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.
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?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57728
Even during prohibition from 1920-1933 booze was available all over the place. Even if all bars and retailers had a list of offenders, it could not be enforced. Consider that teens underage have always been able to get an adult to buy for them, so would the DUI offender. It would be a lot of work (and cost) to implement with little or no benefit. I knew a repeat offender and she was ordered by the court to take alcohol abuse counseling. She finished that, and within 3 months got another DUI. Addiction to alcohol can only be stopped if the person really wants to stop, and works hard on it with a lot of support from family and friends.
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?
Practicality? Are you talking about having a nationwide registry that every merchant would have to consult before even selling someone a beer? That sounds like going to an extreme to me.
I agree that age can be a very arbitrary thing. However, it does offer society a bright clear line for making some determinations. I remember thinking how unfair it was that I had to be sixteen to drive, eighteen to vote, and twenty-one to drink. Yet, like all young people I just had to wait. You get old soon enough.
We could have a drinking license. You would be required to take a class and pass a test. Your license could be revoked if you abuse the privilege. Stores would check it like they check drivers license. Drinking can be as deadly than driving.
We could have a drinking license. You would be required to take a class and pass a test. Your license could be revoked if you abuse the privilege. Stores would check it like they check drivers license. Drinking can be as deadly than driving.
That should be taught in the school systems, probably during Middle School. At this age, young people are mature enough to understand the cause/effect of alcohol. Show them videos of drunks stumbling around homeless camps, the people strapped to their beds in ERs, detox wards and rehabs, the actual bloody carnage on our streets; pull no punches, show them the damned truth along with the stats. Same for drugs and smoking. Make this a segment as part of an overall health, wellness and fitness curriculum -- because the vast majority of them aren't getting any of these facts from their parents.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 04-02-2024 at 12:39 PM..
There was an attempt to prohibit alcohol, but it failed miserably.
Adults don't like being told what to do or what they're allowed to do in an ostensibly free country.
If you want to rail against something that is illegal and causes just as much death and destruction and devastation of families, why not ask why people don't stop taking illegal drugs?
Or why not talk about cigarettes and vapes being legal and consumed by people of all ages and dying of cancer or even being injured by exploding vape pens?
People get in cars without being under the influence and still kill people.
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.
There actually ARE limitations on drinking. Public drunkenness is a punishable crime in some areas, and bars are held responsible if they overserve someone who is drunk.
Quote:
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?
On the first point, I think it seems onerous to make businesses wade through what would be MASSIVE database of people on some kind of a nationwide list.
Quote:
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?
What do you mean they don't comply? This is something I do know something about... But I'm curious about your assertion first to make sure I understand.
Practicality? Are you talking about having a nationwide registry that every merchant would have to consult before even selling someone a beer? That sounds like going to an extreme to me.
I agree that age can be a very arbitrary thing. However, it does offer society a bright clear line for making some determinations. I remember thinking how unfair it was that I had to be sixteen to drive, eighteen to vote, and twenty-one to drink. Yet, like all young people I just had to wait. You get old soon enough.
That poster wants to put the onus on businesses for what people do with the goods they buy rather than the onus of responsibility onto the person buying them.
Someone buying a hammer at a hardware store could invariably use it to hammer nails or they could use it to bash someone's head in. Why or how should a business be responsible for what the purchaser uses the item for?
A person could buy a beer and drink it responsibly. They could buy it and drink irresponsibility. They could just as well display it on some knickknack shelf never to be touched again. Doesn't matter. You can apply this logic to literally any item or service purchased. Stop blaming businesses for potential bad behavior of people.
Only slightly off-topic, but nonetheless within the realm of thought here is another current trend where cities with left-wing mayors and DA's are starting to blame gas stations and convenience stores for crimes that happen in the communities they happen to be situated in. Rather than target criminals they think these businesses have something to do with the crime rate. It's just scapegoating, and going after the businesses is only going to drive them out of the area (maybe that's the goal) and hurt employment prospects for the handful of people there who do want to work.
There actually ARE limitations on drinking. Public drunkenness is a punishable crime in some areas,
Also, if you are on probation or parole and you get caught drunk or even drinking...
In many states that is a violation of said probation or parole and you can get thrown back in prison.
That stipulation gets a lot of your DUI customers according to a lot of the probation and parole officers I've talked to.
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.
