Missed the point. Alcohol is a choice. It mostly kills the person drinking. On occasion, it kills others. Hence DUI laws where we attempt to regulate the behavior for which kills others.
I’m going with no, we let drunk drivers out the next day, they’re driving immediately again, and we allow numerous infractions before we actually restrict their actions.
We never require proof of true rehabilitation or abstinence. The process takes years.
We place the functional alcoholics right to work well above the welfare of the general public ALL the time. If there’s a “core value”, that’s certainly it.
But yes, they’re identical in that on exceedingly rare occasion, both kill others.
So it’s a pretty poor example. And wasn’t what was asked anyway. The question asked was can a Governor of their own accord, decide DUI is a big enough problem to declare it an “emergency” and close the liquor stores without legislative oversight or approval?
It’s already illegal to drink and drive, and already illegal to know you have Covid and go spit on someone. The question was about the so-called “emergency”.
I doubt there’s anything so time sensitive at this point that State legislators can’t go back to work handling the virus rules, laws, appropriations, and even authorize the individual Governors to handle whatever the legislature likes, with full legislative approval and oversight.
Certainly no “emergency” in most areas.
Define the “emergency” and a measure of when the services of a single man or woman handling it, is no longer necessary. Because I’m not seeing any reason only 46 people need to be in charge of anything in our representative democracy at this point.
If legislatures want to enact lockup laws, by all means, they should. They don’t need the Governors doing it with or without their approval at this point. They have as much access to information as the Governors do.
If they want a Governor to continue to manage all or part of it, authorize them to do so with a proper vote. Same with appropriations.
There’s no particular time sensitive actions they can’t authorize properly if desired.
Crisis avoided. Hospitals saved. Time to return to representatives representing constituents.
We don’t do “edicts” and “proclamations” here. We do voting and representatives.
Answer the question posed, it’s already illegal to knowingly harm another. We let people do it repetitively all the time. “Three strikes” rules have been ubiquitous nearly everywhere for decades.
