NE2: Northeast Public Intoxication Act (Law)

[cinyc]

Northeast Public Intoxication Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Governor Dallasfan65

Debate on this bill will remain open for 72 hours, or until around 5:15 PM on March 17, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Governor Dallasfan65, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not, the bill will be tabled, as there is more proposed legislation in the queue.

The floor is open for debate.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Cincinnatus]

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.

Not to mention public indecency.  Think of the children!

[#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?

[sentinel]

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

Id likely vote for it either way.

[#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.

[sentinel]

Didn't notice the sex offender/public urination part. Definitely will support the bill.

[SWE]

Having to register as a sex offender for public urination is just ridiculous. I fully support this bill

[Napoleon]

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.

[#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.

[cinyc]

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?

[#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.

[Napoleon]

How does prohibiting open containers reduce drunk driving?

[cinyc]

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.

[#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.

[cinyc]

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?

And under the later Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013, smoking marijuana in public is not permissible.  It is only permissible at home and in licensed establishments.  Your bill would make smoking marijuana at City Hall permissible, as it is a public space.  Why should those who want nothing to do with drugs be assaulted with marijuana fumes while going to a city council meeting?

At a minimum, the bill should only apply to outdoor public spaces.  Even then, although it's a bit more tenuous, why should those who want nothing to do with drugs have to walk through a haze of marijuana smoke when going to the beach or their workplace?  And shouldn't a building owner have the right to ban smoking on their property near building entrances, if they wish?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose it depends on whether you think people want to be bothered by drunks while taking mass transit.  Most grown-ups would rather not have to deal with obnoxious drunks while on their way home from work.  Increasing the number of places where people can drink alcohol increases the likelihood that those who want to have nothing to do with drunks will have to have something to do with drunks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Point taken.  I only found the federal bill when doing a web search.  "Onesself" should be "Oneself" in the "Freedom to Enjoy Onesself in Public" of Section 4(1), and you need to add Act or Law at the end of the phrase, whichever it is.

[Napoleon]

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.

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.

[cinyc]

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.  Drinking alcohol while driving should be illegal, regardless of how close to the legal limit the driver is.  It increases the risk that a driver will become a drunk driver.

I'm not saying anything about drinking in a parked car.

[#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?

[Napoleon]

I'm not trying to muddy the debate- open container laws currently restrict drinking in parked vehicles and I feel that is anunreasonable restriction. I understand and respect the concerns you named but I think they can be handled via standard DUI laws.

[Napoleon]

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?

Yeah that was my point- an open container belonging to a passenger still doesn't result a bac reduction for the driver.

[cinyc]

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?

No.  By allowing people to drink while driving, you're increasing the likelihood that someone will drive drunk.  At least at a bar, people can wait after drinking to sober up.  There is no sobering up if you are drinking alcohol while driving.  You are making your physical condition worse while operating a motor vehicle.  I don't see why we should encourage people to drink while driving by getting rid of open container laws for moving automobiles.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully this amendment ameliorates Representative Cinyc's concerns about drug use in public buildings.

[cinyc]

Governor Dallasfan 65: is Rep. Deus' proposed amendment friendly?

[cinyc]

The debate period is over.  We are awaiting input from Governor Dallasfan65 on the proposed amendment before we can put the bill or amendment to a vote.