Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Pro alcohol, Anti Dry County, Anti Legislating Morality

Cyber issues and a morality question

I'm having some bizarre computer issues both hardware and software so I don't know how interactive I'll be until they are resolved.


Now for the morality question - where do you stand on legislating morality? Right or wrong? Effective or ineffective?

Currently I live in a dry county. For those of you who don't know, that means you can't sell booze of any kind here. The dryness of the county is about to be put to a vote.

Financial issues aside - and there are some - mostly in favor of making the county wet despite the misinformation all the numerous churches* want to spread - I want to talk about the morality issues.

Keeping this discussion limited to consenting adults only - I do NOT believe it is either moral or effective to legislate morality when there is no victim involved.

When I use the term victim, I mean a person who has been the victim of force; someone who has been murdered or raped. I do not mean a person who has been given a choice and made a choice that is possibly not the best choice for that person or their loved ones.

I am a consenting adult. I would like to be able to purchase a Newcastle Brown Ale from another consenting adult without driving an hour to the next county to buy it.

What gives anyone the right to refuse me that option?

But what about the people who drink to access? What about the people who drink and drive?

If you are going to remove alcohol so that people can not drink and drive or drink to access; then you also need to remove guns and knives and anything that one person could use to murder or harm themselves or someone else.

We do not take someone off the streets because we suspect that they are going to murder someone. We take them off the streets after they have already done it or after they have committed some other crime.

The same should apply for alcohol. The consequences of excessive drinking or drunk driving need to be dealt with after the fact, not before.


I can already hear people screaming; "if that's true of alcohol, what about heroin; prostitution?" I'm sorry but if those things involve consenting adults and there is no force involved, the same reasoning is true.

"But what if my child gets a hold of heroin? Becomes a prostitute? Drinks to excess?"

I think it comes down to this - do you want to live in a world where adults can not do anything that is not safe for children? I don't.


And all you people who are going to push bible stuff at me, don't bother. That book you are so fond of, teaches a thing called FREE WILL. And if you are attempting to legislate the choices away from people who were given those choices by that god you profess to worship - you are attempting to usurp god's authority.

Who are you to do that?


*I could not find an accurate number of churches in Marshall County because on every list I read, I knew of churches not listed. I would estimate there are 100+ churches in a county that is 305 square miles. That's over 100 businesses that don't have to pay taxes. That, IMHO, is morally wrong in a county where destitute poverty is the rule for children, not the exception.

(All pics were taken from bing images and made into thumbnails for legal purposes.)


  1. I'm with you on legislating morality. I don't look at laws against violence as legislating morality: those are crimes against individuals and society and threaten the society. Drinking, by itself, does not threaten society anymore than unmarried sex or what two consenting adults choose to do in privacy. As long as it isn't making bombs to disturb and destroy society.

    I hope the vote passes for your county to become a wet one. There will be a whole slew of new businesses opening up in the county, businesses that pay taxes. Right now, all that money is running right out into the next county. It would be nice if it could stay at home.

    Good luck on your tech issues. As bad as car issues.

    1. I hope it passes, too. And my tech issues appear to be solved.

  2. I grew up in a dry county in Texas. Every time it came up for a vote, the "dry" campaign was funded by the liquor stores that ringed the county. :-) I'm with you, but I'd say based on my experience that people get into "but it's always been this way" and that kind of stuff is difficult to change. It's easy for those who are opposed to alcohol sales to paint a paranoid pictures of what will happen if alcohol is readily available, even though every other place I've ever lived has been "wet" and the alcohol problems aren't any worse than they were in the "dry" area. So I'm happy to live someplace that is "wet" now.

    On the other hand, the place we live now is the first place I've lived where gambling is legal. At first I thought that was fine-- because you can't legislate morality-- but I have to say now that we've lived here awhile that it is a pain that EVERY gas station, convenience store, and most restaurants have gambling machines. They make so much money from them that they can't not do it. if you're not interested, it's irritating. And there are casinos all over the place. So all other things being equal (which they never are), I'd choose to live somewhere where gambling was illegal, even though it's legislating morality.

    1. Gambling is legal here. Doesn't really bother me unless I'm in line behind someone with 50 ticket requests. Of course, that can bother me with things other than lottery.

  3. I don't think heroine is comparable cause it's not something we've all done recreationally for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm ok with legalizing marijuana, though.

    Some aboriginal communities are dry, and I can understand why. Would be interested to know if it "works" though. Gangsterism in the US basically boomed because of Prohibition.

    1. I'm not sure what they think it's working at here. People just drive further to get it. Of course, there are times when I would have ducked in somewhere and just bought one beer that I wouldn't drive an hour to get.