 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers lacked the foreslight to put Freedom of Pleasure into the Constitution, and so getting drunk is not a fundamental right. |
They certainly put in property rights, and privacy rights can be inferred from the 9th Amendment. Those together, plus the 9th's general protection of any rights not specifically mentioned, say to me that drinking IS a Constitutionally protected fundamental right.
quote:
In order for the government to infringe upon a fundamental right, it must show a compelling state interest, and any infringement must be narrowly tailored. |
Actually, I fail to see how a state or government can infringe on ANY fundamental right (which I define as any individual right), even with "compelling state interest", except as a result of a person first infringing upon the rights of another. That is, if someone robs and grocery store, they can be put in prison, because the government has a responsibility to prevent individual rights from being infringed, and to punish infringements.
However, drinking does not infringe on the rights of anyone. There is no way that argument can be made. You might argue that drinking and driving infringes on the rights of others, and I would agree. That's why we have DWI laws. Enforce those, don't pass new legislation that infringes upon the rights of innocent people.
quote:
But...is there a way to more narrowly tailor this law to lessen the infringement on the citizens' freedom? |
Certainly. Make it illegal for people to drink and drive.
Oh wait, we already have that law. Let's try enforcing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Actually, drinking does infringe on someone else's right to life if someone drinks and drives, and ends up crashing into another car and killing the other driver (and/or passenger.)
It's viewed at least by the general public (so thus by the government) that the right to live is more important than the right to drink (and it is because you need the first one to do the second one).
As far as enforcement of not drinking and driving, it boils down to how much you've had, and how much of your sense is left--for most people the enforcement is that they are a little drunk, and they need to have someone else drive them home (or if they are drinking at home to stop and go to bed.) If you're too intoxicated to tell that you shouldn't be on the road, then hope that you have a friend along too that hasn't been drinking.
In some parts of Europe, I think, when a group of friends go out to drink, one of them agrees to be the "bob", one that doesn't drink so that he can drive them back home. Then again, I don't live in Europe, but I know I heard that somewhere...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Actually, drinking does infringe on someone else's right to life if someone drinks and drives, and ends up crashing into another car and killing the other driver (and/or passenger.) |
No, drinking and driving infringes on the rights of other people. The act of drinking doesn't do anything. Punish those who drink and drive, not those who simply drink.
Try and separate the act from the actual crime.
quote:
In some parts of Europe, I think, when a group of friends go out to drink, one of them agrees to be the "bob", one that doesn't drink so that he can drive them back home. Then again, I don't live in Europe, but I know I heard that somewhere... |
Yes, a Designated Driver. Same concept here in the US.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-11-2002 11:56
!
|