warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (08/06/84)
After watching all of the recent fury about drinking and driving laws, it occurs to me that we are in general attacking the wrong half of this problem. The enforcement and penalties are generally aimed at the driving public (roadblocks, liscence suspension, etc.) A major trouble is that it's just too easy to drive without a valid lisence, and driving is just too necessary for existance to suspend it lightly anyway. On the other hand we could at least make it difficult for someone to drink if they deemed to be not responsible enough to handle it, and drinking is not essential to anyone's existance or livelyhood (no flames please). What I would propose is that people be required to have a "drinking license" to buy alcohol. Since most, if not all states already regulate the sale of alcohol anyway, the points of purchase are limited. Since everyone would be required to have the license, many problems with the current practice of carding people suspected of being underage would be eliminated. People caught driving under the influence, or other alcohol related ofenses, for that mater, would lose their licenses for some period of time. Since the penalty would not impose a hardship on anyone, it would probably be much easier to impose on first offenders than driver's license suspencion or jail terms. Sure, there would be enforcement problems, but at least it would take two people conspiring to put a drunk back on the road again, not just a drunk with a set of keys. To make enforcement easier, I would suggest that the licenses be standardized nationally, while keeping local policy options on penalties for mis-use, drinking age, etc. That way, the cards would be the same nationally. This could have other benefits, including the ability to reduce other alcohol related crimes by getting it away from people who don't use it responsibly. It could also help find people with drinking prolbems sooner, and help alcoholics avoid going back to drinking. Any comments? -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH (8-367) x2494
mat@hou4b.UUCP (08/09/84)
I second the idea of a drinking license. For those who wanted both a
driver's license and a drinker's license, a mandatory class should be
established. In the first session, students would be provided with enough
alcohol (based on body weight) to bring their BAC to .2% -- legally
drunk by a good margin. They would be required to consume it over a half
hour period while operating a driving simulator ... one with LOUD alarms
for severe errors. The alarms should have VERY unpleasant sounds.
In the second session, they would watch another group go through what
they did in the first class.
The only problem I see is that getting drunk is a somewhat hazardous
activity. If someone were to be seriously injured or get seriously sick as
a result of this, who would pay??
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (08/09/84)
I think the drinking license is probably a good idea (although
I hate to see yet more govt interferrence) and is certainly a
better idea than roadblocks, taking away drivers licenses, etc.
I must object to a mandatory getting-drunk session, though.
My body gets enough abuse without the govt insisting on my
getting drunk. Not to mention the Biblical warnings about
drunkeness.
Have this experience *available* to those who want it, but don't
make it mandatory for those who have enough intelligence to
know not to get drunk (with or without driving).
--
_____
/_____\ how in blue blazes do they expect a EE to cook on a gas stove?
/_______\
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert