I planned to submit this to the Herald-Leader, but it was too long for their editorial section. Anyway, here it is. Just open this link, and look in the Comments Section.
TO WIN THE WARS ON POVERTY & ADDICTION, OTHER EASTERN KENTUCKY CITIES WOULD BE WELL SERVED TO FOLLOW LEADS SET BY CORBIN, LONDON INITIATIVES & LEGALIZE ALCOHOL SALES
I was amazed while catching the late edition of the evening news, last Sunday evening. As a college student transitioning from Lexington, Kentucky to Highland Heights, Kentucky, the summer days in Oneida, Kentucky can pass rather slowly; but I became startled while watching a tv evening news report stating some Eastern Kentucky communities were taking steps to legalize alcohol sales. To anyone who’s lived in the region, (or any part of the Bible Belt Region), this probably came as somewhat of a surprise too. As a newscaster cut to a clip showing the enormous response to London's newest business, I realized the far-reaching impacts that the legalization of alcohol sales could provide to Eastern Kentucky. During a recent phone interview with London-Laurel County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Smith, he stated that since Janruary, there have been 30 ribbon cutting ceremonies celebrating new businesses (unprecedented growth for the Appalachian region). The question now becomes: How long will it take other cities to act to improve their own cash-strapped counties?
At risk of oversimplification, one would assume that many other Eastern Kentucky Counties, plagued by poverty and addiction, would be well served to aid their struggles with tax money garnered from legalized alcohol sales. Undoubtedly, there are people in many of these communities (certainly including my own) who would raise an eyebrow while reading this. Maybe I have become un-controllably pessimistic, but is it possible that the current situations surrounding us have become so dire because of our reluctance to catch up to the rest of our counter-parts? All the while, we have been watching our own governments lose valuable dollars to other counties because we refuse our residents the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would be able to (legally) buy a drink (as they could in virtually any other reasonably sized city).
I don’t think it’s any secret that alcohol is readily available anywhere in the United States, wet or dry county. Whether or not a small region (as part of a large nation) generally agrees or disagrees with alcohol consumption does nothing to change the fact that said consumption has been common-place in our national social structure for generations, and since it can be enjoyed reasonably and responsibly, is therefore legal on a national level. Since Americans experimented with alcohol legislation in the 1920's, dissenters should notice the "effectiveness" of Prohibition era laws, which were greatly abused and facilitated the growth of organized criminal enterprise, leading to their ultimate dismissal in 1933. Sound familiar? If you live in a wet area, you are likely to associate the word “bootleggers” with cigar toting gangsters of the 1920's, while many of those who live in dry areas would be more likely to conjure ideas of a familiar face whom they buy their alcohol from when they can’t make time in their daily grind to make the journey to the nearest wet city.
The "wet/dry" issue becomes problematic when we, as citizens of dry counties, expect our governments to out-perform governments of counties who not only have their own tax money, but also have a considerable percentage of ours as well. Even withstanding the morality issues associated with alcohol, there should be no argument that tax money garnered from alcohol sales would enable governments to battle what haunts the region most, and (as our area's drug epidemic should have taught us), has more cyclic and devastating consequences than alcoholism, those being poverty and drug addiction. If you really want to see a decrease in alcoholism in your area, reducing the amount of poverty and families plauged by drug addiction, (two major risk-factors for alcoholism) seems to be a reasonable start. If we, as human beings, are looking to break the most vicious cycles paralyzing our society, should we (as voters of impoverished dry counties) be too proud to aid our fight with alcohol taxes? The irony of the phrase "beggars can't be choosers" seems appalling at this point. My greatest hope is that we, as Eastern Kentuckians living in impoverished areas, band together and somehow make sustainable progress toward economic and social reform, in the process making our towns models of desirable growth and development.
No matter your stance on the morality of drinking, there is little argument that, if alcohol taxes were invested wisely, at least some glimmer of hope would shine in an area desperate for economical sustainability after bearing witness to the end of the coal boom. Some who argue against alcohol use the slippery slope argument: “if alcohol now, then what’s next?” While it may be true that even the most repulsive activities could be legalized to gain money, our society yields no reasonable indications of moves in that direction, and in effect, renders the argument moot. I would feel completely secure in stating that if every community in Eastern Kentucky were to vote wet tomorrow, no catastrophic chain of events would lead to the eventual legalization of more potent chemical substances or blatantly deviant and harmful activities (no matter how badly we need the tax money).
To anyone arguing for complete prohibition, I would quote John D. Rockefeller: "When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."
As history has shown us, alcohol has become so deeply rooted in our culture that no matter how divisive the issue may be, it seems as though there will always be a considerable segment of society that chooses to drink. The question seemingly ends up shifting to whether prohibitionists would rather see alcohol funds re-invested into their communities for a greater good, or continue to turn away as their neighbors line the pockets of other areas.
1 comment:
TO WIN THE WARS ON POVERTY & ADDICTION, OTHER EASTERN KENTUCKY CITIES WOULD BE WELL SERVED TO FOLLOW LEADS SET BY CORBIN, LONDON INITIATIVES & LEGALIZE ALCOHOL SALES
I was amazed while catching the late edition of the evening news, last Sunday evening. As a college student transitioning from Lexington, Kentucky to Highland Heights, Kentucky, the summer days in Oneida, Kentucky can pass rather slowly; but I became startled while watching a tv evening news report stating some Eastern Kentucky communities were taking steps to legalize alcohol sales. To anyone who’s lived in the region, (or any part of the Bible Belt Region), this probably came as somewhat of a surprise too. As a newscaster cut to a clip showing the enormous response to London's newest business, I realized the far-reaching impacts that the legalization of alcohol sales could provide to Eastern Kentucky. During a recent phone interview with London-Laurel County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Smith, he stated that since Janruary, there have been 30 ribbon cutting ceremonies celebrating new businesses (unprecedented growth for the Appalachian region). The question now becomes: How long will it take other cities to act to improve their own cash-strapped counties?
At risk of oversimplification, one would assume that many other Eastern Kentucky Counties, plagued by poverty and addiction, would be well served to aid their struggles with tax money garnered from legalized alcohol sales. Undoubtedly, there are people in many of these communities (certainly including my own) who would raise an eyebrow while reading this. Maybe I have become un-controllably pessimistic, but is it possible that the current situations surrounding us have become so dire because of our reluctance to catch up to the rest of our counter-parts? All the while, we have been watching our own governments lose valuable dollars to other counties because we refuse our residents the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would be able to (legally) buy a drink (as they could in virtually any other reasonably sized city).
I don’t think it’s any secret that alcohol is readily available anywhere in the United States, wet or dry county. Whether or not a small region (as part of a large nation) generally agrees or disagrees with alcohol consumption does nothing to change the fact that said consumption has been common-place in our national social structure for generations, and since it can be enjoyed reasonably and responsibly, is therefore legal on a national level. Since Americans experimented with alcohol legislation in the 1920's, dissenters should notice the "effectiveness" of Prohibition era laws, which were greatly abused and facilitated the growth of organized criminal enterprise, leading to their ultimate dismissal in 1933. Sound familiar? If you live in a wet area, you are likely to associate the word “bootleggers” with cigar toting gangsters of the 1920's, while many of those who live in dry areas would be more likely to conjure ideas of a familiar face whom they buy their alcohol from when they can’t make time in their daily grind to make the journey to the nearest wet city.
The "wet/dry" issue becomes problematic when we, as citizens of dry counties, expect our governments to out-perform governments of counties who not only have their own tax money, but also have a considerable percentage of ours as well. Even withstanding the morality issues associated with alcohol, there should be no argument that tax money garnered from alcohol sales would enable governments to battle what haunts the region most, and (as our area's drug epidemic should have taught us), has more cyclic and devastating consequences than alcoholism, those being poverty and drug addiction. If you really want to see a decrease in alcoholism in your area, reducing the amount of poverty and families plauged by drug addiction, (two major risk-factors for alcoholism) seems to be a reasonable start. If we, as human beings, are looking to break the most vicious cycles paralyzing our society, should we (as voters of impoverished dry counties) be too proud to aid our fight with alcohol taxes? The irony of the phrase "beggars can't be choosers" seems appalling at this point. My greatest hope is that we, as Eastern Kentuckians living in impoverished areas, band together and somehow make sustainable progress toward economic and social reform, in the process making our towns models of desirable growth and development.
No matter your stance on the morality of drinking, there is little argument that, if alcohol taxes were invested wisely, at least some glimmer of hope would shine in an area desperate for economical sustainability after bearing witness to the end of the coal boom. Some who argue against alcohol use the slippery slope argument: “if alcohol now, then what’s next?” While it may be true that even the most repulsive activities could be legalized to gain money, our society yields no reasonable indications of moves in that direction, and in effect, renders the argument moot. I would feel completely secure in stating that if every community in Eastern Kentucky were to vote wet tomorrow, no catastrophic chain of events would lead to the eventual legalization of more potent chemical substances or blatantly deviant and harmful activities (no matter how badly we need the tax money).
To anyone arguing for complete prohibition, I would quote John D. Rockefeller: "When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."
As history has shown us, alcohol has become so deeply rooted in our culture that no matter how divisive the issue may be, it seems as though there will always be a considerable segment of society that chooses to drink. The question seemingly ends up shifting to whether prohibitionists would rather see alcohol funds re-invested into their communities for a greater good, or continue to turn away as their neighbors line the pockets of other areas.
- John Edward Andrew Brown, 22
Post a Comment