Down to the Liquor Store....
...or the "packee" as the locals say.
Today we have a referendum question (question #1) on the ballot as to whether or not grocery and convenience stores should be allowed to sell wine. Massachusetts, like 16 other states, does not permit grocery stores to sell wine, beer, or liquor. Until recently, liquor stores could not open on Sunday either. Obviously, the big grocery chains want to eradicate this artifact of Prohibition. For the past few months, every time I have entered a liquor store (which I do more frequently than I care to admit), there is a sign on the door urging a NO vote, and every time I enter a grocery store (which is a rarer phenomenon) there is a sign urging a YES vote.
I strongly hope that this referendum gets voted down but I suspect it will pass. The reason that it will pass is because most people will not be able to think of a reason why the proposed law change is bad. I believe the referendum is bad because I do not want to allow more consolidation in the retail industries. Why should we allow massive grocery store chains to get bigger and wipe out more small businesses? Unfortunately, that seems to be a perspective on the brink of extinction. In fact, it has not even been mentioned by any of the advertising campaigns urging us to vote no on Question 1. Instead, all the ads have been aimed at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving crowd. The ads all feature a scary cop warning us that a yes vote will result in more drunk driving. Which it might. Or it might not. I consider this aspect of the question an irrelevant smokescreen. I don't want to allow alcohol to be sold in grocery stores, because....gasp....I am happy with the way things are!
People of a generally conservative temperament (lower case 'c') often have a tough time expressing their viewpoint in a convincing manner. In fact, among the people I talk with, very few ever make an appeal to history, tradition, or custom as a valid reason for ever supporting anything. The rhetoric of conservation has little power nowadays. If something adds convenience to our lives, or contributes to public health or safety, or forwards a secular humanist agenda, or enhances the free movement of capital, then we have a convincing argument. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" appeals to very few. As a result, we end up with referendum questions brought by special interest groups.
4 years ago, we ha a referendum question proposing to ban greyhound racing. Why on earth would we end up with such a question on the ballot other than that some radical animal rights groups want to forward their agenda? But, when it gets presented to the voter in a referendum, he gets confused. He analyzes the question as if it was an abstract philisophical question since it has very little bearing on him personally. He probably has never been to a greyhound track; he gets bothered by the idea of mistreated animals; and he blandly votes to ban greyhound races. Now that referendum narrowly avoided passing 4 years ago, but in my opinion it should never have been presented to the voters in the first place. Why should an entire industry, an entire part of state history (albeit a very minor one), be wiped out. along with numerous jobs, just because some small interest group called for a show of hands? I have been to a greyhound track precisely twice in my life...when I turned 21 and when I was 25. (I lost $50 bucks I think). But I breathed a sigh of relief when the referendum was rejected.
I feel the same way about the liquor store question. Going to small liquor stores and chatting with the proprietors, who inevitably work behind the counter, is a pleasant part of my life, and is so for many other people as well. Probably 99% of the people who buy wine on a regular basis have a routine that they enjoy to acquire the wine. Have you ever heard anyone complain about how inconvenient it is that grocery stores do not sell wine? I haven't. Then why change the law? Should we change it just because we cant think of an effective rhetorical response to the question "Why aren't supermarkets allowed to sell wine?" In my opinion, it is a perfectly legitimate response to say: "Because thats the way we like it in Massachusetts."
We have the right to prohibit casinos, neon signs, Walmarts, marijuana, and prostitution. If you want a society where anything goes, move to Amsterdam! We have the right to allow smoking where we want it or ban it if we see fit. We have the right to enforce seatbelt use or we can choose not to enforce it. In this kind of case, I prefer non-draconian laws which preserve custom. Not every issue needs a constitutional argument, or a public health reason to back it up. We have the right to use government to maintain a society that we actually like! And we have the right to preserve some traditions...even if they are quaint relics from a failed social experiment from the 1930's.
Today we have a referendum question (question #1) on the ballot as to whether or not grocery and convenience stores should be allowed to sell wine. Massachusetts, like 16 other states, does not permit grocery stores to sell wine, beer, or liquor. Until recently, liquor stores could not open on Sunday either. Obviously, the big grocery chains want to eradicate this artifact of Prohibition. For the past few months, every time I have entered a liquor store (which I do more frequently than I care to admit), there is a sign on the door urging a NO vote, and every time I enter a grocery store (which is a rarer phenomenon) there is a sign urging a YES vote.
I strongly hope that this referendum gets voted down but I suspect it will pass. The reason that it will pass is because most people will not be able to think of a reason why the proposed law change is bad. I believe the referendum is bad because I do not want to allow more consolidation in the retail industries. Why should we allow massive grocery store chains to get bigger and wipe out more small businesses? Unfortunately, that seems to be a perspective on the brink of extinction. In fact, it has not even been mentioned by any of the advertising campaigns urging us to vote no on Question 1. Instead, all the ads have been aimed at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving crowd. The ads all feature a scary cop warning us that a yes vote will result in more drunk driving. Which it might. Or it might not. I consider this aspect of the question an irrelevant smokescreen. I don't want to allow alcohol to be sold in grocery stores, because....gasp....I am happy with the way things are!
People of a generally conservative temperament (lower case 'c') often have a tough time expressing their viewpoint in a convincing manner. In fact, among the people I talk with, very few ever make an appeal to history, tradition, or custom as a valid reason for ever supporting anything. The rhetoric of conservation has little power nowadays. If something adds convenience to our lives, or contributes to public health or safety, or forwards a secular humanist agenda, or enhances the free movement of capital, then we have a convincing argument. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" appeals to very few. As a result, we end up with referendum questions brought by special interest groups.
4 years ago, we ha a referendum question proposing to ban greyhound racing. Why on earth would we end up with such a question on the ballot other than that some radical animal rights groups want to forward their agenda? But, when it gets presented to the voter in a referendum, he gets confused. He analyzes the question as if it was an abstract philisophical question since it has very little bearing on him personally. He probably has never been to a greyhound track; he gets bothered by the idea of mistreated animals; and he blandly votes to ban greyhound races. Now that referendum narrowly avoided passing 4 years ago, but in my opinion it should never have been presented to the voters in the first place. Why should an entire industry, an entire part of state history (albeit a very minor one), be wiped out. along with numerous jobs, just because some small interest group called for a show of hands? I have been to a greyhound track precisely twice in my life...when I turned 21 and when I was 25. (I lost $50 bucks I think). But I breathed a sigh of relief when the referendum was rejected.
I feel the same way about the liquor store question. Going to small liquor stores and chatting with the proprietors, who inevitably work behind the counter, is a pleasant part of my life, and is so for many other people as well. Probably 99% of the people who buy wine on a regular basis have a routine that they enjoy to acquire the wine. Have you ever heard anyone complain about how inconvenient it is that grocery stores do not sell wine? I haven't. Then why change the law? Should we change it just because we cant think of an effective rhetorical response to the question "Why aren't supermarkets allowed to sell wine?" In my opinion, it is a perfectly legitimate response to say: "Because thats the way we like it in Massachusetts."
We have the right to prohibit casinos, neon signs, Walmarts, marijuana, and prostitution. If you want a society where anything goes, move to Amsterdam! We have the right to allow smoking where we want it or ban it if we see fit. We have the right to enforce seatbelt use or we can choose not to enforce it. In this kind of case, I prefer non-draconian laws which preserve custom. Not every issue needs a constitutional argument, or a public health reason to back it up. We have the right to use government to maintain a society that we actually like! And we have the right to preserve some traditions...even if they are quaint relics from a failed social experiment from the 1930's.
posted by itchy at 2:06 AM
1 Comments:
I agree that it's more than just the wine referendum (which didn't pass, I don't think--not all the votes are in yet, but it's looking good). All those referendums explain that a "yes" vote will institute a law or a law change--when I think of all the paperwork, red tape, and (wo)man hours behind that kind of endeavor, I almost always choose "no." If we have enough people willing to change some paper and protocols to make wine appear on different shelves, wouldn't they be better employed doing something more necessary?
oops, i gotta finish my homework....
Post a Comment
<< Home