in other news...
Nov. 7th, 2006 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hermionesviolinI've gotten used to opponents of MA Question 1 issue invoking the oppression of the little guy (i.e. the locally owned packies), but today's Metro had Malden Police Chief Kenneth Coye opposing Question 1 and he is quoted as saying (in part): "We are a small city, and there are plenty of places now where people can buy alcohol. What appears would happen (is) that we'd have very small outlets, mom-and-pop places, gas stations with mini-marts selling alcohol. It would be very difficult to monitor." My first thought was of the cognitive disconnect between the discourse I've gotten used to and the statement that it would be bad to have "mom-and-pop places" selling alcohol. My second thought was annoyance at the implication of incompetence (especially because I've been primed after the arguments about whether grocery store cashiers -- i.e., teens -- can be trusted to check IDs).
I also find it interesting [read: "surprising, and somewhat distressing"] when people's animosity toward alcohol comes out in their arguments in opposition to Question 1 (Joe Fitzgerald, for example). "Alcohol, despite being ruinous to lives, marriages, careers and reputations, remains the beneficiary of a great double standard." Er, it's alcohol abuse that's so ruinous. If you come from a history of alcohol abuse and you own that that colors your relationship with the issue, fine, but what's up with the demonization of alcohol, period, being presented as fact? I mean, we do recall that Prohibition didn't work, right? I tend toward legalizing, and thus regulating, everything -- and yes I realize that Question 1 comes under that grey area of regulation. I do appreciate Joe's candidness with: "Highway carnage? Please. There’s carnage now, and anyone who sells or dispenses alcohol, package stores included, is, by definition, associated with it. The little guys are just as complicit." However, the idea that a grocery store selling alcohol encourages people to drink I find insulting (this is my problem with a lot of protective legislation, that we have to save people from theirselves -- which, yes, comes into tension with my understanding that advertising is powerful and manipulative).
I also find it interesting [read: "surprising, and somewhat distressing"] when people's animosity toward alcohol comes out in their arguments in opposition to Question 1 (Joe Fitzgerald, for example). "Alcohol, despite being ruinous to lives, marriages, careers and reputations, remains the beneficiary of a great double standard." Er, it's alcohol abuse that's so ruinous. If you come from a history of alcohol abuse and you own that that colors your relationship with the issue, fine, but what's up with the demonization of alcohol, period, being presented as fact? I mean, we do recall that Prohibition didn't work, right? I tend toward legalizing, and thus regulating, everything -- and yes I realize that Question 1 comes under that grey area of regulation. I do appreciate Joe's candidness with: "Highway carnage? Please. There’s carnage now, and anyone who sells or dispenses alcohol, package stores included, is, by definition, associated with it. The little guys are just as complicit." However, the idea that a grocery store selling alcohol encourages people to drink I find insulting (this is my problem with a lot of protective legislation, that we have to save people from theirselves -- which, yes, comes into tension with my understanding that advertising is powerful and manipulative).