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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.