Hacker News Reader

Comment by verteu | Hacker News Reader

Seems you're not allowed to be 'drunk' even if you're of legal age. From the handbook [1]:

"NOTE: Students who are aged 21 or older may drink alcohol when off center and not under center supervision; however, they cannot bring alcohol onto the center. In addition, if students of any age return to the center intoxicated, it is categorized as a Level II “intoxication” infraction described below."

Where:

"we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" [2]

[1] https://prh.jobcorps.gov/Exhibits/Exhibit%202-1%20Infraction... [2] https://supportservices.jobcorps.gov/Information%20Notices/i...

View on HN

I mean that seems fine. There's kids as young as 16 there and it's run by the federal government, I would not expect them to let you bring in alcohol or show up trashed.

It's a bit iffy if your own bed is on-center, so your can't sleep off off-center inebriation.

Sounds like its teaching valuable life skills to me.

It's fine to have ass-backwards, puritanical views, but it's not really the government's place to try to push them on vulnerable people.

I think you’re missing the boat here. The kids and young adults are in a specific job training program, not to get trashed but to learn. Furthermore, lots of programs (private and public) have substance free requirements. Anyways, requiring people to not come home trashed is by no means puritanical. They didn’t say you have to be completely sober and join a teetotaler society they just said “ don’t get visibly intoxicated.”

Personally it strikes me as Puritanical -- rather than prohibiting disruptive or abusive behavior, the regulation bans a particular state of mind.

It doesn't ban it. It bans it ON PROPERTY.

If someone values getting fucked up all the time more than their career, fine, but don't subsidize that behavior with my tax dollars.

These people are not just getting free training, but free room and board, clothing, tech, and even a stipend on top.

Everyone gets free life.

That cost has to be subsidized by someone. None of us truly gets to choose who will pay, just like none of us chose to be born in the first place.

They can do whatever they want on their own property.

If they want subsidized housing, they have to play by the rules.

It's not about banning "mind states". Once you have shared dorm-style housing you have to be more careful about the rules. If you have minors getting and/or being obviously drunk on your shared dorm-style housing and you do nothing, you're going to be in for a huge scandal as soon as one of those drunk minors does something harmful to someone else.

But let's think about this from a practical standpoint: If someone is quietly and safely getting drunk and then returning to their dorm unnoticed, nobody is going to know or care. This is a tool for them to exercise when people get out of line.

That is only truly moral if everyone involved is on equal footing with respect to the opportunity to own "their own property".

The entire existence of programs like this depends on the opposite notion.

Puritanical authoritarianism has an outsized effect on people who are less financially independent.

What do you mean "their property"? It's not private property, the program is funded by US taxpayers (eg: me).

I think you misread that. GP is saying they could do whatever they want on their property, but they are not on their property. They are on government property

Ah yes I see.

I think you're looking at this from a "How does it impact a responsible person's freedoms?" perspective.

But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective.

If you're serving low income populations, higher incidences of substance abuse come hand in hand.

And 1 person with a serious substance abuse problem in a group of 10 is still a big problem for everyone else.

Nobody's saying they can't avail themselves of vices... they just can't do it in a communal environment where people are trying to better themselves.

> But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective.

My point was: Why not ban the actual behavior that inconveniences or threatens others? Being too loud, causing property damage, etc.

(Though frankly, I don't feel very strongly about this. Presumably there's a reason for the rules -- I don't have much experience interacting with unemployed young adults.)

From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic.

Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape.

In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior.

Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.

They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others:

> "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]"

If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.

We explicitly ban bad behaviour in wider society and people still do it and still ruin many innocent people's lives as a result. Drunk driving, violence, disturbing the peace, stealing, coming home drunk and beating your family, etc.

These people need rigid structure and strict rules so they can get passed the hurdles that are easy for the rest of us but hard for them.

We need more of these kinds of programs, especially for convicts and othere societal degenerates. We either help them or let them rot far away from the rest of us, and I vote we at least try help them.

Agreed! It's about creating an environment exclusive of people practicing vices as one precondition for success.

If you're an alcoholic, it's going to be extremely difficult to stay on the wagon if there's a guy who offers you a drink every day... while you're trying to do something difficult, with all the intermittent failures and tough days that entails.

What's the worst way to combat poverty? Put all impoverished people together. What's the best way to combat poverty? Teach different behaviors and put some impoverished people in better environments, with non-impoverished people.

If someone is working to change their life, they deserve at least a neutral-to-positive environment in which to do that.

Don't overthink it: it's a liability issue in a shared living space, all morality aside.

"A certain state of mind"? Being drunk?

The entire rule is about discipline. The Job Corp is designed to instill such discipline in people who need it. No one said you can't drink at all. They said you can't drink on our property. God forbid they look out for the safety of people!

I truly don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over rules and regulations. They exist for a reason. Drunks cause problems. Drunks grope people, drunks get in fights, drunks vomit all over the place, drunks make your organization look sloppy, drunks miss work, etc. There are plenty of reasons to ban drunks on YOUR campus. None of them have to be, what you call, "puritanical" in origin.

Nobody's "panties are in a twist," as you so eloquently conjectured.

Many of America's alcohol-related regulations are, literally, Puritan in origin and exist largely due to historical precedent. [1] [2]

Thus, when encountering a surprisingly harsh anti-alcohol regulation, it's reasonable to question its origin and validity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States [2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/blue%20laws

"Surprisingly harsh" to who? Are you also upset you can't bring a kegger to a construction site to get all liquored up before you hop in the backhoe? Are the puritans also responsible for OSHA safety regulations?

As a taxpayer and someone who’s interested in being part of civil society, I’m fine with it.

Freedom doesn’t mean being a nuisance or disruptive. Some of us like to live in NICE living conditions.

What’s wrong with not being drunk when they’re in a program designed to help them?

Do you think it’s bad when you can’t drink alcohol or be drunk in a public library? Or at work? Two person startup aside are you going to show up to work drunk or smoke a J at your desk in an open office? Gonna join zoom zoinked with red eyes? Come on bro.

"you can drink outside but you can't go home afterwards until you're not drunk" seems wild to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding how the center works.

Why wild? Most people can have a few drinks, and stop before getting drunk; that's normal. Drinking until you are drunk is not normal.

that seems like a reasonable recommendation. they are recipients instead of customers in this relationship

So students on scholarship should be sober, but not full pay students?

It is reasonable to have rules regarding on-premises behavior. I don't agree with them, but there is nothing unreasonable about it. They probably also don't allow weapons or fireworks or other kinds of otherwise legal contraband.

Drunk is different than drinking.

So like every college dorm ever

Reply on news.ycombinator.com