One notices that many political ads have much in common with fairy tales and sea stories.
The common thread is that, in all three, you often have to dig deeply to find what one might consider factual information.
Lately, we’ve been bombarded with ads supporting and opposing Initiative 1183, which would allow the issuance of liquor licenses to medium and large grocery and retail stores.
Getting a bit cranky at the claims and counter-claims, I went online, downloaded the initiative text, and read the entire thing.
It was a self-imposed penance (akin to watching “reality” shows) for many past misdeeds because trying to decipher the meaning and intent of these things can try the patience of a saint.
Still, I came away with the thought that I’m for it. No big surprise since I’m not a fan of our government intruding into areas where it shouldn’t be and, to me, retail sales of alcohol is one such place.
In this arena, I believe that government should adopt the role of referee — definitely on the field, but only as an arbiter and strict enforcer of the rules. Too, in reading the initiative, one finds that some fairly stringent training requirements and harsh penalties have been provided for the state’s use in maintaining order and discipline.
My support for the initiative also derives from the fact that I don’t like anyone (or any ad) trying to scare me into doing things.
As most of you know, I was born and raised in New Orleans. It was, and still is, a rather unique city. In the field of alcohol sales, Louisiana and (for certain) New Orleans are far more liberal than Washington and growing up there led to many interesting experiences.
My dad wasn’t a big drinker, but he did like to “have a glass” every now and then. When the urge hit him, he’d often give me some money and send me down to “Josie’s Place” (our neighborhood bar) to pick up a six pack or a bottle of bourbon. I may have been 10 or so, at best, when I first started doing this for him.
Even then, I knew what liquor was (an adult drink he’d let me taste), but couldn’t understand why anyone liked it when soda pop tasted so much better. The thing is, no one raised an eyebrow — not even off-duty police officers — when I left with what I’d been sent for. And I wasn’t the only kid doing this. It was normal and didn’t seem to cause much of a fuss at all. It was, in fact, simply a chore.
Later, as a teenager, I worked at a grocery store that was part of a very large national chain. There, we were allowed to sell hard liquor over the counter and I was doing so long before I was 18.
Was I taught to check for proper identification? Yep. Did I do this? You bet I did because I needed that job to pay for the car I was rebuilding. Did selling hard liquor lead me down the road to perdition? It wasn’t alcohol that did it.
That said, did I experiment with alcohol as a teenager? Of course I did — as did every teenager I knew. Would it have been difficult to get that alcohol had it not been sold in stores? Of course not. My point is that, even with the relaxed rules, few of us ever became drunks or were ever involved in deadly accidents.
Personal experience aside, there’s yet another reason I’m supporting this initiative. It’s because I believe that “where” someone buys alcohol has little, if anything, to do with what happens when alcohol is abused.
The bad things caused by alcohol abuse have been, and always will be, the result of poor decisions made by individuals. Stupid or dangerous behavior is a consequence of a lack of personal responsibility and an individual’s failure to comprehend the possible consequences of his or her own actions. Having the government in charge of the sale of alcohol isn’t going to change that fact one iota.
All in all, this initiative is long overdue, reasonable, and gets the government out of the business of selling alcohol.
I believe that’s a good thing.
Larry Simoneaux lives in Edmonds. Send comments to larrysim@comcast.net.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
