People v. Gaines: Vague Probation Conditions or When is Alcohol the "Chief" Item of Sale?

Mr. Gains accepted a grant of probation.  Among his terms of probation were: that he not go to any establishment where alcohol is the “chief item of sale,”; that he not use or possess any “dangerous drugs,”; and, that he not own or possess any weapon that can be concealed on his person.

Gains's appeal challenges the Constitutionality of these three terms.  The First District holds the first two terms are unconstitutionally vague and reverses in part.

The test is whether a term is so vague as to risk a probationer unknowingly violating it; or, stated another way, whether a reasonable person would know what the term prohibits.  I am not sure what the alcohol term prohibits.  What is "chief item of sale"?  Does it mean the business makes the majority of its profit from alcohol sales?  Then, according to my friends in the restaurant business, most upscale eateries are off limits.  Or does it mean alcohol is most-often purchased item?  Then a rock concert may be off-limits.  If a defendant is to avoid bars and liquors stores, then just say that.

The "dangerous drugs" term is also tosh.  Dangerous to whom?  Insulin is dangerous to hypoglycemics.  Tylenol, taken too often, can kill your liver.  If you mean controlled substances, just say it.

In my time as a criminal defense attorney, I have never seen a list of probation terms that could be argued to have originated from anyone possessing rational thought.  Just as the comedic great George Carlin condensed the 10 Commandments down to 2, anyone semi-lettered can condense most 20+ term probation lists down to a list that can be counted on one hand.  The term "obey all laws" always begins the list which then goes on to individually prohibit the violation of specific laws.  Obeying all laws necessarily includes not possessing controlled substances without a valid prescription, possessing a firearm as a felon, trafficking in controlled substances, possessing illegal weapons, driving without a license and insurance, etc.  So why waste time and risk confusion with these pleonasms?  

Even more maddening is when probation terms directly conflict with one another.  In court the other day, a gentleman's probation conditions included that he: [1] not go upon the grounds of any jail or prison, [2] serve 180 days in the county jail, [3] not associate with people he suspected were drug users, [4] enroll in and complete a drug rehabilitation program, and  [5] not associate with people he knew were on probation or parole, 

Clearly this man cannot comply with all these conditions.  He must use his own discretion to determine which term he should violate in order to comply with its converse.  Any intelligent person will come to the conclusion that if it is impossible to comply with all the terms, the court doesn't truly mean what is says, a dangerous message to send.

Is it that difficult to draft a concise list of consistent,clear terms that will keep a defendant out of trouble?  I surmise the Courts of Appeal ask themselves the same question when yet another one of these cases hits their desk.