| There are no upcoming events |
|
|
| Author: |
rvicker |
| Dated: |
Friday, February 11 2005 @ 09:45 PM GMT-6 |
| Viewed: |
1,144 times |
|
 You have to get a license to drive.
You have to get a license to sell insurance.
You have to get a license to pratice medicine.
Why not require a license for alcohol?
If a license was required to have anything to do with alcohol a new and focused level of inforcement could be developed. This could reduce under age drinking and drunken driving.
If you don't have your license you wouldn't be able to buy alcohol.
If you don't have your license you wouldn't be able to posses alcohol.
If you don't have your license you wouldn't be able to sell alcohol.
If you don't have your license you wouldn't be able to serve alcohol.
One of the problems now is that nothing keeps a violator from drinking (except for spending time in jail - maybe...) after a violation. This could.
By making any alcohol infraction a suspension of your alcohol license for say 3 months longer than your previous infraction there would be a strong incentive to not break the law or let someone else break the law.
If someone is convicted of an alcohol violation:
A liquer establishment won't sell them alcohol because the store will lose its license so would the clerk/bartender/waitress.
A "friend" won't give them alcohol because they would lose their license.
|
|
|
|
|
