outside of drinking or driving rights/privileges (threatless in and of themselves).
What is that third alternative? Basil "Bill" Maglaris
ee33 ...@enchanter.eece.unm.edu (Joe Pepersack)
Yes it does. Driving under the influence is a DRIVING problem. DWI is an abuse of the priviledge of operating a motor vehicle on public streets; not an abuse of the right to consume alchohol. It is illegal in most states to operate a motor vehicle if you are impared IN ANY WAY from operating that vehicle safely. For instance, in many states you can be ticketed for operating a motor vehicle when you are extremely tired (Falling asleep at the wheel) This happened to a freind of mine -- he was driving home after a double shift at work and was weaving a little because he was so fatigued. A cop pulled him over to give him a sobriety test, which he p***ed. The cop asked him why he was weaving, and he replied that he was tired. The cop then issued him a citation for driving while in an impared condition. You could also be issued a ticket for driving back from the eye doctor after you had your pupils dialated, for instance, if it significantly impared your ability to operate the vehicle safely. In all these cases, a person is KNOWINGLY engaging in an activity which could harm others -- driving while physically unable do so in a safe manner. Getting completly sotted doesn't harm anyone but yourself.
Driving while you are blasted could, as could driving while you are over-tired, on medication, or otherwise temporarly impared.
--
Amiga /// "Yield to temptation; it may not p*** void school(double money){ /// your way again" - Robert A. Heinlein while (!graduated()){ \\\/// "Strange situations, wild occupations, --hair; \XX/ 1200 living my life like a song" J. Buffett debt += alot; } }
m ...@ml7694a.leonard.american.edu (Matthew B. Landru)
I'm not sure about the guy you're responding to is that they should be all be lined up and shot.
--
Matthew B. Landry President of Project SAVE m...@ml7694a.leonard.american.edu
ma ...@cae.wisc.edu (Ryan Lee Maas)
Sounds somewhat harsh. Figuratively, maybe, but _shot_? What do _you_ do when you find out that your child, brother, aunt, father, neighbor, etc has been convicted of a DWI? Will _you_ pull the trigger.
Like AIDS and cancer, it's not someone else - it's people you know. People like you and like me.
|> --
|> Matthew B. Landry |> President of Project SAVE |> m...@ml7694a.leonard.american.edu
--
____/| ACK! | Ryan Maas ma...@cae.wisc.edu \ o.O| THPHT! | m...@ecn.purdue.edu =(_)= Bill | "Never work for anything you believe in." U in '96 | sage advice from my employer
| To Top |