Kick the drunken hooligans out

There's been a lot of discussion about the local entertainment district's problems with people committing liquor-related offences, such as fighting or urinating in public. The common line that people are taking is that there need to be harsher fines, and ones which aren't so easy to evade.

Apparently, the fines are only $58, which many feel makes them little more than a slap on the wrist, especially considering that they appear to be easily evaded.

I have a suggestion for a more direct solution. Everyone is required to produce government issued photo-ID to enter clubs, bars, etc., or purchase alcohol. Currently, all this does is provide proof of age. I say we step it up a notch.

Much like some driving fines come with a suspended license, I think we should make alcohol purchase a privilege, not a right. It would be simple to implement. Simple install card readers at the clubs/bars. You have to swipe your license to get in. The card reader would go out and check your age, and whether you had any restrictions.

Next, make the liquor related offenses come with alcohol restrictions. If someone fights in public and receives a ticket, they get barred, for two months, from entering clubs or bars, and from purchasing alcohol at licensed restaurants or BC liquor stores. Now, maybe that ban should only extend over the affected area, but it could be extended to include other liquor related offences, such as drunk driving. Imagine that if someone were convicted of drunk driving, not only would they lose their license, they would also lose the ability to purchase their own alcohol in this province for, say, two years after they're out of jail! That consequences of a penalty like that might be enough to coerce people into slightly better behaviour.

The infrastructure is not unlike the one in place already to ensure that you don't get conflicting prescriptions from two different doctors. And the consequence scheme is not unlike the suspended license. The big difference is that liquor consumption appears to be considered a right.