NE2: Northeast Public Intoxication Act (Law)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I don't care if someone pees on the same bush that my bulldog peed on at the local park, but if some asshole pisses on the door of my store that's vandalism at a minimum.

Perhaps we could amend it so, for private property and vehicles?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I feel like Section 1 Part 1 is the only necessary part of this bill.

Id likely vote for it either way.

Well, the Consolidated Marijuana Regulation Act says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that may tie our hands a bit in Clause 3, Section 2. I'd have to get a second opinion on the matter, though.

Anywho, I'd argue that Section 3 is very necessary.

link

Several states in the Northeast have laws that can require one to register as a sex offender for public urination (I actually knew of someone IRL.) I'm willing to budge and make the fine higher (and of course a provision regarding private property) but I think we can all agree that the status quo is bad public policy.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I don't care if someone pees on the same bush that my bulldog peed on at the local park, but if some asshole pisses on the door of my store that's vandalism at a minimum.

Perhaps we could amend it so, for private property and vehicles?

Its probably covered already actually so important m fine with the current text. Well just to be safe...

1)   Public urination is hereby defined as a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not in excess of $25.00.
2)   Any state laws or local ordinances defining public urination as a sex offense are hereby repealed.
3)   Urination on private property may still be considered vandalism.

I can get on board with that.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I oppose any attempt to allow marijuana smoking or other drug use in public places.  Why should those who don't want to have anything to do with drugs have to inhale marijuana smoke and risk getting a contact high?  And, depending on how you define public space, why should the government be telling private establishments like bars and restaurants that they have to let people use drugs in their establishments?  Shouldn't they be able to make their own rules?

I also oppose getting rid of open container laws in moving automobiles.  Are we trying to increase the amount of drunk driving in the Northeast?

Finally, with respect to Section 4, isn't the Freedom to Enjoy Onesself in Public Act a federal law?  How can we repeal a federal law?

As I mentioned earlier, per the Consolidated Marijuana Regulation Act, the same regulations on smoking tobacco in public apply to smoking marijuana in public. If you can smoke cigarettes there, you can smoke pot there.

That being said, I certainly don't want this to be construed as forcing private institutions to accommodate drug use - my definition of "public" in the bill entails parks, streets, etc. Would an amendment assuage this concern?

I'm not certain that getting a contact high is a legitimate concern, unless you want one.

I understand concern with allowing open containers in personally owned automobiles, but what's wrong with drinking on the train, or in the back of a taxi? Drunk driving laws still apply under this law.

Lastly, the federal Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public law only applies to D.C. and federal territories. We passed a regional equivalent several years ago - this law is an attempt to expand upon it.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

How does prohibiting open containers reduce drunk driving?

The open container law in automobiles literally prohibits drinking while driving.  A blanket repeal of open container laws it would include drinking in automobiles.   Nobody should be drinking alcohol while driving.  It makes driving drunk more likely.

What if we were to amend it to prohibit open containers while operating an automobile?

My apologies if the law wasn't specific.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Passengers should be allowed to drink, though, no? And I think that drinking in parked vehicles is something that shouldbe allowed- for example, a group may want to drink before a concert or something in their vehicle before doors open. Nothing wrong with that. We have a legal limit and if a driver is above that he would already be punishable on that basi.

If passengers can legally drink in a moving vehicle, then every driver will claim that the open container in the car wasn't his, rendering enforcement impossible.  That's why we have open container laws in automobiles.

Isn't most of this negated by the advent of breathalyzers?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

My apologies! Deus' amendment is friendly.