Bush Daughters Free To Get Drunk

[David Floyd]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[Anodyne]

I only know one thing; I'm drunk right NOW!!! And Iän akredady 18!!"! Ane 18 is the legal afe in Finland! So I'm not even breakin gthelaw! I'm only breakin gthe law when I smoke kannabis. But now I only drink alkohol, so I'm a 100% Legal Boy

Now, this post didn't really help anything in this comparison... but it made me feel happy

I'm drunk and you're not.

Spank you...... I mean th..

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

So you would want to strike the laws saying yelling 'Fire' in a movie theater is illegal? After all Freedom of Speech is fundamental right. Oh, is banning that speech a 'compelling state interest'?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

It's a cultural thing. Non Americans are always amazed that anyone in America can buy a gun at a department store. Americans are always amazed that the rest of us can buy liquor at age 18 - or younger, in most places.

The sad part is that we can handle our liquor, and they can't handle their guns


Oh yeah, somebody's already had the Bush daughters, Diss

[Imran Siddiqui]

The sad part is that we can handle our liquor

Says the Canadian !

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The sad part is that we can handle our liquor

Says the Canadian !

We're not the ones raising our drinking age to 21 so our 18 year olds don't kill each other with cars.

Or maybe it's the guns and booze

[Imran Siddiqui]

Haven't you heard of Road Rage?

And we tend to have other people on our roads, unlike up North were you have the only car on the road for miles .

[Anodyne]

Well, I don't qare about this THREA since I'm 18 now, and 18 is THE legal age HRE to drink ALKOHOL!! HAHA!!

Well, I started at 14... but it'smore now since it's legal1!! And I'm legal age, 18 hahahahaa!!! And if I loived in the Ladne of the free I'd have to spend another 3 years withoud drinking (as much... I mean..)

BUT IM DRUNK RNK RUNK RUNK RUNK!!

[Anodyne]

NP: RAmMSTEIN - KOKAIN

[Imran Siddiqui]

See!

This is why we don't let 18 year olds drink!

[Anodyne]

No, your are are alld wronk!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And we tend to have other people on our roads, unlike up North were you have the only car on the road for miles .

In all seriousness, urban driving in Canada is a helluva lot more challenging and difficult and dangerous than it is in most places in the US for about 8 months in the year.

Try to figure out why.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How many guesses do I have?