Wide awake after the incident, he started thinking. First he simply noted the obvious. We’ve all seen how normally sane and intelligent people morph into morons when drunk. But then my buddy moved from lamenting the problem to proposing a solution.
He figured that driving a car and owning a gun are privileges which are regulated due to dangers associated with driving or shooting.
Following that logic, he figured we could also license drinkers, since alcohol causes much more damage to society than guns and bad driving combined.
He suggested, “Anybody who wants to consume alcohol should buy an annual license. If people’s drinking causes problems, they should pay more or lose their license.
“People should be required to show a valid license to buy liquor. The license would have a magnetic strip enabling documentation of the purchaser and the purchase (like your Safeway club card). This information could be downloaded to a central data bank.
My buddy continued. “Let’s say a vendor sells a case of beer to someone without a license and the consumer causes an auto accident while under the influence. The vendor and the driver should both be sued for the ensuing costs. Offenders who refuse to divulge the source of their alcohol would have to cover the whole bill. This way, drunks can weasel out of half of their fine if they ‘rat’ on their source.
“Consumers who can’t pay the costs associated with their alcohol abuse should be sent to jail, and pay the cost of their incarceration when released. If they’re on social assistance, old age security, disability, or welfare - the costs would be paid off through a garnishee of their government payments.
“Hopeless and hapless offenders could be given the choice of jail in Canada or living with a sponsor family in the developing world. Sponsor families, which typically earn less than $500 per year, would be given $2000 per year to house the offender. (That would be less than the monthly cost of incarceration in Canada). If drunks commit a crime in the host country, they would be liable to the local penal system.”
My buddy continued, but I’m just wondering what you think so far.
I’m figuring that at $2,000 annually, there would be many countries clamouring for our drunks. I never thought of the potential of using drunks as foreign aid.
Don’t be too hard on my buddy. He’s not a wacky guy. He just had a rough and sleepless night. Inner-city landlords don’t have it easy. Besides, do you have a better idea?
There are high costs associated with problem drinking. Try calculating the cost of alcohol-related death, sickness, ambulances, missed work, lost productivity, law enforcement, treatment programs, fire damage, and auto accidents. In 1992, a study estimated the costs of problem drinking at $283,542,000 – and that’s only here in Manitoba.
It makes me wonder why last year the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission spent $1.3 million on advertising and promotions of drinking, compared to $393,000 pushing for the responsible use of alcohol. Manitoba’s Crown corporation registered sales of $178.4 million last year, up from $167.8 in 2001.
Back in the neighbourhood, husbands and wives, kids and parents, employers and employees spend too much time arguing over whether the label “alcoholic” should be applied to their case.
Sometimes I get inserted into the middle of these arguments. I make it clear up front that the debate is stupid. To me the point has never been the “label” but the reality.
I tell people “Stop debating whether they’re alcoholics. Face the fact your drinking is causing problems. If you can’t drink responsibly, stop drinking. If you don’t stop drinking you better get help. Otherwise, we will help you suffer the consequences of your helplessness.”
Talk of another taxpayer funded registration scheme leaves me nervously clutching my wallet. But maybe my buddy isn’t that far off.
Government already has an impaired drivers program. Why stop there? In our inner-city neighbourhood we could probably use an impaired pedestrian program along with an impaired partier’s program. If you think I’m whacked, just try walking our streets and sleeping in our neighbourhood on cheque days.
Government already requires licenses for alcohol vendors. Why not consumers? But instead of paying for licenses and issuing paper, just assume we all have one – for free. But make it possible for people to accumulate demerits and even incur the risk of license revocation.
Maybe that landlord isn’t loony afterall...
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca