The problem with these arguments against my proposal is that a degree of common sense (common sense isn't by the way) is required to impliment this. We all know who we mean, a doctor can tell the difference between a drunken trouble rouser and a person who has had a drink, has had an accident, hurt him,or herself, causes no trouble, no assaults, or a sportsman who has had an accident, and isn't causing any trouble. The trouble rowsers are quick enough to blame drink when they come before the courts on a charge of man slaughter as an excuse for their crime. Usually the police are involved in most of these trouble cases, that is a clue, if you want to know the crime, ask a police man.
All very true and common sense should prevail
