• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If everyone obeyed "don't drink before you drive" how would it affect alcohol sales?

PlanetJosh

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
If we all didn't drink any alcohol at all, not even a sip before driving would that tank the sales of booze? I tried searching the net for this but didn't have any luck. So does that mean it's a stupid question? Or maybe I didn't try hard enough in searching.
 
DUI should be made a felony. 1 year for the first offense...and a loss of driving privilege for 5 years, 5 for the second...and permanent loss of driving privilege, life for the 3rd...or in cases where the drunk causes significant injury to another person.
 
generally, i favour zero tolerance if given a choice. Very strongly believe penalties should increase.

Honestly, I don't give a shit about alcohol sales. Alcohol is poison. If sales went down we'd all be better off.
 
Alcohol sales would be mostly the same, but cab ridership would go up. Parking lots and the city (depending on where people parked) would also make a lot of money on towing people that decided to drive but then leave their cars there and take a cab home.

Personally if I go to a venue where I plan to drink I just take a cab there. Then I don't have to worry about how I get my car home or if I should drive or not etc.
 
BoomerD said:
DUI should be made a felony. 1 year for the first offense...and a loss of driving privilege for 5 years, 5 for the second...and permanent loss of driving privilege, life for the 3rd...or in cases where the drunk causes significant injury to another person.
Click to expand...

I hate that as time moves on I am beginning to agree with stuff like this.
 
I feel there should be two separate penalties for DUI.

1: Going over the limit, but still driving ok. That should be like a speeding ticket. And have the cop follow you home to make sure you're not going anywhere else.

2: Being actual real drunk and being all over the road. This should be a loss of license and a huge fine, maybe even jail time depending how bad it is.

Same for using cell phone. Using a cellphone at a stop light should not be the same penalty as someone using it while driving and actually being a danger. The problem with the law system is that there's no common sense used it's just black or white.
 
It would put a significant number of bars out of business, and quite a few restaurants, too. Probably the majority of bars, to be honest. Only those in more densely populated urban areas would survive.

Overall alcohol sales would be only marginally affected, as it would just shift drinking habits (as our increasingly stiff DUI laws have done). It _might_ give rise to more neighborhood bars, but out in the burbs where you have miles and miles of single family homes on their 1/4 acre or so, any bar would be drawing on a small number of potential customers.
 
Red Squirrel said:
I feel there should be two separate penalties for DUI.

1: Going over the limit, but still driving ok. That should be like a speeding ticket. And have the cop follow you home to make sure you're not going anywhere else.

2: Being actual real drunk and being all over the road. This should be a loss of license and a huge fine, maybe even jail time depending how bad it is.

Same for using cell phone. Using a cellphone at a stop light should not be the same penalty as someone using it while driving and actually being a danger. The problem with the law system is that there's no common sense used it's just black or white.
Click to expand...
I very strongly disagree with you on this one. DUI is against the law because people die. People die. Innocent people die. They're dead. Dead. I don't want Johnny Drinksalot thinking he's "ok" because he's "done it all the time" and at worst he is going to get a "speeding ticket" after drinking a few, when he's really far beyond too drunk to drive. Have you ever tried to argue with a drunk person? Tried to tell them they're too trunk to do... well.. anything? Much less take away their "manhood" by not letting them drive their truck-nuts-wagging-2-ton-pickup-slash-sense-of-masculinity. Stupidity like this is how people die. And in drunk driving accidents, all too often it isn't the drunks that die, it's the people they hit.

And, no, you're wrong about cell phones too. Basically the same principle applies. It's the same crime. It's the same penalty. And it too should be stiffer. It's a fucking cell phone. Be an adult and text your mom later.
 
So back to the OP, what about just a single beer with dinner? If everyone who drives to the bar/pub passes on a beer, what would alcohol sales do? Obviously most people tipping back one or two did drive as most in the US love driving everywhere.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Alcohol sales, imo, would be mildly affected while people adjusted. People tend to drink more when they know for sure they don't have to drive, which would compensate after adjustment

I'm always the dd, we'll used to be at least. Now I'm that old fart shaking my fist at hooligans
 
Red Squirrel said:
I feel there should be two separate penalties for DUI.

1: Going over the limit, but still driving ok. That should be like a speeding ticket. And have the cop follow you home to make sure you're not going anywhere else.

2: Being actual real drunk and being all over the road. This should be a loss of license and a huge fine, maybe even jail time depending how bad it is.

Same for using cell phone. Using a cellphone at a stop light should not be the same penalty as someone using it while driving and actually being a danger. The problem with the law system is that there's no common sense used it's just black or white.
Click to expand...
Trouble is by the time you get to number 2, you're in no shape to be making any decisions. It's better to cut off at 1 while they still have their facilities rather than having a drunk trying to figure out how drunk they are.
 
JTsyo said:
Trouble is by the time you get to number 2, you're in no shape to be making any decisions. It's better to cut off at 1 while they still have their facilities rather than having a drunk trying to figure out how drunk they are.
Click to expand...
That depends on the person and what they are drinking.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Alcohol sales, imo, would be mildly affected while people adjusted. People tend to drink more when they know for sure they don't have to drive, which would compensate after adjustment
Click to expand...
Yeah, ultimately it wouldn't affect sales much, it would just change where the sales were made.
 
This is why I love having moved to an urban area that is mostly walkable. Sometimes when we go farther, we use the obvious next solution, Lyft or Uber.
 
Just install a breathalyzer on all cars......

breathalyzer-2.jpg


Will All New Cars Soon Be Built With A Breathalyzer?

If you ask New York congresswoman Kathleen Rice, they would be.

In a very unpopular move, the congresswoman from the Big Apple announced on July 14 that she was going to introduce legislation that would mandate North American carmakers integrate a breathalyzer in every new car. Currently, breathalyzers are installed in vehicles operated by drivers convicted of repeat DUI offences. A handful of states are making the move to install them for first-time offenders as well.

The breathalyzer is an ignition interlock device, meaning that without successfully passing the breathing test, the ignition will not operate. That means you can’t start the car.
Click to expand...
 
us3rnotfound said:
So back to the OP, what about just a single beer with dinner? If everyone who drives to the bar/pub passes on a beer, what would alcohol sales do? Obviously most people tipping back one or two did drive as most in the US love driving everywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing the point of your question(s). You know that very large numbers of people drive to and from bars. The vast majority don't get shitface drunk, but many are very definitely legally above the limits set by today's laws when they drive away.

How the hell do you think it would affect alcohol sales at those businesses?
 
So...should cops set up right outside bars/taverns/cocktail lounges? That ought to be like shooting fish in a barrel...easy place to get a BUNCH of DUI collars.
 
Carson Dyle said:
I'm not really seeing the point of your question(s). You know that very large numbers of people drive to and from bars. The vast majority don't get shitface drunk, but many are very definitely legally above the limits set by today's laws when they drive away.

How the hell do you think it would affect alcohol sales at those businesses?
Click to expand...
You can still get into trouble if you have alcohol on your breath and are pulled over by a cop. So it's safer to take it literally that you shouldn't drink and drive. Not that everyone really does thigh.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
us3rnotfound said:
You can still get into trouble if you have alcohol on your breath and are pulled over by a cop. So it's safer to take it literally that you shouldn't drink and drive. Not that everyone really does thigh.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the question that you were supposedly asking? The effects on alcohol sales of an improbably law-abiding culture?

If you want to ask: "Do you drink and drive?" or "What do you think is a safe number of drinks before driving?" then just ask. It's basically the question that everyone wants to answer, anyway, as can be seen above.
 
cbrunny said:
I very strongly disagree with you on this one. DUI is against the law because people die. People die. Innocent people die. They're dead. Dead. I don't want Johnny Drinksalot thinking he's "ok" because he's "done it all the time" and at worst he is going to get a "speeding ticket" after drinking a few, when he's really far beyond too drunk to drive. Have you ever tried to argue with a drunk person? Tried to tell them they're too trunk to do... well.. anything? Much less take away their "manhood" by not letting them drive their truck-nuts-wagging-2-ton-pickup-slash-sense-of-masculinity. Stupidity like this is how people die. And in drunk driving accidents, all too often it isn't the drunks that die, it's the people they hit.

And, no, you're wrong about cell phones too. Basically the same principle applies. It's the same crime. It's the same penalty. And it too should be stiffer. It's a fucking cell phone. Be an adult and text your mom later.
Click to expand...


I think you missed my point. What I mean is someone who is not in the process of being a danger should not get charged the same as someone who is a danger. That asshole in his pickup who thinks he's fine when he's not IS a danger and should get the book thrown at him. But a guy who just opened a beer and had a sip, should not get charged the same for going to move his car from the street to his driveway. It's all about context. Problem is, the law does not see context.
 
I
Red Squirrel said:
I think you missed my point. What I mean is someone who is not in the process of being a danger should not get charged the same as someone who is a danger. That asshole in his pickup who thinks he's fine when he's not IS a danger and should get the book thrown at him. But a guy who just opened a beer and had a sip, should not get charged the same for going to move his car from the street to his driveway. It's all about context. Problem is, the law does not see context.
Click to expand...
Still disagree with you, even understanding your point. Throw the book at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top