Booze news
An effort is underway in Benton County to push legislation lowering the petition requirements -- now 38 percent of registered voters -- to get an alcohol sales measure on the ballot. The level is intentionally so high as to just about make it impossible to call wet elections in dry areas. (Thank UCA president Lu Hardin for that legislation, when he was a senator in Russellville.)






Comments
Lu Hardin is a big hypocrite on this issue (and most others). From one side of his mouth comes the scripture and "whooaa, unto you alocohol drinkers" and how he doesnt want it where it doesnt already dwell.... but then he will go around telling everyone at UCA, particularly students..... that its OK to drink alcohol at UCA tailgates as long as its in a cup and that the police arent going to do anything.... its an understanding, he says... someone at ArkTimes should do a story about that..... that'd be interesting....
Posted by: MH
|
December 30, 2006 11:36 PM
Lessening the signatures needed still won't get Benton (or any other) county over the people who want to drink in restaurants, but who won't vote "full wet" because they don't want liquor stores. Unfortunately, some of the most ardent supporters of private clubs buy into the "if we have liquor stores, there will be higher crime and drunks on the street" myth.
Posted by: EY
|
December 30, 2006 11:49 PM
Lu told me many years ago that he proposed that law because of all the strife wet/dry elections cause in a community. As a resident of Marion County, boy was he right. Things were going fairly well with the petition drive, etc until the "faith-based" folks got involved. Then it went to hell--ministers castigating their own flock for signing the petition, the financial terrorism that was encouraged by the "drys", full page ads in the local paper with "testimonials" from local high-school kids fearing for their lives if the alcohol issue passed, letters to the editor asking the folks behind the petition if they will feel remorse when a family or their own family is killed by a drunk driver...I could go on and on.
However, despite all that, the wets won by a rather large margin. Keep your head up Benton County, this can be done.
Posted by: sjp
|
December 31, 2006 07:32 AM
It's just a few hours away from 2007. Prohibition has been over for 73 years. The laws of the land say anyone over 21 has the right to a refreshing alcoholic beverage.
Why is it that all 50 states and all 75 Arkansas counties continue to act like booze is the great Satan, or that it's a temporary thing that will go away if ignored long enough.
6 days a week our friends in Crawford County cross the bridge to Fort Smith to stock up on hooch. Because they have all that driving to do, they buy extra to avoid being caught in a pinch. Forget Wal-Mart stock, I want a piece of the 2 liquor stores at the end of the bridge.
We have wet counties, dry counties, and dry counties with lots of private clubs. A quick check of the refrigerators in these totally dry counties would reveal a mother lode of fire water.
Who are we fooling? The drive-in window was invented for the Baptists. Private clubs have to pretend member's names are taped to each bottle...and about another half dozen things that are lies, that fool no one. The largest monopoly in the state is the liquor distributorships in LR.
It's time to quit playing games and make uniform liquor laws for the state and the nation.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
December 31, 2006 02:41 PM
If the 'drys' are worried about teen drinking they need to contact their legislators. There is no regulation in AR that penalizes teens attempting to purchase age -restricted products (alcohol & tobacco) and law enforcement agencies delight in attempting to entrap hard working Arkansans into violating the law in order to generate fine revenue and make a big splash that they're out there fighting crime. If a law were passed fining minors attempting to purchase with substantial fines (a portion of which $25-$50 to be awarded to the store clerk or bartender who prevented the sale and initiated prosecution) the problem would be greatly reduced at no cost to the taxpayers or law enforcement agency budgets because the incentive $ to stop the sales would be coming from fines paid by the minors. Are there any legislators out there willing to introduce this type of "no brainer" legislation in January?
Posted by: MysteryShopper
|
December 31, 2006 06:16 PM