Liquor Store Sells Cups of Ice in Drive-Thru

[johnnymk]

It's the American Way...YeeHah!! :eek3:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13376255/detail.html?treets=atl&tid=2657805764813&tml=atl_12pm&tmi=atl_12pm_1_11000305242007&ts=H

ATLANTA -- An anti-drunk driving organization and a mother who lost a son to a drunk driver are livid after finding out a southwest Atlanta package store sells liquor and cups of ice through its drive-thru.

A store employee told Channel 2’s Tom Jones that it is an American right for people to buy liquor and a cup of ice to drink on their way home.

State regulations clearly show it is a state violation for package stores to sell anything but bags of ice. That means cups of ice are not allowed. An employee at one liquor store told Channel 2 that’s un-American.

“It’s the American way,” said employee Chris Melton.

Melton works at Ben Hill Package Store and said he is not happy state alcohol agents are forcing the store to stop selling cups of ice.

“These cats, they have a hard day at work, they come to the liquor store, buy a cup of ice…most people. I’m not saying all of them. Before they get home, they’re gonna drink and drive,” said Melton.

He said a message on the store’s cash register urges customers not to drink and drive.

“To give somebody a cup of ice along with the sale of alcohol, there’s something wrong about that,” said Executive Director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Latresse Snead.

Snead said it is clear customers plan to drink and drive when buying a cup of ice and alcohol, especially when purchasing cups at the drive-thru.

“They don’t know if that person that they just sold that alcohol to has kids in the car,” said Snead.

Someone phoned Snead about the store selling cups of ice and liquor through the drive-thru and she told Channel 2.

Channel 2 sent a WSB-TV employee through the drive-thru and videotaped him buying a cup of ice for 15 cents and a bottle of liquor. Channel 2 showed the video to State Alcohol Enforcement Chief David Dyal.

“They can’t do that and then you have people drinking in the open which is a violation of the open container law,” said Dyal.

Dyal sent agents to the store and after noticing an ice cooler for the to-go cups; the store was told to get rid of it and received a warning for the violation.

The store’s owner said he had no idea he couldn’t sell cups of ice. He said no one informed him.

Melton told Channel 2 the ice cup prohibition won’t change his customers’ habits.

“They’re going to do it the American way and have a drink while they’re driving,” said Melton.

Donzella James was appalled to hear the store has sold liquor and cups of ice. James’ 18-year-old son was killed not far from the liquor store by a 5-time drunk driver who had open containers in his truck.

James reacted to Melton’s comments. “I wish you had asked him, ‘What if your child gets killed or your loved one gets killed because of somebody who buys a cup in here and has a drink in here on the way home,” said James.

The Georgia Alcohol Dealer’s Association disputes the state’s interpretation of the regulation banning cups of ice. It thinks stores can sell cups of ice as long as there are lids on the cups, which it thinks would make the cups packaged.

The Revenue Department says the Dealer’s Association is wrong and only bags of ice can be sold.

[Airencracken]

Only in the south. :rolleyes:

[zenbooty]

In New Orleans there were Daiquiri Drive-thrus. Open carry was legal, too, so long as it wasn't in a bottle or can. As it should be, dammit.

[Napoleon54]

Drink and drive, who the eff cares? Sipping a cocktail or other drink on the way home doesn't automatically impair your ability drive. The laws should be against drunk driving, not doing things that might lead to drunk driving. The idea of arresting and charging completely sober people, who are of absolutely no danger to the public, just 'cause there's an open container in the vehicle, is absurd.

[Houdini]

Drink and drive, who the eff cares? Sipping a cocktail or other drink on the way home doesn't automatically impair your ability drive. The laws should be against drunk driving, not doing things that might lead to drunk driving. The idea of arresting and charging completely sober people, who are of absolutely no danger to the public, just 'cause there's an open container in the vehicle, is absurd.

I wouldn't condone drinking while driving, but yeah, going after people for something they MIGHT do is kind of stupid.

What does the South have to do with it? Last I checked, people drink and drive all over the country. :shrug: Hell, in many places, you can't even buy liquor on Sunday in the South.

I still see the drive-thru daqueri joints around here. I think they're going to stop that soon, as they just passed a law outlawing anyone in a car having open containers (in the past, a passenger could drink.) For a long time, as long as a straw was in the lidded cup, but the "cap" of the straw (when you rip a straw paper, like they do in restaurants) was over the straw, it was considered a closed container re: the drive-thru places.

But this case is about selling ICE? And if you buy ice and alcohol that automatically means that you're going to stop at a stop sign and make a cocktail? I don't buy it. Any facts to back this thing up, or is it just an emotional reaction to what MIGHT happen or what people MIGHT do? Open container laws are illegal everywhere anyway (in cars,) so do we need more laws legislating how an open container can get into a car? Ridiculous if you ask me.

[zippyjuan]

Hmm. This is a packaging store- not a liquor store, right? I would think that the question would be why is the packaging store selling alcohol- not why are they selling ice. The headline says liquor store. I am confused.

a southwest Atlanta package store selling liquor and cups of ice

They have drive- through liquor stores in Colorado. I haven't seen any in California yet. A cup of ice could have many things in it- not just alcohol.

[jstreet]

Hmm. This is a packaging store- not a liquor store, right? I would think that the question would be why is the packaging store selling alcohol- not why are they selling ice. The headline says liquor store. I am confused.

They have drive- through liquor stores in Colorado. I haven't seen any in California yet. A cup of ice could have many things in it- not just alcohol.Package store == slang for liquor store. I thought it was limited to New England states, but curiously enough, Wiki affirms it's New England...... and Georgia.


A liquor store is the American name for a type of convenience store which specializes in the sale of alcoholic beverages in the countries where its consumption is strongly regulated. In some parts of the US, (especially New England and on US Navy bases, but also in Georgia), a liquor store is called a package store or "packie" for short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_store

[ShawnLee]

Did not know the package store thing...

1) Drinking and Driving is not the American way. It may have been before, but certainly not anymore. The guy deserves to get smacked just for saying that.
2) I have real issue with fining someone for selling cups of ice. Open carry laws too, for that matter. Both are way too easy bend and twist on the cop's opinion.

[zippyjuan]

I hear "package store" and I'm thinking Mail Boxes Etc or UPS.

[Napoleon54]

I hear "package store" and I'm thinking Mail Boxes Etc or UPS.

:stupid:

I wasn't familiar with that term either. I guess NY isn't New England enough for it.

I still don't understand what's so demonic about an open container. If you can have 2 or 3 drinks and be below the legal limit, then why can't you sip drink #1 while driving down the road? A beer in your hand doesn't automatically make you intoxicated or impair your ability to drive. Stupid laws, stupid senseless laws.

[zippyjuan]

The open container law was intended as a tool to try to cut down on drinking and driving. Not allowing any open containers in a vehicle helps to prevent a driver from handing off a drink he may have to another passenger or say sticking it under the seat to hide it. Police will not stop you just because you have an open container, but if you are stopped for something and they find an open container it gives them a reason to check you out more thouroughly.

In 1998, the Federal Government passed an open container bill. It does not make it a federal crime to have one, but it does reduce highway funds to states without such a law.

[Napoleon54]

The open container law was intended as a tool to try to cut down on drinking and driving. Not allowing any open containers in a vehicle helps to prevent a driver from handing off a drink he may have to another passenger or say sticking it under the seat to hide it. Police will not stop you just because you have an open container, but if you are stopped for something and they find an open container it gives them a reason to check you out more thouroughly.
See, I completely agree that drinking and driving is not a good thing. You shouldn't get buzzed and go for a joy ride. What I do take issue with is drinking while driving, if you're not buzzed.


In 1998, the Federal Government passed an open container bill. It does not make it a federal crime to have one, but it does reduce highway funds to states without such a law.

This is the stuff I absolutely can't stand, the consequences of a big government that doesn't respect its limits. Feds have no jurisdiction over vehicle or traffic law. But since they've gotten into the business of funding highways, it allows them to blackmail states into doing what they want. They control the money --> they control the states, even though they have no legal authority for doing so.

[jstreet]

Feds have no jurisdiction over vehicle or traffic law. But since they've gotten into the business of funding highways, it allows them to blackmail states into doing what they want. They control the money --> they control the states, even though they have no legal authority for doing so.They control their money. Could it work another way? Should the states control the federal government's money? Certainly not.

I see it as a good example of market economics. Could the states legally refuse highway aid and fund it on their own, likely be raising taxes? Of course, legally... but all the people would move away. Who wants to pay higher taxes?

The benefits of the funding outweigh the consequences.

[cheapie]

drinking alcohol in a vehicle is dumb. one drink can impair your driving.

[Napoleon54]

They control their money. Could it work another way? Should the states control the federal government's money? Certainly not.

I see it as a good example of market economics. Could the states legally refuse highway aid and fund it on their own, likely be raising taxes? Of course, legally... but all the people would move away. Who wants to pay higher taxes?

The benefits of the funding outweigh the consequences.

I think states should fund their own highways. I have a ton of respect for states like New Hampshire, which loses tons of federal highway funding because they refuse to pass seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws.

Money that comes from the Federal government isn't free, it doesn't grow on trees. Highways are going to be funded through taxes one way or another. The only question is on what level that funding is going to be controlled: state or federal? I think the feds should get out of the highway business. States should have control over their own roadways. Putting highway dollars through this federal system ensures that states with the best pork barrel congressmen are going to have better highways at the expense of everyone else.

[zenbooty]

Just so I'm not misinterpreted, When I referred earlier to open container laws, I was not referring to laws that restrict people inside a vehicle. I'm talking about silly BS laws that say you can't have an open container anywhere out in public. Like up here in New York, I can get ticketed just for hanging out on the sidewalk in front of the bar with a drink in my hand. Barbaric.

[zenbooty]

I think states should fund their own highways. I have a ton of respect for states like New Hampshire, which loses tons of federal highway funding because they refuse to pass seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws.

Money that comes from the Federal government isn't free, it doesn't grow on trees. Highways are going to be funded through taxes one way or another. The only question is on what level that funding is going to be controlled: state or federal? I think the feds should get out of the highway business. States should have control over their own roadways. Putting highway dollars through this federal system ensures that states with the best pork barrel congressmen are going to have better highways at the expense of everyone else.
If the feds didn't get involved in the highway business we'd still be travelling and shipping goods cross country by train primarily, and people in the west and midwest would still be dealing with starvation whenever the crops fail.

[Napoleon54]

If the feds didn't get involved in the highway business we'd still be travelling and shipping goods cross country by train primarily, and people in the west and midwest would still be dealing with starvation whenever the crops fail.

Not true. There are plenty of examples of infrastructure developing without federal funding. Did you know that the feds also use highway funding blackmail to force the states to make the drinking age 21 yo? That's not a true federal law, it's only a provision of highway funding... if state X doesn't comply with making the drinking age 21, then they lose highway funding. Along with a host of other things.

I guess I'm kinda dancing around the true point I want to make. If it is necessary for the feds to fund highways, then do it. But don't use that funding as blackmail to force the states to comply with things that Congress has no Constitutional authority to legislate... i.e. vehicle and traffic law. Once that happens, once Congress realizes it can step outside of its limits and do things it legally can't, then the flood gates are open. They've jumped the fence and are running loose, there's little or no control over it anymore.

If you really want the feds to be able to mandate a minimum drinking age or seatbelt laws or open container laws, then ammend the Constitution to give Congress more leeway. Keep it under control. Don't let it run amok doing whatever it feels like.


And jstreet... it's not their money. It's OUR money, it belongs to the American people.

[oblongmelon]

Drink and drive, who the eff cares? Sipping a cocktail or other drink on the way home doesn't automatically impair your ability drive. The laws should be against drunk driving, not doing things that might lead to drunk driving. The idea of arresting and charging completely sober people, who are of absolutely no danger to the public, just 'cause there's an open container in the vehicle, is absurd.

I care. My family cares. All the friends and parents of the friends of my 19 year old niece who was killed by a drunk driver care. She would have been 31 years old..her killer had been arrested in two states for drinking and driving prior to his killing of my niece and her friend here in New York. He was only sentenced to 2 1/4 years for the death of two teenagers for DRINKING AND DRIVING. He got out early for good behavior while in jail enjoying cable TV, a nice warm place to sleep and food in his stomach. Sipping anything with alcohol in it while driving is irresponsible and negligent. Let me remind you that the laws that are supposed to protect the victims of drunk drivers are the same laws that allow drunk drivers to get away with murder.Literally.

Your comment "who the eff cares" is more than astounding to me. I hope you never have to experience what the families and victims of drunk/semi drunk drivers go through on a daily basis. Even one drink can impare your ability to drive so let's not go there. I believe I'm speaking for more than myself when I say this but I think your nonchalant attitude about having a drink on the way home is really and truly ignorant.

[cheapie]

+1

i was in an extremely serious accident caused by a drunk driver and i can't imagine drinking while driving.

[InfiniteNothing]

Did the guy have an open container in the car?

[zippyjuan]

Allowing open containes makes it easier to drink and drive. While the container law will not prevent this, it is intended to discourage it. Once people start to drink, they become unable to determine accurately if they have had too much or not. See page seven of this document http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/aclimit.pdf This is why they do not want to allow ANY drinking in a vehicle.

Saying that people should be able to drink until they think they should not drive is irresponsible in this case. You see it as a personal decision, but that decision has impacts on those around them- as Cheapie and Obbey have shown. There is little pracitcal difference between drinking and driving and drinking while driving. I hope you are not trying to excuse drunk driving.

Did the guy have an open container in the car?

Is is more or less of a crime if he did? As I said, allowing open continers increases the chances that someone will drink and drive and that they in turn could injure or kill another person. If you know you are not allowed to have an open container in your car, you are less likely to be drinking while driving which makes the roads safer for everyone.

[Houdini]

I think states should fund their own highways. I have a ton of respect for states like New Hampshire, which loses tons of federal highway funding because they refuse to pass seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws.

Money that comes from the Federal government isn't free, it doesn't grow on trees. Highways are going to be funded through taxes one way or another. The only question is on what level that funding is going to be controlled: state or federal? I think the feds should get out of the highway business. States should have control over their own roadways. Putting highway dollars through this federal system ensures that states with the best pork barrel congressmen are going to have better highways at the expense of everyone else.

While I am for wearing seatbelts, etc. The only thing I have to add is that I see your point. When I first moved to NOLA (and when ZB was here as well) the drinking age was 18. Only changed b/c of the highway funding thing.

[zippyjuan]

One of the things people expect of government is to protect them. This includes efforts to improve safety. We want clean, drinkable water and breathable air along with safe foods and medicines. We want safety at work and on the roads. When somebody dies in a accident, people want to know what can be done to try to prevent that from happening in the future. That is why these laws came into being. We want potholes or dangerous intersections fixed for the same reason. Wearing seatbelts saves lives. Laws that reduce drunk driving save lives.

[Houdini]

One of the things people expect of government is to protect them. This includes efforts to improve safety. We want clean, drinkable water and breathable air along with safe foods and medicines. We want safety at work and on the roads. When somebody dies in a accident, people want to know what can be done to try to prevent that from happening in the future. That is why these laws came into being. We want potholes or dangerous intersections fixed for the same reason. Wearing seatbelts saves lives. Laws that reduce drunk driving save lives.

I guess the only argument to that would be: does banning selling ice at a package store, or even drive-thru beer barns and daquiri shops, save lives? Or is it just a law based on a guess?

Not taking sides, just pointing it out.

[Napoleon54]

Everyone who's trying to flame me here is pointing their fingers at something that isn't the problem. I'm entirely unequivocally 100% against drunk driving. I have no sympathy for drunks who kill people on our highways.

But that's not at all the point. The point is that nobody is going to get drunk from sipping a drink while driving down the road. If they're not drunk, then what's wrong with that? There are already laws against drunk driving. Why the redundancy? So you can pull over to the side of the road, chug a beer, get back in the car and that's fine as long as you're not drunk... but drinking the beer while driving is wrong? That makes no sense.

The open container law is really a law against drinking at a certain place and time, not against endangering other people. How about focusing on the people who have 5 or 6 drinks before deciding to get behind the wheel? Open container law is a victimless crime. If people are driving drunk, then that's already illegal.

[InfiniteNothing]

An open container could be entirely benign (friend drinking?) so I think the more appropriate and entirely sufficient place to put the restriction is on the BAC of the driver.


Sure, you could always hand your open container to the passenger and pretend you weren't drinking but that isn't going to suddenly cause your BAC level to go down. The officer would still have probable cause to make you blow and you'll still go to jail. The only situation where an open container law would punish a person where the BAC law wouldn't is benign cases where the driver doesn't deserve to be punished.

[jstreet]

I think states should fund their own highways. I have a ton of respect for states like New Hampshire, which loses tons of federal highway funding because they refuse to pass seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws.

Money that comes from the Federal government isn't free, it doesn't grow on trees. Highways are going to be funded through taxes one way or another. The only question is on what level that funding is going to be controlled: state or federal? I think the feds should get out of the highway business. States should have control over their own roadways. Putting highway dollars through this federal system ensures that states with the best pork barrel congressmen are going to have better highways at the expense of everyone else.States are entitled to do just that. Where federal government funding is offered alongside federal restrictions, state funding can take its place with different, or no restrictions. Nobody's stopping them from doing so; it's just a disadvantage.


And jstreet... it's not their money. It's OUR money, it belongs to the American people.No, it isn't. Taxpayers have no legal right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_standing) to say how their money can be spent once it reaches the federal government.

For better or worse, we agree to contribute a portion of money to the federal government; and once it is there, it is theirs, not ours. "They" are our elected representatives, but "they" are not us. It is gone; we might as well kiss it goodbye.

To get it back -- like for something such as highway funding -- of course there will be restrictions. If there were no restrictions, there'd have been no reason to have contributed it in the first place. They obviously didn't have anything better to do with it than to just give it back, purposelessly.

And even if you want to say that it is still "our" money, I'd again disagree. Washington DC citizens get $6 in federal funding for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. Many poor states have a 2-1 ratio. So those federal dollars that build the highway in their state? Not theirs. Mine. And frankly, if the feds are going to spend my money on a part of highway in a state I'll not regularly see, I'd rather they only spend it the one time -- instead of over and over and over again because drunk drivers kept wrecking the medians or otherwise messing it up.

[jstreet]

Everyone who's trying to flame me here is pointing their fingers at something that isn't the problem. I'm entirely unequivocally 100% against drunk driving. I have no sympathy for drunks who kill people on our highways.

But that's not at all the point. The point is that nobody is going to get drunk from sipping a drink while driving down the road. If they're not drunk, then what's wrong with that? There are already laws against drunk driving. Why the redundancy? So you can pull over to the side of the road, chug a beer, get back in the car and that's fine as long as you're not drunk... but drinking the beer while driving is wrong? That makes no sense.

The open container law is really a law against drinking at a certain place and time, not against endangering other people. How about focusing on the people who have 5 or 6 drinks before deciding to get behind the wheel? Open container law is a victimless crime. If people are driving drunk, then that's already illegal.Well, immediately I don't find this compelling because you're painting the picture as if drunk driving == liability and everything else == no liability. Any amount of alcohol impairs your driving skill. Any amount of alcohol should be avoided by the responsible driver. The reason why there is a specific DUI number is because that is the number at which point the state believes you are SO negligent that you must be severely punished for it. Open container laws, by contrast, reflect a lesser level of negligence, and a lesser penalty as a result.

And aside from that fact -- I just see no harm in it. There is no right to drink, as dry towns show us; there is no right to drive, as drivers' licenses show us. There is no right to drink and drive, and to me, no compelling reason to change that.

Typical balancing equation -- goods vs. bads. How is a person's and the public's welfare affected by banning or not banning it?

[zippyjuan]

I guess the point of contention concerning selling cups of ice along with alcohol comes under the same view of the open container law- it makes it more likely that the person with the cup or open container will consume their alcoholic beverage while still in their car- making it easier for them to drive drunk. I think the ice in a cup by itself would not be an issue or if it was purchased with soda like at a McDonalds drive-up.

[Houdini]

Still, it's impossible to assume that the driver will pour the alcohol into the ice and drink it while driving. He/she may just want a cold one after arriving home. I'm all for measures to prevent drunk driving, but legislating what people MIGHT do may be overstepping things. :shrug:

As far as street funding, does any fed money go into city streets (non-interstate, etc?) NOLA has probably the worst roads in the country, for such a city. Medians are always torn up (and they have big scary -for wheels- steel wrap-arounds.) And there's a pothole about every 6 feet. I've had to replace many a tire, and my formerly nice wheels are pretty banged up. Even hit a pothole today and scuffed my passengers' rear wheel and left a small tear in my sidewall. Not to mention my control-arm bushings, which are cracked (though the local STEALERSHIP lied to me before it was out of warranty. Then, a mile after the warranty ended, they were magically broken...gotta get that fixed.) Still a product of the crappy roads.

Or beloved - heh - mayor (some call him "Car 54" because either his head is in the clouds as usual, or he's still living with his family in effing Dallas) who declared "war" on potholes his first term, hasn't taken steps to make the city fill even ONE. I've seen private citizens dumping shells and stuff into some bad ones. You just can't own a nice car in this town, and if you want to attract people to live in this city - and you want to attract money - your ride from the airport shouldn't feel like you're in a Boston Whaler going 40 nauts over medium seas - fillings falling out, etc.

[zippyjuan]

I think after Katrina the pot holes moved down the priorities list.

[Houdini]

I think after Katrina the pot holes moved down the priorities list.

Nah...they were never on the priorities list. Nagin had plenty of time to do ANYTHING about them - ages before Katrina. And Katrina didn't affect all of New Orleans anyway. Not much progress going on at all, from the city that is, on much of the Katrina residuals. Private companies, citizens, and NGOs are doing a lot in the really damaged areas, and people are rebuilding in parts that were trashed that were outside of NOLA.

Katrina affected a lot more than NOLA. Outside the city limits, places were trashed. Even along the MS Gulf Coast, which got hit a LOT harder than NOLA, things are back up and running very, very well. It's like night and day.

In short, yeah, Nagin is incompetent, period. He's a jerk IRL, on the phone, and in movie theaters, and he has a crappy handshake. He's done nothing for the city except embarrass it. And Katrina hit right before his second term. He had years to do anything about allocating money to fixing the damn roads. What about the first term?

Bad roads = bad tires = more wrecks, higher insurance, poor gas mileage, difficulty attracting people to live here.

A lot of people have misconceptions about Katrina and its impact. I don't mean to minimize it, as it did to a lot of damage, in the long run, primarily economically. Fewer hospital beds (almost no psych beds) etc. But it's coming back, just not nearly as fast as MS, which is ironic, as MS took the brunt.

But such is the proud history of Louisiana corruption. :shrug:

I guess my main point is that Katrina was and is unrelated to the potholes. Until you drive around NOLA for a few days (and it's had potholes the size of moon craters for the 11-12 years I've lived here, and much, much longer,) it's difficult to see what I'm talking about. Drive around CA or Atlanta or wherever, and then drive in the city of NOLA. It's like you went from the Autobahn to driving a moon rover.

[Napoleon54]

And aside from that fact -- I just see no harm in it. There is no right to drink, as dry towns show us; there is no right to drive, as drivers' licenses show us. There is no right to drink and drive, and to me, no compelling reason to change that.

Typical balancing equation -- goods vs. bads. How is a person's and the public's welfare affected by banning or not banning it?

Well then, why not ban alcohol completely? Reinstate prohibition, that would really cut down on drunk driving. And ban driving too while we're at it. Neither drinking nor driving is a right, right?

You're correct, it is a tradeoff between goods vs. bads. That's why DWI laws are based on blood alcohol content; one or two drinks and a BAC below 0.08% or so does not significantly inhibit one's ability to drive.

I still haven't heard a compelling argument for why someone sipping a drink behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.02% is a danger to the public. If it's a lesser evil that deserves a lesser penalty, as you say, then why do we not ticket people who blow 0.02% but don't have a drink in their hand? The fact of the matter is that the open container law doesn't punish anything relevant to public safety. It simply and clearly punishes only the action of having a drink in your hand at a certain place and time and has no relevance to one's level of intoxication.

Please consider the following scenario:

Person A is driving down the road completely sober and opens a beer to sip on. BAC tops out at around 0.02%.

Person B is also driving down the road completely sober but decides to pull over at a rest stop to have his/ her beer. Chugs three of them, gets back in car and continues driving with a BAC of 0.06%.

Person A and person B both go through a police checkpoint. A gets a ticket but B doesn't. Please tell me how that makes any sense.

[jstreet]

Well then, why not ban alcohol completely? Reinstate prohibition, that would really cut down on drunk driving. And ban driving too while we're at it. Neither drinking nor driving is a right, right?That would be another balancing equation. How does banning alcohol completely affect the individual and the public, good and bad? Does it make sense to the majority of the country to ban alcohol completely? I don't think it does. There are a variety of situations in which consuming alcohol doesn't threaten the public welfare. The consequences of that particular remedy outweigh the problem it is trying to solve... so we don't do that.


You're correct, it is a tradeoff between goods vs. bads. That's why DWI laws are based on blood alcohol content; one or two drinks and a BAC below 0.08% or so does not significantly inhibit one's ability to drive.

I still haven't heard a compelling argument for why someone sipping a drink behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.02% is a danger to the public. If it's a lesser evil that deserves a lesser penalty, as you say, then why do we not ticket people who blow 0.02% but don't have a drink in their hand? The fact of the matter is that the open container law doesn't punish anything relevant to public safety. It simply and clearly punishes only the action of having a drink in your hand at a certain place and time and has no relevance to one's level of intoxication.Come on, now. An open container of alcohol is directly relevant to one's level of intoxication. Do you think you're arguing the average case or the extreme case when talking about a driver who chooses to open a beer and leave it in the cupholder, untouched, for the duration of the drive?

It isn't proof that they're stone cold sober any more than it is that they're blind drunk, but it's extremely compelling evidence that they have consumed alcohol while driving, an action that impairs their ability, a situation society has determined is not tolerable.

It is a simple inconvenience to ask someone to wait until they have stopped driving, versus banning all alcohol, everywhere as you suggest. It is enormously easier for the state to enforce, as opposed to breath-testing everyone, everywhere -- and certainly less invasive to the driver.


Please consider the following scenario:

Person A is driving down the road completely sober and opens a beer to sip on. BAC tops out at around 0.02%.

Person B is also driving down the road completely sober but decides to pull over at a rest stop to have his/ her beer. Chugs three of them, gets back in car and continues driving with a BAC of 0.06%.

Person A and person B both go through a police checkpoint. A gets a ticket but B doesn't. Please tell me how that makes any sense.Makes perfect sense to me.

Person A cannot wait to get out of his car to engage in an action that will impair his driving to the disservice of other drivers. His values -- alcohol over safety -- don't comport with the values (read: laws) of society. He is punished.

Person B can wait to get out of his car, and chooses to impair himself in a setting where he is not a danger to his fellow man. This is fine by society -- up until a certain point, where his judgement and responsibility are called into question (0.08).

Both seem like rational choices to me. I would agree that the person who can't abstain from drinking while driving doesn't share my value system, sense of judgement, or sense of responsibility on the road.

As for why not charge the person with a crime who is on the road and who has a 0<x<0.08 blood alcohol level, I'd bet that society would probably find that unworkable. There doesn't exist a machine that can measure blood alcohol level with no margin of error and account for alcohol in the system from means other than drinking (Wisconsin in passing a law believed it might be from cough medicine or mouthwash). No bright lines makes for messy laws.

Further, society would probably find it unworkable/unacceptable to ban all driving from bars. Again, balancing test -- society isn't going to accept the banning of all driving from bars in favor of cutting down on drunk driving. And how would it be enforced? Would police breathalyze everyone, at every stop? Police resources aren't there and the public would find it too invasive. Plus, another lack of clear rules and bright lines. Society doesn't work well with vagaries and neither does it trust police with vagaries.

It's all about the whims and cultural norms of a population - that's our system of government. For better or worse, a majority of them think that people who drink a ****load and get in the car are very bad -- and that people who need to drink while they drive have a problem and are kind of bad. As for people that go out to a bar, have a drink, and head home? That's pretty much everyone, no harm, no foul.

At the end of the day, yes, I suppose perhaps there's a person who opens a beer in their car and doesn't drink it - they just wanted to do open it and let it sit. Well, that one person, probably out of a billion, doesn't matter much to the billion :shrug:

[oblongmelon]

If you've been drinking-you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. PERIOD. There is nothing that will ever change my mind on that. If you DO drink and get behind the wheel of a car-then it's your own fault when you or someone else gets hurt. And I'm sure there will be some people that will say "oh like you never did" ...and the answer is yes, I did, when I was young and very very VERY stupid and thought the world was mine in a handbasket-like all young people do. But now I'm older and much wiser. And also having a career as a nurse did show me what ONE drink could do to a person when they ended up in the E.R. (my pre-neonatal ICU years) from being stupid enough to drink and drive.

[renovation]

there should also be a law that people cant put on make up and drive a car at the same time . i got rear ended once by a woman who drop her lipstick and bent down to recover it.all while we were on the freeway at rush hour and moving at 60 mph .

[oblongmelon]

there should also be a law that people cant put on make up and drive a car at the same time . i got rear ended once by a woman who drop her lipstick and bent down to recover it.all while we were on the freeway at rush hour and moving at 60 mph .

I agree!

[ShawnLee]

"There should be a law..."
-One phrase in five very dangerous words in the English language that immediately make everything following it suspect.

[Napoleon54]

That would be another balancing equation. How does banning alcohol completely affect the individual and the public, good and bad? Does it make sense to the majority of the country to ban alcohol completely? I don't think it does. There are a variety of situations in which consuming alcohol doesn't threaten the public welfare. The consequences of that particular remedy outweigh the problem it is trying to solve... so we don't do that.

Come on, now. An open container of alcohol is directly relevant to one's level of intoxication. Do you think you're arguing the average case or the extreme case when talking about a driver who chooses to open a beer and leave it in the cupholder, untouched, for the duration of the drive?

It isn't proof that they're stone cold sober any more than it is that they're blind drunk, but it's extremely compelling evidence that they have consumed alcohol while driving, an action that impairs their ability, a situation society has determined is not tolerable.

It is a simple inconvenience to ask someone to wait until they have stopped driving, versus banning all alcohol, everywhere as you suggest. It is enormously easier for the state to enforce, as opposed to breath-testing everyone, everywhere -- and certainly less invasive to the driver.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Person A cannot wait to get out of his car to engage in an action that will impair his driving to the disservice of other drivers. His values -- alcohol over safety -- don't comport with the values (read: laws) of society. He is punished.

Person B can wait to get out of his car, and chooses to impair himself in a setting where he is not a danger to his fellow man. This is fine by society -- up until a certain point, where his judgement and responsibility are called into question (0.08).

Both seem like rational choices to me. I would agree that the person who can't abstain from drinking while driving doesn't share my value system, sense of judgement, or sense of responsibility on the road.

As for why not charge the person with a crime who is on the road and who has a 0<x<0.08 blood alcohol level, I'd bet that society would probably find that unworkable. There doesn't exist a machine that can measure blood alcohol level with no margin of error and account for alcohol in the system from means other than drinking (Wisconsin in passing a law believed it might be from cough medicine or mouthwash). No bright lines makes for messy laws.

Further, society would probably find it unworkable/unacceptable to ban all driving from bars. Again, balancing test -- society isn't going to accept the banning of all driving from bars in favor of cutting down on drunk driving. And how would it be enforced? Would police breathalyze everyone, at every stop? Police resources aren't there and the public would find it too invasive. Plus, another lack of clear rules and bright lines. Society doesn't work well with vagaries and neither does it trust police with vagaries.

It's all about the whims and cultural norms of a population - that's our system of government. For better or worse, a majority of them think that people who drink a ****load and get in the car are very bad -- and that people who need to drink while they drive have a problem and are kind of bad. As for people that go out to a bar, have a drink, and head home? That's pretty much everyone, no harm, no foul.

At the end of the day, yes, I suppose perhaps there's a person who opens a beer in their car and doesn't drink it - they just wanted to do open it and let it sit. Well, that one person, probably out of a billion, doesn't matter much to the billion :shrug:

I guess I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Drinking a beer while driving a car is not a danger to society unless you get drunk doing it, and there are already laws against that.

The only new perspective I can offer is that I think the difference between having a drink BEFORE you get behind the wheel and having a drink WHILE you're behind the wheel is insignificant. :shrug:

[Napoleon54]

Sorry, I can't get away from this topic. Keep coming back to it in my head.

jstreet, a personal question if you don't mind: do you drink alcohol?


That would be another balancing equation. How does banning alcohol completely affect the individual and the public, good and bad? Does it make sense to the majority of the country to ban alcohol completely? I don't think it does. There are a variety of situations in which consuming alcohol doesn't threaten the public welfare. The consequences of that particular remedy outweigh the problem it is trying to solve... so we don't do that. Agreed.


Come on, now. An open container of alcohol is directly relevant to one's level of intoxication. Do you think you're arguing the average case or the extreme case when talking about a driver who chooses to open a beer and leave it in the cupholder, untouched, for the duration of the drive? An open container is not nearly as relevant as someone's blood alcohol level. The technology and procedures for measuring that are very well established. Let's stick to that, a true measure of intoxication, rather than worry about differences in how that intoxication is achieved.


It isn't proof that they're stone cold sober any more than it is that they're blind drunk, but it's extremely compelling evidence that they have consumed alcohol while driving, an action that impairs their ability, a situation society has determined is not tolerable. Fine, then have them blow in the Breathalyzer. That's probable cause. If they're drunk, then DWI them.


It is a simple inconvenience to ask someone to wait until they have stopped driving, versus banning all alcohol, everywhere as you suggest. It is enormously easier for the state to enforce, as opposed to breath-testing everyone, everywhere -- and certainly less invasive to the driver. I keep coming back to my point: intoxication is dangerous. Driving with a drink in your hand is only dangerous if you're also intoxicated. Open container is a tempting "feel good" kind of law that addresses appearances but not the real issue. Angered by drunk drivers? Attack something new: open containers, even though that's not the problem.


Person A cannot wait to get out of his car to engage in an action that will impair his driving to the disservice of other drivers. His values -- alcohol over safety -- don't comport with the values (read: laws) of society. He is punished. It's not a question of can't wait to get out of the car. The point is that person A shouldn't have to. There are times I get out of work when it would be really nice to pick up a beer to drink on the way home. Especially since my air conditioner is broke, and especially back when I had a longer commute (~45 minutes). In fact, I would say that a beer would help my commute immensely. I'm an agressive driver by nature. Other drivers on the road would probably be a lot safer if I had a beer to help me calm down. Not enough to impair my judgement, but enough to settle the nerves.


Person B can wait to get out of his car, and chooses to impair himself in a setting where he is not a danger to his fellow man. This is fine by society -- up until a certain point, where his judgement and responsibility are called into question (0.08). That "certain point" should be the standard, and shouldn't depend on where the drinking occurs.

And if person A, drink in hand, doesn't reach that "certain point, where his judgement and responsibility are called into question (0.08)", then what's the problem??!!


Both seem like rational choices to me. I would agree that the person who can't abstain from drinking while driving doesn't share my value system, sense of judgement, or sense of responsibility on the road. You say "can't", and later on you describe A-type as people who "need to drink while they drive". Those aren't the people I'm talking about, and those aren't the only people who are affected by open container laws. Those people should be in a program or rehab or behind bars; they have larger issues than a traffic ticket for open container. Those are the people who have multiple DWIs and are the real danger to us all. An open container ticket is nothing to those people.

I'm talking about Joe Blow... you, me, the majority, who ARE NOT alcoholics. Jane and Joe Blow aren't a threat to society if they don't drive while intoxicated. Whether they have one drink before or while or after they're behind the wheel is a moot point, as long as they're not legally intoxicated.


For the most part, I agree with the rest of your post.

[oblongmelon]

I guess I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Drinking a beer while driving a car is not a danger to society unless you get drunk doing it, and there are already laws against that.

The only new perspective I can offer is that I think the difference between having a drink BEFORE you get behind the wheel and having a drink WHILE you're behind the wheel is insignificant. :shrug:

You should just stop while you're ahead..you're really making yourself sound foolish.

[renovation]

You should just stop while you're ahead..you're really making yourself sound foolish.i agree .

[jstreet]

Sorry, I can't get away from this topic. Keep coming back to it in my head.

jstreet, a personal question if you don't mind: do you drink alcohol?No problem - yes, I do.


An open container is not nearly as relevant as someone's blood alcohol level. The technology and procedures for measuring that are very well established. Let's stick to that, a true measure of intoxication, rather than worry about differences in how that intoxication is achieved.Ah, but that's different. "Not nearly as relevant" is different from "not relevant". My point was that in 99% of cases, someone with an open container has been consuming the alcohol inside of it. For reasons already stated, a Breathalyzer may not be a practical option, and even if it is, and even if it results in a lower BAL than 0.08, society may still view it negatively. As I said, in my view, in my opinion, my own two cents -- someone who would prefer to drink while driving I think has their priorities reversed. It would seem that enough people agreed to get a law passed, and that's guv'ment. If enough people don't like it, it'll go away.


Open container is a tempting "feel good" kind of law that addresses appearances but not the real issue.Not if the issue is "we don't want people drinking while they drive". The crime of drinking while driving becomes somewhat handicapped without an open container law.

I think the fundamental disagreement here is on two points: (1) is there harm from drinking while driving, though not to the 0.08 limit, and (2) do the benefits gained by society in banning drinking while driving outweigh the benefits lost to the driver who can't drink?

I say yes and yes. I get the idea you're no and no. Hey, that's life.

I do understand the libertarian mentality, and I agree with it pretty often, but there are some societal ills that government is great at remedying. This whole discussion, for instance, makes me think of the ban on cigarette smoking at the gas pump. I used to be a smoker. I love cigarettes. I didn't particularly like how they stunk up the car though, so what better time to light up then in the few minutes I'm outside my car, filling up the tank?

Same thing as you coming back from work. I can appreciate the desire for a cold one after a long day, too.

Maybe there's only one time I blow up the gas station out of a million cigarettes, because the gas fumes were just so on that day.... and maybe there's only one time you kill someone out of a million beers, because you were just that nanosecond more impaired then you would've been otherwise -- but that's too heavy of a price for a sip of beer or a drag on a cigarette, especially when you could just do both 5 minutes later.

[Houdini]

"There should be a law..."
-One phrase in five very dangerous words in the English language that immediately make everything following it suspect.

:stupid:

[Houdini]

Still an interesting discussion. I've never had a sip of any alcohol while behind the wheel. I can understand trying to ban anything that would enable people to be impaired more easily, but I can also understand a fallacy of making a law only to extend something that's already illegal. Like Nap said, if you slam down a few drinks and then drive, but may be borderline intoxicated, legally you're in the clear. But if you have a beer open in your car, even if you're stone-cold sober or have a few molecules of EtOH in your system, you're screwed. You have to admit it is a valid point, especially when we're talking about enacting laws.

Still, I'm not in favor of having alcohol containers open in cars. I too have seen too many DUI DOAs and injuries that make me have the emotional pull to understand wanting to keep automotive open-container laws on the books. May not be backed by studies, or even by strict sense, but still, I feel that way.

Same with cigarettes. I like the analogy Ben gave, not that I smoke at gas stations. :) I do smoke, stupidly, and for some reasons/excuses some of you know, but the Commit losenges are pretty cool.

The main thing I'd like to add is that 0.08 is just a number - not related to impairment. I've had perfectly rational conversations with people (well, maybe not perfect, but at least able to converse) with people with BAC of 0.24 or so. For most of us, that would be death. For alcohol, tolerance is a real thing. Also, a small woman drinking one beer is more likely to have a higher BAC than a man of equal size or larger. Just the way we're built - men burn alcohol better. So the current 0.08 one-size-fits all law is flawed anyway.

[Napoleon54]

You should just stop while you're ahead..you're really making yourself sound foolish.

That's all a matter of perspective.

You know what sounds foolish to me? Passing laws based on the gut reaction of associating alcohol with driving, instead of INTOXICATION with driving.

If I look foolish to you for saying something that makes complete logical sense, then IMHO it's not I who is the fool.

But anyway, thanks for adding something to the discussion. :rolleyes:

[Napoleon54]

Maybe there's only one time I blow up the gas station out of a million cigarettes, because the gas fumes were just so on that day.... and maybe there's only one time you kill someone out of a million beers, because you were just that nanosecond more impaired then you would've been otherwise -- but that's too heavy of a price for a sip of beer or a drag on a cigarette, especially when you could just do both 5 minutes later.

In order for that analogy to work you'd have to assume that smoking BEFORE you got to the gas station posed a risk of explosion. That's not true. A driver who leaves a bar with a 0.07% BAC is much more likely to blow up the gas station compared to a driver with a BAC of 0.02 who happens to be sipping a beer.

It is completely legal for a driver to have 2 or 3 or 4 beers and get behind the wheel as long as BAC isn't above the legal limit. Leaving your unfinished beer at the bar, rather than taking it with you, does not reduce the risk posed by the alcohol that's already been consumed.

Smoking one cigarette or a whole pack before you get to the gas station doesn't pose a risk of explosion. It is only the one lit one that is a hazard, not the dozen butts.

Beer #1 is not a danger regardless of where it is consumed- in a bar, at a party, or in the vehicle. Just like any cigarette smoked away from the gas station isn't a danger.

Analogy doesn't work.

[oblongmelon]

That's all a matter of perspective.

You know what sounds foolish to me? Passing laws based on the gut reaction of associating alcohol with driving, instead of INTOXICATION with driving.

If I look foolish to you for saying something that makes complete logical sense, then IMHO it's not I who is the fool.

But anyway, thanks for adding something to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Logical sense? omg. Obviously, you have a very strong position on this in your own mind. Good for you! Have a beer on the way home and whoop it up!:wavey2:

[Jeffbx]

It is completely legal for a driver to have 2 or 3 or 4 beers and get behind the wheel as long as BAC isn't above the legal limit.

But can't you be charged with driving under the influence even if you're less than .08? I seem to recall that driving erratically can be a different charge than being above .08, no matter what your limit is. So if a 90LB woman had a couple of beers & was smashed but still below the limit, she could still be charged with something if stopped. Maybe it differs by state, but I think it's the same law that allows someone to be charged with driving while under the influence of drugs.

[zenbooty]

But can't you be charged with driving under the influence even if you're less than .08? I seem to recall that driving erratically can be a different charge than being above .08, no matter what your limit is. So if a 90LB woman had a couple of beers & was smashed but still below the limit, she could still be charged with something if stopped. Maybe it differs by state, but I think it's the same law that allows someone to be charged with driving while under the influence of drugs.
Yes, I don't know if all states are like this, but generally a DWI requires a BAC level as evidence, while a DUI can be handed out based on the cops subjective judgement alone.

[jstreet]

Analogy doesn't work.Yes, it does. The analogy -- and my whole point -- is about whether we as a society allow people the freedom to make (hopefully responsible) decisions in situations where they could seriously hurt other people, or whether we assume they're not capable of doing that and legislate the decision for them.

The analogy sets up two opportunities to indulge in something enjoyable with consequences that include threatening the safety of others. Intoxication isn't relevant in the case of cigarettes because the danger from smoking at a gas pump isn't intoxicated driving and the consequence isn't driving your car into someone or something. The very point of an analogy is comparing two *different* things to find a common thread. By throwing out an analogy for doing just that, you might as well throw out the definition.

What's more, you're straying from the point to declare it invalid. I'm talking about opening booze and drinking it in the car vs. smoking a cigarette at a gas station. There is no temporal component of a before and an after. I think you're trying to talk about drunk driving as a whole -- but if anything, this thread shows that (1) laws against drunk driving and (2) laws against open containers are VERY different.

[jstreet]

But can't you be charged with driving under the influence even if you're less than .08? In DC you can for sure. If you're above a .05 (but below .08), you can be charged if the officer sees other factors that make him think you're intoxicated (like a failed field sobriety test). MD and VA are similar.

DC used to be much harsher -- as recently as last year, the range started at .01. People were getting arrested after a half glass of wine and that didn't sit well, so it was changed.

[ShawnLee]

And aside from that fact -- I just see no harm in it. There is no right to drink, as dry towns show us; there is no right to drive, as drivers' licenses show us. There is no right to drink and drive, and to me, no compelling reason to change that.Re-reading this thread, I'm convinced that this is the best argument in favor of this shop being shutdown and the open-container law.

Neither is an explicit right, and until both of these are conditionally changed, the argument to change is moot.

That said, I still think an open-container law is stupid barring the absence of any intoxication, or specifically the evidence thereof. Anybody who knows me knows that I can't stand drunk-driving and am fairly anal-retentive when it comes to drinks and cars, but that doesn't make an open cup a cause for arrest.

[zenbooty]

there is no right to drive, as drivers' licenses show us.Actually, this is a bad logical point. You don't need a licence to drive a car. You DO need a license to drive your car on public roads. You want to let your kid practice driving the car in your driveway, backyard, field out in the middle of nowhere, etc. You're all good.

[jstreet]

Actually, this is a bad logical point. You don't need a licence to drive a car. You DO need a license to drive your car on public roads. You want to let your kid practice driving the car in your driveway, backyard, field out in the middle of nowhere, etc. You're all good.Not necessarily true -- depends on the jurisdiction. North Carolina, for example (http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/yep.htm), prohibits youth under 16 from driving on private property -- just one example of a restriction extending to private property. And even if they didn't -- lack of restriction != a right.

[Napoleon54]

Yes, it does. The analogy -- and my whole point -- is about whether we as a society allow people the freedom to make (hopefully responsible) decisions in situations where they could seriously hurt other people, or whether we assume they're not capable of doing that and legislate the decision for them.

The analogy sets up two opportunities to indulge in something enjoyable with consequences that include threatening the safety of others. Intoxication isn't relevant in the case of cigarettes because the danger from smoking at a gas pump isn't intoxicated driving and the consequence isn't driving your car into someone or something. The very point of an analogy is comparing two *different* things to find a common thread. By throwing out an analogy for doing just that, you might as well throw out the definition.

What's more, you're straying from the point to declare it invalid. I'm talking about opening booze and drinking it in the car vs. smoking a cigarette at a gas station. There is no temporal component of a before and an after. I think you're trying to talk about drunk driving as a whole -- but if anything, this thread shows that (1) laws against drunk driving and (2) laws against open containers are VERY different.

There IS a temporal component to it when you consider that drinking beer #1 and before driving is fine as long as you don't have a BAC above a certain level. If beer #1 was dangerous for someone who is driving, then why isn't it considered dangerous when it is consumed BEFORE someone gets behind the wheel? But it is considered dangerous when it is consumed while driving. Timing is the whole point of contention here, you can't dismiss that. :shrug:

Also.. the cigarette is only dangerous when it is being smoked AT the gas station. The analogy doesn't work because alcohol has a cumulative long-lasting effect, whereas the cigarette does not. Smoking a million cigarettes before you go to the gas station does not pose any risk. Drinking significant quantities of alcohol before you drive a car does.

And you're neglecting the fact that public opinion or what the public wants is not necessarily just or fair. Going to extreme measures to guarantee the appearance of safety often infringes on civil liberties. This is one of those cases. As I believe I said before, there are already good laws on the books for punishing people who drive intoxicated or under the influence. The open container law doesn't add anything significant because it punishes an action which is unrelated to intoxication. Drinking alcohol while driving, in itself, is NOT a hazardous act. Driving while under the effects of alcohol IS. Thus, open container law is a cosmetic law, much like the laws banning "assault weapons" that have certain cosmetic features... pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc. Open container law punishes people for having an open container in their vehicle... they don't even have to be drinking it! An open container does not automatically make someone more dangerous to the public, just like having a black polymer stock doesn't automatically make a weapon more dangerous. These are laws based entirely on appearances and not on fact. It is a silly and illogical infringement on individual rights, whether the public wants it or not. The public is often very ignorant.

[Napoleon54]

Re-reading this thread, I'm convinced that this is the best argument in favor of this shop being shutdown and the open-container law.

Neither is an explicit right, and until both of these are conditionally changed, the argument to change is moot.

That said, I still think an open-container law is stupid barring the absence of any intoxication, or specifically the evidence thereof. Anybody who knows me knows that I can't stand drunk-driving and am fairly anal-retentive when it comes to drinks and cars, but that doesn't make an open cup a cause for arrest.

Drinking isn't a right, nor is driving... I agree.

But we do have the right to freedom from oppressive government in the form of pointless and stupid laws. Government can't justly take things away without good reason. Open container law is not good reason to take away driving priviledges.

[jstreet]

There IS a temporal component to it when you consider that drinking beer #1 and before driving is fine as long as you don't have a BAC above a certain level. If beer #1 was dangerous for someone who is driving, then why isn't it considered dangerous when it is consumed BEFORE someone gets behind the wheel? But it is considered dangerous when it is consumed while driving. Timing is the whole point of contention here, you can't dismiss that. :shrug:

Also.. the cigarette is only dangerous when it is being smoked AT the gas station. The analogy doesn't work because alcohol has a cumulative long-lasting effect, whereas the cigarette does not. Smoking a million cigarettes before you go to the gas station does not pose any risk. Drinking significant quantities of alcohol before you drive a car does.I agree that your example and your concern involve time. You keep assuming that the open container law targeting drinking while driving carries with it a requirement that you're drunk. It doesn't. I've tried to say that about eleventeen billion different ways.

The people who made the law obviously had a specific problem with doing something at a specific moment in time. Not before, not after. Same exact problem as with smoking at a gas station. Action A is illegal at specific place B. Open container laws have nothing to do with how much you drank before you got there, nothing to do how much you drank while you're there, and nothing how much you drank afterwards. Open container laws don't care about levels of intoxication and they don't care about when they occurred. That is the absolute problem you have with open container laws, which makes it all the more perplexing that you're fighting the cigarette smoking example. Neither has anything to do with before or after let alone the amount of either that is used. It is a law specifically aimed at the combination of a substance and a place without regard to any other factor.


And you're neglecting the fact that public opinion or what the public wants is not necessarily just or fair.

...

The public is often very ignorant.No dispute that the public is very ignorant. That ignorant people will form a majority and make ignorant decisions is a concern in democracy, but it's the system of government we have.

Absolutely important core values in our culture are enshrined in what is arguably an anti-democratic, anti-majority system -- the Constitution -- which is, in turn, interpreted by an arguably anti-democratic, anti-majority system itself -- the judiciary branch. That such a system exists recognizes the ignorance of the majority.

If this is heinous, unjustified infringement on our core values, I suspect someone much like yourself will feel compelled to fight the law in a fair court and justice will be served. I'd bet, though, that he'd lose. The ability to drink is not an assured right, the ability to drive is not an assured right, and the ability of a majority of the population to try and address a social ill by creative means is a much more fundamental principle of our culture than calming frayed nerves with a beer while piloting 2000 pounds of metal at 75 miles per hour.

[oblongmelon]

I agree that your example and your concern involve time. You keep assuming that the open container law targeting drinking while driving carries with it a requirement that you're drunk. It doesn't. I've tried to say that about eleventeen billion different ways.

The people who made the law obviously had a specific problem with doing something at a specific moment in time. Not before, not after. Same exact problem as with smoking at a gas station. Action A is illegal at specific place B. Open container laws have nothing to do with how much you drank before you got there, nothing to do how much you drank while you're there, and nothing how much you drank afterwards. Open container laws don't care about levels of intoxication and they don't care about when they occurred. That is the absolute problem you have with open container laws, which makes it all the more perplexing that you're fighting the cigarette smoking example. Neither has anything to do with before or after let alone the amount of either that is used. It is a law specifically aimed at the combination of a substance and a place without regard to any other factor.

No dispute that the public is very ignorant. That ignorant people will form a majority and make ignorant decisions is a concern in democracy, but it's the system of government we have.

Absolutely important core values in our culture are enshrined in what is arguably an anti-democratic, anti-majority system -- the Constitution -- which is, in turn, interpreted by an arguably anti-democratic, anti-majority system itself -- the judiciary branch. That such a system exists recognizes the ignorance of the majority.

If this is heinous, unjustified infringement on our core values, I suspect someone much like yourself will feel compelled to fight the law in a fair court and justice will be served. I'd bet, though, that he'd lose. The ability to drink is not an assured right, the ability to drive is not an assured right, and the ability of a majority of the population to try and address a social ill by creative means is a much more fundamental principle of our culture than calming frayed nerves with a beer while piloting 2000 pounds of metal at 75 miles per hour.

The voice of reason-Thank you!

[Napoleon54]

I agree that your example and your concern involve time. You keep assuming that the open container law targeting drinking while driving carries with it a requirement that you're drunk. It doesn't. I've tried to say that about eleventeen billion different ways.

What the eff??? :confused:

The fact that an open container in the vehicle has nothing to do with someone's level of intoxication HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG. I'M the one who has said that a bajillion different ways:


You know what sounds foolish to me? Passing laws based on the gut reaction of associating alcohol with driving, instead of INTOXICATION with driving.

An open container is not nearly as relevant as someone's blood alcohol level. The technology and procedures for measuring that are very well established. Let's stick to that, a true measure of intoxication, rather than worry about differences in how that intoxication is achieved.

I keep coming back to my point: intoxication is dangerous. Driving with a drink in your hand is only dangerous if you're also intoxicated. Open container is a tempting "feel good" kind of law that addresses appearances but not the real issue. Angered by drunk drivers? Attack something new: open containers, even though that's not the problem.

I'm talking about Joe Blow... you, me, the majority, who ARE NOT alcoholics. Jane and Joe Blow aren't a threat to society if they don't drive while intoxicated. Whether they have one drink before or while or after they're behind the wheel is a moot point, as long as they're not legally intoxicated.

I guess I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Drinking a beer while driving a car is not a danger to society unless you get drunk doing it, and there are already laws against that.

Now that I've addressed that point, moving on...


The people who made the law obviously had a specific problem with doing something at a specific moment in time. Not before, not after. Same exact problem as with smoking at a gas station. Action A is illegal at specific place B. Open container laws have nothing to do with how much you drank before you got there, nothing to do how much you drank while you're there, and nothing how much you drank afterwards. Open container laws don't care about levels of intoxication and they don't care about when they occurred. That is the absolute problem you have with open container laws, which makes it all the more perplexing that you're fighting the cigarette smoking example. Neither has anything to do with before or after let alone the amount of either that is used. It is a law specifically aimed at the combination of a substance and a place without regard to any other factor.

Smoking ONE cigarette while pumping gas is dangerous because that ONE cigarette can potentially blow up the whole gas station. That is, any non-zero number of cigarettes, anything >0, is dangerous. That's why the law prohibits smoking at gas stations. No level of cigarretes is allowed at gas stations.

Now consider DWI laws (but NOT open container laws yet). Unlike cigarettes at gas stations, the limit for alcohol is not BAC >0%. There is a level of intoxication which is generally allowed when driving... most often BAC >0.08%. BAC 0.07% is fine. BAC 0.10% is not. DWI is based on BAC % because it is an accurate representation of someone's level of intoxication, their level if impairment, and their danger to society. This makes sense.

Now consider the open container laws. Open container law criminalizes driving with an open container in the vehicle REGARDLESS of BAC %. I think we agree that the presence of an open container in the vehicle does not mean the driver is intoxicated. In fact, there is no necessary correlation between open containers and BAC. Right? Open container law criminalizes having an open container in the vehicle, period. Nothing more, nothing less. Can we agree on that? I hope so, 'cause that's pretty much what you just said.

My question, my whole point in this debate, is this: why is an open container considered dangerous?? If it has nothing to do with intoxication, impairment, or a danger to the public, then what is the harm?

[The Happy Squirrel]

I agree, i just amkes to propentcity to drive with alcohol in the system higher
there is also another factor that is not being addressed as far as i have seen
the concept of DUI vrs DWI

DWI is primarly based on a measurble value with DUI is more a discretionary thing

the more accessable the booze is the more likely there person is to drink while driving
the more likely to drink while driving the more likely to get drunk while driving

the best policy is to allow no grey area and just all around ban it!

[jstreet]

Now consider the open container laws. Open container law criminalizes driving with an open container in the vehicle REGARDLESS of BAC %.Just as lighting a cigarette at a gas station is criminalized REGARDLESS of if you smoke it, and REGARDLESS of if you're in range of the gas fumes that will ignite.

I'm done with this argument. There are a number of different ways to enable the government to fight those who drink and drive, but few as patently obvious as allowing the cops to punish those who they SEE drinking while driving. It's a real no-brainer to me.

The only person who loses is the person who opens the container and doesn't drink anything out of it, and if that person exists, I'd love to meet him. He can come to my apartment, PARK, and have a beer upstairs as an apology.