[Junior_G]

It seems to me that once you've become drunk you have already relinquished your freedom to alcohol. That's when bar fights start, physical and sexual assaults, drunk driving, etc....You give up your freedom when you allow alcohol to control you.

So your stance can be summarized as "Get Drunk...Go To Jail". Catchy. I think the do-gooder politicians could really run with that one.

Look, alcohol contributes to many, many societal ills; but unfortunately prohibition was already tried and it didn't work. Your stance of "drink one or two drinks, but go to jail if you drink more" is as silly and unrealistic as it gets. I suspect you would like to see alcohol banned outright, but just don't want to admit it. Smugly condemning the 99% of the adult population that has been drunk doesn't serve any real purpose.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Drama drama drama. Enforcing public intoxication laws is hardly a return to prohibition. Frankly, this problem seems small compared to other problems. It's not a fight I picked. I'm just saying that freedom does not demand that every person be left to be as degrading as they want to be in public. A certain amount of control over your own faculties seems to be a reasonable limit to set. Otherwise how can you call it freedom? A drunk is a slave to his bottle.

With all due respect, your passion is greater than mine on this issue, so I'll leave it with you. I don't care only to establish that the Constitution does not prohibit communities from addressing problems with public intoxication. It only makes them equal and free to make their arguments for or against.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Hey, one more thing since Old Professor pulled me back here. Most drunk drivers don't end up in jail. They pay fines and manipulate their way out of it for at least the first two offenses. So I hardly think this would be an issue of jail time. Smack 'em with a fine just like you would a speeder. You don't think it's oppressive of gov't to put a limit on highway speed do you?