Sauce for the Gander
Most of us have entertaining pastimes in
which we like to indulge. They may need to struggle to find moments
of time amongst our many more compulsory tasks, but we are
disinclined to neglect them entirely. They seem to be the difference
between living and having a life.
Often our cherished indulgences are not particularly “good for us” in terms of the more practical activities in living day to day. The inebriation of alcohol consumption may be its entertainment goal, but it comes at a cost in deficiency in many life skills, such as judgment, emotional control, and coordination. It is most unfortunate when such a pleasant indulgence is interrupted by the demands of the everyday world to be elsewhere. The circumstances demand a return to a sober lack of impairment while the simple facts of metabolism make that impossible. Thus we have the clash of “I need to get home” and “I should not be driving”. When we cannot (or will not) resolve this problem with alternate transportation (taxis, designated drivers, walking), we invite trouble to sit besides us as a copilot.
How does a society solve this dilemma between desired indulgence and ubiquitous obligation of the everyday life of work, community, and plodding along? We have tried punishments, such as fines, incarceration, and denial of driving privileges. We have campaigns for designated drivers and responsible drinking. We have instituted treatment programs to instill better understanding of the causes and consequences in hope of promoting better judgment and control by the individual (before he starts drinking). Perhaps these have all had an effect to lower the co-occurrence of drinking and driving, but the problem persists in tragic amounts. A new strategy may be needed to move society's efforts to the next level.
The mistarget of our current DWI penalties is to disallow the person to drive, the socially requisite activity. The repeat drunk driver has often been shown to be scarcely motivated by the absence of a driver's license. He believes he is compelled to continue driving in order to meet his daily responsibilities.
What we need to remove is the person's permission and ability to drink. Certainly as a condition of treatment and correctional supervision, we often do prohibit drinking. The difficulty is in verifying and enforcing this ban. More than occasional spot checks by law enforcement officials are needed. A philosophy and method of community surveillance and access control must be established.
Specifically, we must license the right to drink. Under the powers of the 21st Amendment, the States now regulate and monitor the businesses which distribute and sell alcoholic beverages, but their customers remain largely unrestricted and undocumented. Our sole rule seems to be a prohibition against “under aged” customers for which we expect DMV documentation as proof of age. But what we actually need is “proof of responsibility”.
Some law-abiding drinkers will surely protest this intrusion of yet another government regulation and registration (You may take this bottle from my cold, passed out hands! (but it will be empty by then)). The departments of motor vehicles probably went through the same hassles when they were empowered to promote highway safety through the registration of vehicles and trained drivers. Nonetheless, all but the most die-hard libertarians now accept their role (if not their actual fees, rules, and paperwork).
Whether or not the departments of liquor control establish educational requirements for registration (or a learner's permit program), once the qualified drinker has received his license, he will have the necessary documentation to purchase and consume. Vendors under DLC regulations will not merely guess whether the buyer needs to prove his age, but will now be trained and required to see the drinker's DLC license. A revocation of this license attacks the drinker's voluntary (ignoring, for the moment, medically treatable addiction) desire in advance of its averted consequences if the sanctioned offender feels a transportation need. It moves enforcement from the relative anonymity of highway traffic requiring police intervention to the communal, face-to-face transaction with the regulated vendors. Beyond the highway, this community-based access control system may prevent drunken disorderly conduct and more violent crimes, such as spousal abuse and brawling.
Will vendors break the rules or make errors with false documentation? Yes, almost certainly, but not usually. Will friends serve alcohol to unlicensed friends? Yes, but perhaps a “do you know who is drinking your beer” campaign could heighten everyone's awareness of their role in enabling (or preventing) such violations.
Let's make “responsible drinking” everyone's responsibility. It is not prohibition on law-abiding citizens to regulate; it is society-wide control to be proactive and involved in preventing known violators from abusing privileges we might all wish to enjoy.
Often our cherished indulgences are not particularly “good for us” in terms of the more practical activities in living day to day. The inebriation of alcohol consumption may be its entertainment goal, but it comes at a cost in deficiency in many life skills, such as judgment, emotional control, and coordination. It is most unfortunate when such a pleasant indulgence is interrupted by the demands of the everyday world to be elsewhere. The circumstances demand a return to a sober lack of impairment while the simple facts of metabolism make that impossible. Thus we have the clash of “I need to get home” and “I should not be driving”. When we cannot (or will not) resolve this problem with alternate transportation (taxis, designated drivers, walking), we invite trouble to sit besides us as a copilot.
How does a society solve this dilemma between desired indulgence and ubiquitous obligation of the everyday life of work, community, and plodding along? We have tried punishments, such as fines, incarceration, and denial of driving privileges. We have campaigns for designated drivers and responsible drinking. We have instituted treatment programs to instill better understanding of the causes and consequences in hope of promoting better judgment and control by the individual (before he starts drinking). Perhaps these have all had an effect to lower the co-occurrence of drinking and driving, but the problem persists in tragic amounts. A new strategy may be needed to move society's efforts to the next level.
The mistarget of our current DWI penalties is to disallow the person to drive, the socially requisite activity. The repeat drunk driver has often been shown to be scarcely motivated by the absence of a driver's license. He believes he is compelled to continue driving in order to meet his daily responsibilities.
What we need to remove is the person's permission and ability to drink. Certainly as a condition of treatment and correctional supervision, we often do prohibit drinking. The difficulty is in verifying and enforcing this ban. More than occasional spot checks by law enforcement officials are needed. A philosophy and method of community surveillance and access control must be established.
Specifically, we must license the right to drink. Under the powers of the 21st Amendment, the States now regulate and monitor the businesses which distribute and sell alcoholic beverages, but their customers remain largely unrestricted and undocumented. Our sole rule seems to be a prohibition against “under aged” customers for which we expect DMV documentation as proof of age. But what we actually need is “proof of responsibility”.
Some law-abiding drinkers will surely protest this intrusion of yet another government regulation and registration (You may take this bottle from my cold, passed out hands! (but it will be empty by then)). The departments of motor vehicles probably went through the same hassles when they were empowered to promote highway safety through the registration of vehicles and trained drivers. Nonetheless, all but the most die-hard libertarians now accept their role (if not their actual fees, rules, and paperwork).
Whether or not the departments of liquor control establish educational requirements for registration (or a learner's permit program), once the qualified drinker has received his license, he will have the necessary documentation to purchase and consume. Vendors under DLC regulations will not merely guess whether the buyer needs to prove his age, but will now be trained and required to see the drinker's DLC license. A revocation of this license attacks the drinker's voluntary (ignoring, for the moment, medically treatable addiction) desire in advance of its averted consequences if the sanctioned offender feels a transportation need. It moves enforcement from the relative anonymity of highway traffic requiring police intervention to the communal, face-to-face transaction with the regulated vendors. Beyond the highway, this community-based access control system may prevent drunken disorderly conduct and more violent crimes, such as spousal abuse and brawling.
Will vendors break the rules or make errors with false documentation? Yes, almost certainly, but not usually. Will friends serve alcohol to unlicensed friends? Yes, but perhaps a “do you know who is drinking your beer” campaign could heighten everyone's awareness of their role in enabling (or preventing) such violations.
Let's make “responsible drinking” everyone's responsibility. It is not prohibition on law-abiding citizens to regulate; it is society-wide control to be proactive and involved in preventing known violators from abusing privileges we might all wish to enjoy.
I'll drink to that suggestion. An ice tea of course.
ReplyDelete