[djrogers]

That’s a typical California politician’s comment. If someone else doesn’t provide something free or heavily subsidized, they pretend it doesn’t exist.

Pretty dumb to ignore the fact tha buy cutting back on a few $12 beverages at the game one could either drive home or afford a Lyft...

[jdale27]

Or maybe it's just a reflection of the reality that there are probably a lot of people who don't want to go to a football game and not get drunk.

[phil248]

This isn't about costs, it's about incentives.

You may have money to get a ride home, but prefer to drive drunk. An incentive will change the minds of some percentage of those people, resulting in less drunk drivers.

[s73ver_]

I mean, you could do that.

Or you could awaken yourself to reality, where that does not happen. And the politicians here are looking at a potential solution to not having so many drunks on the road, where they can potentially kill someone.

[rconti]

Actually it's an anti-regulatory stance.

[org3432]

It's dumb to ignore data and try to solve problems from one's hypicrital and confused view.