After so many years demonstrating that Prohibition does not work, you might think that the government people would have learned that by now.
But no. Like Communism, Prohibitionism us one of those stubbornly insane memes that seems here to stay. Its proponents echo the endless mistake and an endless tired rant:
Trust us! This time, we can make it work!
It makes very little difference what party they are with, as long as both “sides” agree.
A legislator in Oklahoma will serve as a perfect example.
Oklahoma Senator Patrick Anderson is proposing a bill that would punish those convicted with a DUI charge even further.
Senate Bill 30 asks the department to develop a procedure to order the charged individual abstain from alcohol consumption, and not be allowed to purchase alcohol for a time determined by the judge.
The bill could also form a law that would charge you with a felony should you be caught giving or buying alcohol for a person you know is under alcohol restriction. That felony charge would come with a fine of up to $1,000, or up to a year in prison.
Defense Attorney David Slane says he sees a lot of holes in the bill and worries about it’s requirements if passed.
“The law does not have a catch all provision that would allow for circumstances if it’s in the food,” Slane said, “In cases were people have religious right to take communion where there may be alcohol in the wine does it allow for that?”
The bill also suggests a person charged with a DUI will be ordered a replacement identification card that will bear the words “Alcohol Restricted” on the front and will be required to carry throughout the remainder of their probation.
Lovely. The control freaks have long wanted to monitor all alcohol purchases, and laws like this give them the perfect excuse. As it rankles obviously older purchasers to be asked for ID, laws like this will provide the perfect excuse for universal monitoring of all alcohol sales.
BTW, the legislator in question — one Patrick Anderson — is a Republican. Not that it matters especially, as I am not trying to indict the Republican Party. In fact, the Democratic Party may be even more prone to taking away choices (as commenter c andrew notes here).
What especially irritates me is that this isn’t the first time I have read about Patrick Anderson. He also wants to help communities pass laws which would kill my dog Coco, and that’s something I especially don’t forgive.
What is it with these control freaks?
Is it that something in their brains makes it absolutely impossible for them to leave people alone? Or is it that they’re pandering that mentality?
(I’d like to call them un-American, but I’m afraid their mindset has been around too long and is too deeply embedded in the culture for me to credibly make that claim. Besides, many of them are the kind of people who would call me un-American for disagreeing with them.)
Comments
4 responses to “Which party will make prohibition work?”
The first step was requiring a doctor’s permission to buy pharmaceuticals. Did no one see the camel’s nose under the tent?
I predict –
Within 10 years marijuana will be legal in most states. But smoking anything, anywhere will be illegal.
There are people right now who want to ban cigarettes in cars and homes. Apparently because the second-hand smoke will escape out the window, run across the street into oncoming traffic, find a susceptible baby, and give it lung cancer. Or something…
2nd hand smoke. An even bigger crop of bullshit than man-made global warming, if that’s possible.
I don’t think that a law restricting the activities of a person convicted of DUI is a correct use of the word ‘prohibition.’ A prohibition applies to everyone, not just people convicted of committing crimes.
DUI is a crime, and it should be. Over 1,000 people are killed every month in the U.S. due to drunk driving.
They aren’t just restricting the activities of a person convicted of DUI. They are requiring store owners to get involved with something that is not their concern, and make criminals out of them if they don’t comply, as well as other people who might serve alcohol, etc. Furthermore, to make this work, they would have to check ID from everyone, including obviously old-enough adults.
It is one thing to punish someone for a crime by not allowing him to drink. If he drinks, he can be arrested and charged with a new crime, or for violating probation. To expand criminal liability to others is outrageous.