Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Public Intoxication

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Are you asking why the public has the right to make it illegal or why the public decided to?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:42:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Are you asking why the public has the right to make it illegal or why the public decided to?

Why they decided to.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:49:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:42:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Are you asking why the public has the right to make it illegal or why the public decided to?

Why they decided to.

Intoxicated people are far more likely to cause harm to others. So the public doesn't want them in public.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 6:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Public intoxication is only illegal if you're disturbing the peace because you are drunk off your @ss. Drinking alcohol in the open is a different crime, though, in most places -it's a a violation of open container statures.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

You can cause accidents just by stumbling into the streets. You aren't thinking and you do stupid stuff that hurts everyone else and even yourself.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think we should agree with J.S. Mill on this. There's nothing wrong with being intoxicated, and we shouldn't punish people simply for being intoxicated. Hurting people is wrong, and that is what should be punished.

It's all very well saying that 'intoxicated people are more likely to harm others', but that doesn't change the fact that being intoxicated does not in itself harm others. I'm sure that being a generally angry person who has previously been convicted of assault is more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause some kind of harm to people while in a public area, but clearly we shouldn't ban these people from walking the streets. I would guess that (young?) men are more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause a nuisance in a public area, but again...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:58:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

That doesn't answer my question. You said the offense comes from an intrusion into public property which is (as you say) the proper legislative domain of the community. . My questions have to do with the consistency and effects of that right. So, again, at what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 6:56:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Hello Sir,

Come to the United Kingdom?

We have whiskey, top hats and public drinking houses.

Huzzah!

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 8:44:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:58:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

That doesn't answer my question. You said the offense comes from an intrusion into public property which is (as you say) the proper legislative domain of the community. . My questions have to do with the consistency and effects of that right. So, again, at what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

The minority should be protected from discrimination. In some countries I think all kinds of "sexual" public affection are banned, maybe even hugging a different gender.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 10:25:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:58:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

That doesn't answer my question. You said the offense comes from an intrusion into public property which is (as you say) the proper legislative domain of the community. . My questions have to do with the consistency and effects of that right. So, again, at what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

A.) I never said the majority owns the property, I said everyone has an equal share in the property.
B.) The point in which it infringes upon the rights of others. Everyone has an equal share, so no individual can have their rights violated, unless they are infringing upon, or endangering the rights of others.

For example; I have the right to protest in public. I do not have the right to throw red paint on people.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 3:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:25:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:58:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

That doesn't answer my question. You said the offense comes from an intrusion into public property which is (as you say) the proper legislative domain of the community. . My questions have to do with the consistency and effects of that right. So, again, at what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

A.) I never said the majority owns the property, I said everyone has an equal share in the property.
B.) The point in which it infringes upon the rights of others. Everyone has an equal share, so no individual can have their rights violated, unless they are infringing upon, or endangering the rights of others.

How does being intoxicated in public infringe on the rights of others?

For example; I have the right to protest in public. I do not have the right to throw red paint on people.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 8:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm fairly certain that earlier I made exactly the same point Noumena just made, so clearly we're running in a circle.

Inevitably the next assertion will be "Oh, but drunk people are likely to harm people", which is to say that you feel that their presence on the street is a threat of violence.

It is not a threat of violence. Intoxication is not an intrinsically aggressive state, neither is having the words 'LOVE / HATE' tattooed across your knuckles. It is perfectly possible to think of a drunken, tattooed man who is not threatening anyone with violence. For very obvious reasons, actions which are genuinely threatening cannot be imagined in this way.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 9:42:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 3:06:42 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:25:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:58:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:32:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:15:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Yes, because it is PUBLIC property. If you are on your own private property, you should be able to do what ever the hell you want. Everyone in the community has an equal share in the ownership of public property, so you must be respectful of others. Public intoxication not only disturbs others in public, but it puts others in danger.

If the majority of people in a community are 'disturbed' by romantic affection between members of the same sex do you think they should be able to legislate that concern in a similar manner? What about displays of heterogenous cultural sentiments, disaffection with majority opinion, etc.? At what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

That doesn't answer my question. You said the offense comes from an intrusion into public property which is (as you say) the proper legislative domain of the community. . My questions have to do with the consistency and effects of that right. So, again, at what point do you think majority opinion should be curbed in relation to the governance of public property?

A.) I never said the majority owns the property, I said everyone has an equal share in the property.
B.) The point in which it infringes upon the rights of others. Everyone has an equal share, so no individual can have their rights violated, unless they are infringing upon, or endangering the rights of others.

How does being intoxicated in public infringe on the rights of others?

It infringes on the liberty of others, and it endangers the life of others. People have a right not to be disturbed by drunkards. You won't be arrested for public intoxication aka "drunk and disorderly", unless you are disturbing the peace or posing a threat to others. When drunkards are being loud, stumble off the sidewalk into the road, vomiting in public, urinating in public, or when they pose a threat to others, they are infringing upon the rights of others. If you are arrested for public intoxication, it is because you are drunk enough that others are aware you are drunk; when you are that drunk, you are infringing upon the rights of others.


For example; I have the right to protest in public. I do not have the right to throw red paint on people.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 2:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In response to DanT,

All of the 'offences' (being loud, really?) you list are not exclusive to intoxicated people nor do drunk people necessarily do those things, and therefore your argument fails.

"when you are that drunk, you are infringing upon the rights of others"

No, you are not. You are infringing upon the rights of others when you are actually infringing upon those rights. You seem to have the idea that it is logically impossible to walk down the street while intoxicated without assaulting someone - which is false, clearly.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

Being intoxicated in and of itself isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 8:46:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we should agree with J.S. Mill on this. There's nothing wrong with being intoxicated, and we shouldn't punish people simply for being intoxicated. Hurting people is wrong, and that is what should be punished.

It's all very well saying that 'intoxicated people are more likely to harm others', but that doesn't change the fact that being intoxicated does not in itself harm others. I'm sure that being a generally angry person who has previously been convicted of assault is more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause some kind of harm to people while in a public area, but clearly we shouldn't ban these people from walking the streets. I would guess that (young?) men are more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause a nuisance in a public area, but again...

John Stuart Mill was against gambling (or at the least had huge problems with it) because of the epiphenomenal crimes associated with it. So we can assume he'd have similar issues with being publicly intoxicated. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wrote something condemning public indecency, and there's not a huge difference between public indecency and public intoxication really in a moral light.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 5:58:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

John Stuart Mill was against gambling (or at the least had huge problems with it) because of the epiphenomenal crimes associated with it. So we can assume he'd have similar issues with being publicly intoxicated. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wrote something condemning public indecency, and there's not a huge difference between public indecency and public intoxication really in a moral light.

"If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance." (On Liberty, page 153)

"No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty. Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law." (ibid. page 154)

My understanding is that his position on gambling is that something should be done about gambling houses, but on drunkenness I think he is quite clear that provided the individual has no responsibility not to be drunk, he may be drunk. He should not be punished for the 'extravagance' of being drunk, but for the actual crimes he does commit (should he commit any, which I reiterate, is far from a given!). Regarding the comparison between drunkenness and public indecency, well, I can't find the passage on it exactly, but my personal feelings are that 'public indecency' is an issue when people intend offence by it. If someone is simply trying to walk home after a party then I feel if the police are to interject it should only be to offer him a lift home.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:06:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 5:28:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

Being intoxicated in and of itself isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

No, but being drunk and disorderly aka public intoxication does.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:17:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 8:06:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 5:28:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

Being intoxicated in and of itself isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

No, but being drunk and disorderly aka public intoxication does.

Disorderly conduct and public intoxication are different charges.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 2:23:27 PM, Wocambs wrote:
In response to DanT,

All of the 'offences' (being loud, really?) you list are not exclusive to intoxicated people nor do drunk people necessarily do those things, and therefore your argument fails.

When you are drunk, your cognitive functions are impaired, you are not rational, and you can't control the volume of your voice. When you are intoxicated in public you are putting others in danger, subjecting them to your poor decisions.

It is like saying "driving while intoxicated shouldn't be a crime, because the road rules you break is already a crime". Public intoxication, like drunk driving, is a decision to endanger the lives of others; it is that decision which is outlawed.

"when you are that drunk, you are infringing upon the rights of others"

No, you are not. You are infringing upon the rights of others when you are actually infringing upon those rights. You seem to have the idea that it is logically impossible to walk down the street while intoxicated without assaulting someone - which is false, clearly.

The police only arrest people for public intoxication when they are disturbing others. 1st off, the legal limit is really high. Furthermore, the police are only called, and/or only take notice, when you are so drunk that you are disturbing the peace.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:30:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 8:46:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we should agree with J.S. Mill on this. There's nothing wrong with being intoxicated, and we shouldn't punish people simply for being intoxicated. Hurting people is wrong, and that is what should be punished.

It's all very well saying that 'intoxicated people are more likely to harm others', but that doesn't change the fact that being intoxicated does not in itself harm others. I'm sure that being a generally angry person who has previously been convicted of assault is more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause some kind of harm to people while in a public area, but clearly we shouldn't ban these people from walking the streets. I would guess that (young?) men are more likely than the 'typical citizen' to cause a nuisance in a public area, but again...

The thing is, the police don't have magic glasses that tell you blood content. If someone is being cited for public intoxication, they had to be doing something out of the norm.

If you can hold your alcohol, then no matter how drunk you are you aren't going to be cited for public intoxication.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 8:17:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 8:06:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 5:28:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:44:51 PM, DanT wrote:

You have a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights become void when they infringe upon or threaten the rights of others. If you are drunk in public, you are threatening other people's rights.

Being intoxicated in and of itself isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

No, but being drunk and disorderly aka public intoxication does.

Disorderly conduct and public intoxication are different charges.

Drunk and Disorderly is the same as public intoxication.

"Public intoxication charges, often called being 'drunk and disorderly', is a legal charge alleging that a person is visibly drunk or under the influence of drugs in public. It is usually a misdemeanor crime under state and local law.

Public intoxication laws exist to prevent people from disturbing others in public and to remove people who appear to be unable to stop themselves from hurting themselves or others....

Many states also require prosecutors to prove that you seem so out of control that you don't appear to be able to take care of yourself, or that you present a threat to the safety of others. "
http://criminal.findlaw.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:21:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's gotten to the point where I really don't know what I'm supposed to be arguing against.

On one hand you seem to be saying that public intoxication should be an offence, but then you also have that video which says that public intoxication is in itself not an offence (and I presume you approve that message). Also, I'm not having this 'Well, the police will only be called if you're actually disturbing the piece', because you're effectively refuting yourself. Are you against public intoxication or against drunken people causing a ruckus? If it's the latter, then really we shouldn't be arguing.

Now, the difference between public intoxication and drunk driving is that it is very easy to accidentally injure someone when you're driving a car, but accidentally injuring someone while walking down the street seems to be largely impossible. You might as well say 'Oh, we don't let blind people drive, so why should we let them walk down the street?'. The fact that the damage is accidental is key.

Does that incredibly drunken man pose the threat of accidental violence (from falling, I suppose)? I think even a blind person would spot someone like that from quite a distance and give him a wide berth.

Unless you're going to tell me that it should be intrinsically illegal for an intoxicated person to be in a public space, I see no reason to continue this. I suspect this whole thing is really an attempt to remove 'undesirables' from the streets, not because they're harming anyone, but because you're offended by the rough looks of those homeless people, who seem to be intoxicated most of the time.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:08:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is public intox illegal. If a person is drinking a beer and walking down the street they should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the law.

Why is it illegal to drink on public property?

Do you think it should be legal to drink on public property?

Public intoxication =/= drinking in public

I think the issue is that once one is intoxicated, they are unable to be legally responsible for their decisions, thus they are detained.

I could be wrong, though.
My work here is, finally, done.