Your Thoughts Please...

Last year, two homeless men were arrested in Jacksonville for violating a no public drinking of alcohol law that prohibits the consumption of alcohol on city property. The attorneys for these men argued that these men shouldn't be convicted because the city regularly fails to enforce this law by allowing drinking during tailgate parties at the city-owned statdium and at other places and events around town. They argued that punishing these men was wrong because the city passively endorses drinking in public during games and events. The men were convicted, but an appeals judge overturned the convictions based on the grounds that the law had been selectively enforced and the arrest was unconstitutional.

The city council of City of Jacksonville has since gone back and scrapped the old law, and they have just created a new law that clearly spells out when and where public drinking is allowed. Public drinking is allowed within specified areas surrounding public venues, beginning at 9:00AM the morning of the event and until 11:59PM of the day of the event. Other than that there is no public drinking allowed.

Where I'm having a problem is that the city government only exempted venues that it controls. Public drinking at city parking lots around non-city owned venues is still prohibited, public drinking at street parties is now prohibited, and the only group that stands to benefit from this law is... the city government.

I've never had a drink of alcohol in my life, but I don't think it's right for a government to pass a law that only offers a financial benefit to itself. Also, if public drinking is deemed to be a bad thing, it should be a bad thing all the time and everywhere, not only at certain times and certain places. This law smacks of "yes, it's a bad thing, but if we can make money from it we'll say it's ok to do."

What do you'all think?

[mAlice]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Where I'm having a problem is that the city government only exempted venues that it controls. Public drinking at city parking lots around non-city owned venues is still prohibited, public drinking at street parties is now prohibited, and the only group that stands to benefit from this law is... the city government.

I've never had a drink of alcohol in my life, but I don't think it's right for a government to pass a law that only offers a financial benefit to itself. Also, if public drinking is deemed to be a bad thing, it should be a bad thing all the time and everywhere, not only at certain times and certain places. This law smacks of "yes, it's a bad thing, but if we can make money from it we'll say it's ok to do."

What do you'all think?

It sounds like they're trying to keep the riff-raff off the streets. Bums drinking on street corners is a lot different than the working joe at a tailgate party. Works for me.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

What do you'all think?

I think they should have busted these guys for loitering or transience instead.

If they allowed drinking at street parties, some lawyer for homeless people would argue that that's exactly what the bums were doing - having a street party. The idea is to keep drunken bums off the streets so they won't be a public nuisance. But nobody has the guts to run them out on a rail (except Rudy Giuliani) because all these screwball activist groups start protesting and acting like nuts. Then the lawyers smell blood and they start circling, and you have a mess on your hands.

But you knew that.

[tlatchaw]

Originally Posted by elaine

It sounds like they're trying to keep the riff-raff off the streets. Bums drinking on street corners is a lot different than the working joe at a tailgate party. Works for me.

I fine with it except that this would prohibit tailgaters from having gatherings near the stadium but not on the stadium lot. Perhaps some manner of permit could be issued for parties like that?