[ashtonkem]

There have been attempts to categorize and measure the social harms caused by heavy users of various drugs, and the actual measurable impacts don’t really line up with what people worry about. The study I saw put alcohol at the top of the list, due to the social cost of drunken fights, spousal abuse, and DUIs.

I’m sure there are some public safety issues that we should deal with for the various “hard” drugs decriminalized here, but I also find it fascinating how much social desirability affects which drugs we decide are a problem that require special treatment, since I’ve never seen anyone recommend house arrest or curfews for alcoholics.

[dheera]

> alcohol at the top of the list

So criminalize alcohol abuse as well. Not jail-criminalize it, that's too expensive for taxpayers. But I sure would love if the streets are clear of drunk, violent people fighting. Impose curfews and cameras in their homes.

[carapace]

We tried it, it failed miserably.

> Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

[dheera]

Did you even read what I wrote?

I want to criminalize alcohol abuse, not alcohol.

[carapace]

Steady on friend.

> I want to criminalize alcohol abuse, not alcohol.

As leetcrew we already have laws in re: most of that, including "disturbing the peace".

> Because I watched cops do absolutely nothing...

If they're not enforcing the law in the first place, how does adding another law help?

My point about Prohibition is that this thing is cultural: Alcohol and tobacco are "in", pot and oxy and the others are "out". If you live in an area that tolerates drunken hooliganism you're gonna have a bad time with drunken hooligans.

[eloff]

I agree something could be done about alcohol abuse. But your last sentence is madness. Unless you mean it sarcastically, which is the only way I can understand it.

[dheera]

I don't understand why it is madness. Care to explain?

I see violent people on the street. They are a danger to me. I want safe streets. House arrest costs taxpayers very little.

If there was an angry bear on the streets threatening people it would probably be relocated, tagged, and confined to the forests as well. Not much different.

[eloff]

Putting cameras in private homes is an anathema, it is a non-starter and a horrific dystopian vision. You'll get no sympathy or understanding from me.

[JoeAltmaier]

House arrest? I can understand the point. Its a cheaper form of prison. All prisons have cameras.

How about, they either go to prison, or agree to have their home fitted as a prison. Is that less dystopian?

[dheera]

Exactly my point. We want to reduce the taxpayer burden of prison, but still keep the streets safe. House arrest is a way to build a cheaper AND more humane prison, and one that is also much better for rehabilitation and access to education and employment.

The cameras would come off once their house arrest term is over.

[leetcrew]

how about we just make the specific thing we don't want illegal, as opposed to banning the myriad ways that a person could end up doing the thing? some poor soul sitting alone at home drinking cheap vodka all day doesn't actually hurt me. we already have laws against DUI, assault, public intoxication, etc.

[dheera]

I'm not opposed to some dude at home drinking cheap vodka.

I am opposed to some dude getting drunk and roaming the streets waving around a steel bar threatening to hit people, which I have witnessed (in LA).

Being drunk in public is a safety hazard to others and should be at least a misdemeanor, IMO, unless you are on your way home or to medical help.

[leetcrew]

I added public intox to the list just to show how many ways we already have of going after intoxicated people that are behaving badly. I think it's actually another example of an unjust law. the simple act of being drunk in public doesn't hurt anyone either.

> some dude getting drunk and roaming the streets waving around a steel bar threatening to hit people

this is already clear cut assault. why do we need yet another charge to pile on?

[dheera]

> this is already clear cut assault. why do we need yet another charge to pile on?

Because I watched cops do absolutely nothing, because although it was pretty goddamn dangerous with mothers with children around and whatnot.

At the very least, then, make hate speech and threats on strangers ground for arrest. Make wielding any object as a weapon ground for arrest. If they make threats while drunk, they don't necessarily need to be jailed, I'm happy if they're just escorted home and required to stay home for the day.

[leetcrew]

maybe not hate speech, but threats on strangers and wielding an object as a weapon are already grounds for arrest if an officer feels like doing anything about it.

I feel like we almost agree? the issue is not that we don't have enough laws already, but rather that perfectly good laws are not actually enforced.