Alcohol

Buying Booze for Someone With DUI Could Be Felony if Oklahoma Lawmaker Gets His Way

|

Minnesota Beer Activists/Facebook

It's been a ban-tastic start to 2015 for folks in the Oklahoma legislature. Already, lawmakers have been pushing bills to ban cell phone use while driving and to ban wearing hoodies in public places. Now one state Senator wants the power to ban alcohol consumption by anyone convicted of drunk driving, at least temporarily. 

Under Senate Bill 30, introduced by state Sen. Patrick Anderson (R-District 19), anyone convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol could be ordered to abstain from alcohol entirely for a length of time determined by a judge. During this period, the individual would be given a replacement identification card that labeled them as "Alcohol Restricted." It would be illegal for an alcohol-restricted person to buy alcohol—"failure to comply with the order to abstain … may be punished as deemed proper by the sentencing court"—or for anyone to buy alcohol for them.

Purchasing alcohol for someone under alcohol restriction would become a felony, punishable by a fine of $500 to $1,000 and/or up to one year in prison. Better start carding all your friends before you buy that next round, Oklahomans! 

The bill seems way too flawed to go far, but maybe I'm just an incorrigible optimist. In any event, it's another terrifying reminder of how some elected officials think. 

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, activists are working on much more liberty-friendly alcohol legislation. A coalition that includes the state Libertarian Party, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the Minnesota Tea Party Alliance are seeking to end a longtime requirement that liquor stores be closed on Sundays. Liquor stores are the only place Minnesotans can legally purchase wine or most beer.

"The Super Bowl is just around the corner and it's pathetic that a person can't pick up a six pack at the local liquor store before the big game," said Tea Party spokesperson Jake Duesenberg. And that's how you do America, folks. Oklahoma lawmakers, please take heed.

NEXT: Financial Times Writer Says Charlie Hebdo 'Just Being Stupid,' 'Not the Most Convincing Champion' of Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought the residents of Minnesota stopped watching football in September, when the Vikings were mathematically eliminated from playoff contention.

    1. September? Aren’t you the optimist!

  2. Just put your hood up while buying the alcohol. NO ONE WILL KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

      1. no alt text?

  3. ordered to abstain from alcohol entirely for a length of time determined by a judge.

    That judge had jolly well better be required to be a teetotaler.

  4. So are you still guilty if you buy yourself a liter of Vodka and the drunk gets into your liquer cabinet?

    1. You’re guilty if they want you to be guilty.

  5. Why don’t these people just get to work on repealing the 21st Amendment? That’s really what they want.

  6. The biggest opponents of Sunday sales in MN are the liquor stores themselves. Outside of border towns all the other nearby stores are also closed, so they basically just see it as a government granted holiday. If Sunday sales happens then they incur additional expense but instead of sales increases they just see sales shift from other days of the week.

    Me? I just drive to Wisconsin if I’m desperate…

    1. ^THIS^

      The repeal of Sunday liquor laws has been on the docket for the last several sessions. The people all want it.

      Unfortunately the liquor lobby and teamsters always get it spiked. Thom hits it on the head for their reasoning. More expense for the retailers, no real additional sales.

      When I used to have a cabin in WI the best thing about it was the fact that I didn’t go into panic mode on Saturday night because I had drunk more beer than I had planned on. No crazy dash to the liquor store to make sure I had enough beer to make it through Sunday.

    2. An article on the history of defeats:

      http://www.minnpost.com/politi…..s-changing

      Public polling shows Minnesotans support Sunday liquor sales with more than 60 percent support, but the issue is regularly squashed by opposition from Mom and Pop liquor stores ? represented by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association ? and Teamsters union members. They argue Sunday sales would just spread the same profits out over seven days instead of six. Liquor sales on Sunday have had bipartisan support and opposition in the past, with some opposing on moral or religious grounds.

  7. Just doing the Lord’s work, bros.

  8. “bills…to ban wearing hoodies in public places”

    Aaargh! Will this meme never die?

    The OK bill against disgusing one’s identity doesn’t ban hoodies unless they *disguise your identity,* which many hoodies don’t do:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix…..34×377.jpg

    Now, cops will probably use such a law (if it passes) to harass innocent people, but if they do that, they will be *breaking the law,* not enforcing it.

    So we need to distinguish between (a) “cops will use this as an excuse for harassment” and (b) “the bill in and of itself bans hoodies.”

    1. Yeah, that. It is possible to condemn a stupid law without exaggerating and inventing stuff.

    2. Now, cops will probably use such a law (if it passes) to harass innocent people, but if they do that, they will be *breaking the law,* not enforcing it.

      Which means anything how, exactly?

      1. Lots of laws allow police to legally harass innocent people (if you define “innocent” as I do at least).

    3. Kenny McCormack could not be reached for comment.

  9. Dude really? So who comes up with all that silliness.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  10. I’m torn on the cell phone thing – I feel strongly that you are wrong to use your cell while driving because it is a bad practice. I advise you all against it.

    That said, don’t know if this should be a matter of law – although it is possibly justified as such so far as cell users represent a danger to other folk on the roads (as opposed to just themselves).

    So, cell phone use while driving – please don’t do it, so you don’t hurt me or mine.

    1. And the cell phone laws still allow hands free phone calls. Which seem just as bad to me. The problem isn’t using your hands to hold the phone. The problem is distraction. I’m distracted enough when I am talking to people in the car with me who can tell me when I’m about to his something.

      I’m with you. The law is probably unnecessary. There are already laws that cover inattentive driving. But please don’t do it anyway.

      1. There’s no need to ban cellphone-distracted driving. Just make it a strict liability issue. If a driver who would otherwise be at fault in a collision can demonstrate (easy with cellphone records) that the other driver was on the phone, the distracted driver is automatically at fault instead.

        Let the insurance companies enforce the ban.

  11. Better start carding all your friends before you buy that next round, Oklahomans!

    When marijuana becomes legal in Oklahoma eventually, we’re going to have to start saying things like “NON-rolling papers, please!”

  12. Something about the lack of articles in the headline caused me to imagine ENB reading the headling with a Russian accent.

  13. Under Senate Bill 30, introduced by state Sen. Patrick Anderson (R-District 19), anyone convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol could be ordered to abstain from alcohol entirely for a length of time determined by a judge.

    Cruel and unusual punishment.

    1. Is it “cruel and unusual” for those under 21, who are ordered to abstain from alcohol entirely, until they reach that “magical” age?
      And, in some states, that age because they were blackmailed by the feds to raise it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.