[Drinking + Politics] Blogger Bob Henline made a phenomenal post on his blog on the anti-private club furor being fronted by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving group. In a fair and thorough manner his blog covers the MADD arguments in a devastating blow-by-blow account. You can check out the full MADD position here (via Utah Policy.com), but what's interesting is that Henline picks up on the totally neo-prohibitionist slant that MADD has taken of late.
Namely MADD makes the underlying argument that the availability of alcohol results in alcohol-related public health effects, which would include all the ills associated with alcohol such as DUI deaths, alcoholism, alcohol poisoning etc...
And when I recognized this logic I got one of those weird feelings, where goosebumps ran up my arms and I realized I am seeing an argument made against a liberal camp (drinkers and drinking establishments) from a conservative camp (religious groups, MADD, teetotalers) which is the same argument made against opposite camps regarding another controversial commodity.
Guns.
Yessiree that's right, how often have you heard concerned gun-owners decry liberal activists for fear that they were trying to ban outright firearms?
And certainly the argument resounded that 'Hey back off hippy! Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and certainly responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for the negligent and criminal behavior of outlaws, right?'
So MADD does not like to see drinks to even be visible in restaurants for fear of showing kids that alcohol is available and therefore cool. I wonder then if MADD would support a Zion's curtain going up in all outdoor retail shops to shield the image of guns from children. Because, hell, if the availability of alcohol has a direct correlation to negative public health effects certainly the same logic applies to the availability of guns, right?
Apples and oranges you say? I'm not so sure. But in comparing the duelling commodities of good American guns and booze, I feel like I might be hatching just now a possible liquor-law reform: How about we get rid private club memberships in lieu of something comparable to a one-time concealed-carry permit class or hunter's safety course, something like a drinkers-safety
class...hmmm, and maybe we could make children wear bright neon vests when they go into Chili's, so the bartenders will be able to spot them more easily and make sure they don't go swiping cocktails from the server's station. Yes! I think I need to contact a legislator! (Eric S. Peterson)
Namely MADD makes the underlying argument that the availability of alcohol results in alcohol-related public health effects, which would include all the ills associated with alcohol such as DUI deaths, alcoholism, alcohol poisoning etc...
And when I recognized this logic I got one of those weird feelings, where goosebumps ran up my arms and I realized I am seeing an argument made against a liberal camp (drinkers and drinking establishments) from a conservative camp (religious groups, MADD, teetotalers) which is the same argument made against opposite camps regarding another controversial commodity.
Guns.
Yessiree that's right, how often have you heard concerned gun-owners decry liberal activists for fear that they were trying to ban outright firearms?
And certainly the argument resounded that 'Hey back off hippy! Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and certainly responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for the negligent and criminal behavior of outlaws, right?'
So MADD does not like to see drinks to even be visible in restaurants for fear of showing kids that alcohol is available and therefore cool. I wonder then if MADD would support a Zion's curtain going up in all outdoor retail shops to shield the image of guns from children. Because, hell, if the availability of alcohol has a direct correlation to negative public health effects certainly the same logic applies to the availability of guns, right?
Apples and oranges you say? I'm not so sure. But in comparing the duelling commodities of good American guns and booze, I feel like I might be hatching just now a possible liquor-law reform: How about we get rid private club memberships in lieu of something comparable to a one-time concealed-carry permit class or hunter's safety course, something like a drinkers-safety
class...hmmm, and maybe we could make children wear bright neon vests when they go into Chili's, so the bartenders will be able to spot them more easily and make sure they don't go swiping cocktails from the server's station. Yes! I think I need to contact a legislator! (Eric S. Peterson)
Waddoups, Buttars and the sloppy assed fat oinker Carl something, all from West Jordon and all an embarrassment.
ReplyDeletePut scanners at every ward house, I want to track these losers.
Bad link to Bob Henline's blog. Here's the corrected link to his post on Nonpart.org.
ReplyDeleteMADD is no different than the ADL, the SPLC, or many of these other predatory lobbies. They're never satisfied; they continue to up the ante and inflate the problem for the sake of organizational self-perpetuation and to keep the donation spigots cranked wide open.
And of course, MADD disingenously characterizes opposition to their neo-fascist agenda as support of drunk driving.
Nice blog. I think the best you could do to prevent drunk driving is provide better (night hours on fr/sa) public transportation.
ReplyDeleteThank you anonymous number 3 for the heads up on the link, I fixed that one and the other ones. And thanks for the comments.--Eric S. Peterson
ReplyDeleteI gotta get the fuck out of here...
ReplyDeleteI don't think the 'M' in the Utah chapter of MADD stands for Mothers...
ReplyDeleteHi there, yeah this paragraph is in fact good
ReplyDeleteand I have learned lot of things from it regarding blogging.
thanks.
Feel free to visit my web site ... diet plan for women