LogFAQs > #937769908

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I think it's a situation where you need an absolute tonne of resources on hand so it can only be enacted in the calm when people get most upset at politicians making decisions.

I mean, it's not that implausible. If you still charge them for the liquor they drink, you're not spending any money on that (if anything, being the only salespeople in town, you might get wholesale discounts on it), so you're just looking at the manpower and possibly the cost of renting a space if you can't find a shut-down business to volunteer. It's the organization that would be the real challenge, since you'd need enough locations to prevent alcoholics from having to crowd together as well as to ensure that they can all get to one despite not being able to drive back and not being able to get rides with friends.

It could be done, and would probably actually save money in the long run due to less medical costs, but as I said, it'd be complicated. Leaving liquor stores open is much simpler and also makes everyone else that's stuck at home happier.

TigerTycoon posted...

The last time they tried to take away liquor from Americans people killed themselves drinking stuff they made in their bathtubs and the mafia skyrocketed in power selling alcohol that was now illegal to get legally.

To be fair, this wouldn't be full-on prohibition, just a few months of liquor stores being closed. By the time anyone got desperate enough to start bootlegging, they'd be open again.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.