Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Napoleon said something to the effect that "He would be glad to get rid of tobacco, if the people asking him to do so would kindly point out a virtue that would generate as much tax revenue as the vice does!"
Napoleon needed money to finance his Napoleonic wars, so he taxed tobacco and encouraged people to use tobacco for the tax revenue.
Tobacco taxes have also partly financed wars in other parts of the world, notably the U.S.
Not sure about the impact of tax revenue from alcohol.
If you are under the legal age, there is absolutely zero allowance to drink under any situation, however, if you are over the legal age, there is no restriction at all - even if you have multiple DUI's and even if you just got out of a mental institution or a hospital for a problem caused by drinking. Being over the legal age to drink is, in effect, an irrebuttable presumption of responsibility.
But that isn't the case.
Lots of people have legal restrictions imposed on them that prohibit them from drinking. That is, in part, what ankle bracelets can monitor. They can monitor alcohol through the skin.
Judges routinely set abstinence as a condition of bail. It is a very common condition of parole or probation, especially for offenses exacerbated by booze.
I used to work in an industry that served what were called professional assistance programs. This was a nice term for "quasi-judicial probation programs for Dr's, Nurses, Lawyers with documented substance abuse programs." They had sobriety as a condition of keeping their license to practice, and they were tested frequently with peTH blood draw tests, ETG testing, and breath alcohol tests.
To me, the goal should be to prevent the person from driving drunk. Giving them an interlock restricted license is the way to handle this. Taking it outright isn't going to do much more than cause them to get additional charges for driving on suspended when they are doing the things they have to do.
And drunk driving is only one small percentage of the social problems caused by misuse of alcohol. There are accidental deaths and violence in the home, serious and expensive errors on the job and loss of productivity, medical cost of effects of excess alcohol and hospitalization to name a few.
I personally know of corporations and medical agencies run by alcoholics and the number of community problems that causes for everyone.
Simply keeping them off the road or out of the public eye is a small piece of the larger picture.
If you are under the legal age, there is absolutely zero allowance to drink under any situation, however, if you are over the legal age, there is no restriction at all - even if you have multiple DUI's and even if you just got out of a mental institution or a hospital for a problem caused by drinking. Being over the legal age to drink is, in effect, an irrebuttable presumption of responsibility.
Would it not make more sense to put DUI offenders and the like on some sort of list, and block the sale of alcohol to such people for a period of time (perhaps 2 years is reasonable)? And why is it that one day before your magic birthday, you are completely disallowed from having a sip yet the next day, no matter what you do, you can legally buy it in any amount without any limit, supervision or other restriction?
This is particularly puzzling in light of the fact that many DUI offenders required to get interlock ignition actually do not comply. If it is so hard to get them to comply with that, would it not be sensible to, in essence, force sobriety on them?
Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Right there along with the fact it's perfectly legal to put a gun in their hands and send them off halfway around the world to shoot/kill other people at the age of 18 and vote in varying elections. Both actions would indicate in general the belief is 18-year-olds can handle the responsibilities in question but somehow cannot regulate self-control when drinking alcoholic beverages.
Meanwhile in tandem we have people of all stripes above age 18 running around with unregistered automatic and semi-automatic weapons with no limits/very few limits on how much ammunition they can purchase.
So yes, let's ponder the alcohol debate instead because that'll be constructive.
Right there along with the fact it's perfectly legal to put a gun in their hands and send them off halfway around the world to shoot/kill other people at the age of 18 and vote in varying elections. Both actions would indicate in general the belief is 18-year-olds can handle the responsibilities in question but somehow cannot regulate self-control when drinking alcoholic beverages.
Meanwhile in tandem we have people of all stripes above age 18 running around with unregistered automatic and semi-automatic weapons with no limits/very few limits on how much ammunition they can purchase.
So yes, let's ponder the alcohol debate instead because that'll be constructive.
Actually it is constructive as approximately 50% of homicides are committed under the influence of alcohol.
And drunk driving is only one small percentage of the social problems caused by misuse of alcohol. There are accidental deaths and violence in the home, serious and expensive errors on the job and loss of productivity, medical cost of effects of excess alcohol and hospitalization to name a few.
I personally know of corporations and medical agencies run by alcoholics and the number of community problems that causes for everyone.
Simply keeping them off the road or out of the public eye is a small piece of the larger picture.
Then what do you do? Are employers going to ETG test employees regularly and fire them for use of an otherwise legal product?
If you prohibit any kind of substance, it just goes underground and gets much more dangerous.
Prohibiting alcohol to alcoholics would merely spur a black market enterprise to supply them at greater cost and increasing crime.
Drugs are illegal. Anybody who wants them can get them.
What we need is judges to keep DUI convicts in jail for a long time. When self-driving vehicles are perfected, the issue will go away on its own.
A first DUI, at minimum, is going to be a massive headache. You could easily lose your livelihood from a first, simple DUI, due to all the legal hoops you’re required to get through. Unless you’ve been through “the system,” or are an attorney/judge/someone actively involved in DUI casework, the average person doesn’t know.
Like I mentioned, I did a week in jail, seven days consecutively, a year of probation and interlock, loss of license (restricted to my interlocked vehicle only, but could otherwise go where I want), drug panel, and three Saturdays of trash pickup.
All for a first time alcohol, no injury, no damage DUI.
It’s really easy to get into the what ifs. The bottom line is the horror stories don’t happen for the vast majority of DUI cases.
Throwing me in jail for a month would have just caused me to lose my job - maybe my house, etc. None of that helps society for a guy who’s otherwise had no legal trouble and has given far more to society in taxes than he’s ever received. Society is much better keeping me out of jail and putting me on a blow and go.
The what about-ism will always be there. If it didn’t happen, you can’t prosecute someone for a “maybe.”
I’d be for longer interlock sentences and less jail with no priors or nothing but alcohol priors if there is no injury or major property damage.
I’d be for longer interlock sentences and less jail with no priors or nothing but alcohol priors if there is no injury or major property damage.
Because drunk driving, speeding, reckless driving are ok as long as there is no damage? Because of LUCK? I believe the idea is to try to keep people off the road before they do damage, not after.
Plenty of countries that consume more alcohol per capita than the US have much, much lower homicide rates than the US. Most if not all European countries fall into this category. The most relevant factors with regards to violent crime rates are gun availability/access and 'underclass inclinations/culture'. Anecdotally, I've been under the influence to some degree probably 2,500-3,000 times in my life and I've never started a fight with anyone while under such conditions (though others have started fights with me, or outright attacked me in a couple cases)
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 04-07-2024 at 10:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
