Hopefully a "W" for beer today in Arkansas!

[uncleleon]

This is an entirely hyperbolic argument. See below I will use your same logic, notice the difference in the wronged group.

I don't know why the Jewish population in Europe didn't just move somewhere where Hitler couldn't get to them, I mean, what's moving a few thousand miles to stay alive.

I don't know why the native Americans didn't just move away from the white men when they started landing in the new world, if your land is so important go find some more somewhere where white men aren't.

Notice the differences?

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

 

[Dirty25]

We've been to many horse shows in Texas and there are some odd laws there. In some places restaurants can't serve alcohol, but clubs can. Anyone can eat in the club, but only members can buy alcohol. It costs $1 to join, and they give new members a $1 discount on their first drink. Am I missing something?

Same dumb stuff in AR also. Plenty of places give you a member card or make you sigh their member book to drink. My parents from Pittsburgh couldn't understand they couldn't have a beer with dinner at most places in Ar still though..I just became numb to it after 6 years I guess. I'm making up for lost time here in Germany, plenty of alcohol everywhere!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Hell, even here in NY you cant buy beer or spirits before noon on a Sunday. As I understand it, this was to cut down on church absenteeism. Seeing as how I only step foot in a church when under extreme mental or physical coersion, I would say that I represent a test case for the law being more or less useless.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

For all my joking about making this or that illegal I really dont believe that making something illegal a) makes it go away or b) is just. Having a special exception in a small local area to LEGALIZE something is a very very very different proposition than making something illegal in a small localized area.

An example of both off the top of my head. A nudist colony or nudist resort is a good idea. A small localized area decided it was ok to be naked or only partially clothed in that area. This is a good idea. I think one could make a rather compelling argument that nudity shouldnt be allowed in public nationwide, but in a small area it is a-ok.

The large soda ban was an example of the opposite. Making something unlawful that the rest of the nation enjoys in a small localized area (albeit one with a massive population). This was a terrible idea.

Granting more rights and priviledges to the people is a good idea. It makes for a happier populace. Reducing them, even on the local area, is a bad one. It makes for a less happy populace, and very often opens the door to a menagerie of side-effect issues.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

Are you suggesting only a single person is inconvenienced by this? You can't honestly think that is the case. Your logic 100% applies in my situation, you scoff at it because it's taken to an extreme situation.

Don't like that your county is dry? So what, I dont care if the hurdles to changing that are so high it's nearly impossible to change that.

As I've stated before though I'm all for local self determination. That's great, but sometime you run into the tyranny of the majority. What did it pass by? 53 or 57% of the vote? Of the portion of people that voted. That's hardly a blank check to suggest the entire state thinks the old system should stay.

Suggesting someone that doesn't like it should just move. So would you say the same thing about PPACA, everyone's at doesn't agree with Obama should just move out of the country?

Shouldn't the dry communities feel secure in that, their community is tight knit enough, and that the people in it are responsible, and would not abuse alcohol suddenly because its a wet county? Or am I missing the point of a dry/wet county separation? To me, it creates a have and have-nots sort of situation. You have some counties with a handful of people that own liqour stores that can rake in the cash, and people that could or want to work for or own a business selling liqour, but cannot do that due to what is barely a majority in their county (and then you have the owners of county line stores dumping money to prevent dry counties from becoming wet). This doesn't scream local self determination.

 

[uncleleon]

Why don't we repeal the law that makes it illegal instead of adding conditions to its legality. It's just like medical marijuana. Everyone's like ok that's good it's a step in the right direction. I say it's a step toward oligarchy. Look at the taxes they imposed with the legalization.

Your getting your freedom sold back to you with interest.

 

[uncleleon]

I'm suggesting people have to prioritize their wants and that they are free to have a liquor store near their home. Simple problem simple answer.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Why don't we repeal the law that makes it illegal instead of adding conditions to its legality.

NOW you're making an argument I could agree with.

 

[uncleleon]

Never mind, I've changed my opinion. I was wrong everyone else is right. God bless.

 

[helibrewer]

Maybe the legal marijuana states should adopt "pot counties and non-pot counties"...the fact that alcohol is singles out in all of this is just ridiculous. Can you buy cigarettes in all AR counties? I bet you can!

 

[ACbrewer]

For all my joking about making this or that illegal I really dont believe that making something illegal a) makes it go away or b) is just.

At the time of prohibition (pre 1920's) it was common for most wage earners to get paid in cash and far tomany of the men (married or not) to go and drink it, leaving little for their wife's/families. This was a social ill that those favoring prohibbition were thinking they could cure. - it wasn't their only reason btw.

During prohibbition, drinking didn't go away, but it signifigantly decreased. Infact after prohibbition drinking increased about 4 fold. - meaning once legal again everyone thought it was ok and drinking went up. BUT and this is the bigest part, the 13 years of prohibbition in this country changed the habits of those formerly drunk men who spent their wages and yes came home drunk and some even beat their wives.

I'm not sure another solution could have been used. I'm not sure the solution was just, and didn't create more problems. I only know that this is what happened. In some ways it does feel like curing a disease by killing the patient. After all prohibbition created a place for the mob to get going, it was facilitated by the national income tax - the fed's needed a replacement for the alcohol tax, it is possible it even generated the farm crissis of the early 1920s. [there was an over production of grains, none of which were being made into alcohol].
I'm not trying to reopen any debates.

Granting more rights and priviledges to the people is a good idea. It makes for a happier populace. Reducing them, even on the local area, is a bad one. It makes for a less happy populace, and very often opens the door to a menagerie of side-effect issues.

Agreed. Give more rights to the people. Trust them to act responsibly and let their poor choices affect them. While I'm sure people are happier when they have more rights, tying them to responsiblities/consequences probably doesn't make them happier. >shrugg< Either we will be rule by our self control from within, or ruled by a mailed fist from without.