I’m for I-1183 as government has no business, well, being in business, period. Net profit or loss is irrelevant. However, the argument against is inane.
The claim that alcohol consumption will increase 50 percent if this initiative passes is a ridiculous scare tactic. It implies the majority
of drinkers are alcoholics who will be compelled to buy liquor if they see it in the grocery store (but apparently not so for beer and wine). And underage drinking will run rampant if liquor is sold in the same stores since there’s no control over beer and wine sales to minors, right?
In reality, the vast majority of drinkers have their own preference: beer (most popular), wine or liquor. Beer and wine drinkers aren’t going to switch to liquor if it’s more convenient to buy. And those who have drinking problems will seek it, regardless. Passage of I-1183 isn’t going to change these realities, nor consumption.
The implication made by the campaign against I-1183 that bothers me most (other than the hypocrisy of Big Beer funding it) is the same as the opposition to selling liquor on Sundays. If alcohol is the ruin of society, and making it more available/convenient is bad, then making it less so must be good, so the best solution must be … Prohibition. We all know how well that worked, giving rise to the mob (just as drug prohibition has given rise to the drug cartels). The bottom line is people are going to do what they really want to do, and get what they really want. It’s that pesky, inconvenient thing called freedom.
James Anderson
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
