4 ms·

> But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspecti

by verteu 3y ago

> But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective. My point was: Why not ban the actual behavior that inconveniences or threatens others? Being too loud, causing property damage, etc. (Though frankly, I don't feel very strongly about this. Presumably there's a reason for the rules -- I don't have much experience interacting with unemployed young adults.)

ethbr1 3y ago
From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic. Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape. In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior. Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.
toast0 3y ago
They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others: > "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.
zo1 3y ago
We explicitly ban bad behaviour in wider society and people still do it and still ruin many innocent people's lives as a result. Drunk driving, violence, disturbing the peace, stealing, coming home drunk and beating your family, etc. These people need rigid structure and strict rules so they can get passed the hurdles that are easy for the rest of us but hard for them. We need more of these kinds of programs, especially for convicts and othere societal degenerates. We either help them or let them rot far away from the rest of us, and I vote we at least try help them.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Agreed! It's about creating an environment exclusive of people practicing vices as one precondition for success. If you're an alcoholic, it's going to be extremely difficult to stay on the wagon if there's a guy who offers you a drink every day... while you're trying to do something difficult, with all the intermittent failures and tough days that entails. What's the worst way to combat poverty? Put all impoverished people together. What's the best way to combat poverty? Teach different behaviors and put some impoverished people in better environments, with non-impoverished people. If someone is working to change their life, they deserve at least a neutral-to-positive environment in which to do that.

by verteu 3y ago

ethbr1 3y ago

From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic. Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape. In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior. Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.

toast0 3y ago

They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others: > "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.

zo1 3y ago

We explicitly ban bad behaviour in wider society and people still do it and still ruin many innocent people's lives as a result. Drunk driving, violence, disturbing the peace, stealing, coming home drunk and beating your family, etc. These people need rigid structure and strict rules so they can get passed the hurdles that are easy for the rest of us but hard for them. We need more of these kinds of programs, especially for convicts and othere societal degenerates. We either help them or let them rot far away from the rest of us, and I vote we at least try help them.

ethbr1 3y ago
Agreed! It's about creating an environment exclusive of people practicing vices as one precondition for success. If you're an alcoholic, it's going to be extremely difficult to stay on the wagon if there's a guy who offers you a drink every day... while you're trying to do something difficult, with all the intermittent failures and tough days that entails. What's the worst way to combat poverty? Put all impoverished people together. What's the best way to combat poverty? Teach different behaviors and put some impoverished people in better environments, with non-impoverished people. If someone is working to change their life, they deserve at least a neutral-to-positive environment in which to do that.