Voters should defeat alcohol issues
The following is a Counterpoint.
By Carlton T. Boyles
How quickly we seem to forget tragedies caused by drinking and driving. It is unacceptable to equate increased revenue as a norm on the basis that Archdale and Thomasville allow alcohol sales.
Archdale grew for more than 35 years before voters narrowly passed a beer and wine, malt beverages and unfortified wine referendum.
Randleman's city manager has been quoted as saying that ABC revenues reduced the property tax rate several cents. Who in their right mind would trade the life of anyone for a savings of about $40 per year on a $200,000 home?
The N.C. State Highway Patrol's First Lt. B.K. Regan was quoted in the Oct. 21 issue of the High Point Enterprise as saying that since Oct. 10 there had been 88 alcohol-related accidents in Randolph County, of which five resulted in death. We expect approaching drivers to stay on their side of the road, but alcohol and its effects can cause drivers to lose control of a vehicle.
Regan shared these statistics for 2007 through Oct. 10 for Randolph County:
* 299 arrests of people driving while impaired.
* 46 arrests were of those under the legal drinking age.
* 114 were of those who failed to comply with alcohol restrictions on their licenses.
* 69 percent of the collisions handled by the highway patrol are in the northern part of the county.
Teenagers know that when leaders sacrifice their principles for ill-gotten financial gains that they are hypocrites. As for me and my household, there will be no alcohol allowed in our home for any occasion. We should be willing to establish positive guidelines that enhance the growth of our young people and adult citizens.
Will the Christians in the 70-plus churches rise to the occasion on Nov. 6 and soundly defeat the four alcohol-related issues on the ballot in Trinity? I trust our citizens will do the right thing.
Carlton T. Boyles lives in Trinity.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
As of the 2006 census estimates, Randolph County's population was 140410. As of the 2000 census only about 10% of Americans didn't have a car. So we'll put the numbers for drivers in Randolph County at 126369. And let's even assume every one of these incidents happened to a county resident.
And, lest we forget, each of these incidents involved something that was already against the law.
88 alcohol related accidents- 0.07%
5 resulted in death- 0.004%
299 impaired arrests- 0.2%
46 underage drinking- 0.04% (demographically skewed)
114 fail-to-comply- 0.09%
These aren't repetitive percent signs. 99.93% of the driving residents weren't involved in alcohol related accidents, and 99.8% of the driving residents weren't arrested for impairment. I'm not trying to cheapen the wrecks, injuries, and deaths that occurred, but your county is doing pretty well mathematically. To keep it in perspective I would be interested to see how drunk-driving stacked up against cell phone use, makeup application, and eating at the wheel. Or wrecks by old folks. And young folks. Both of those demographics stink at driving (IIHS 2006).
You hinted at it when you wrote, "there will be no alcohol allowed in our home for any occasion," but at least come right out and say that it's not about safety. If it is then show me the other numbers and call for congregations to ban cell phones and old people driving. Good luck with your plan, though. With voter turnout as low as it is you just might win.
Roger
PS- It's such a good in-context joke that I, as a Baptist, can't not ask it:
What's the difference between a Baptist and a Catholic?
Posted on November 2, 2007 6:10 AM
Good post Roger. I assume the 10% are driving age people who for whatever reason don't have a car? If so you might decrease your number of drivers to account for children.
IMO banning alcohol on a local level only forces people to drive somewhere else to get it.
The author finally reveals his motive in the last two paragraphs. He is a Christian who believes alcohol consumption is morally wrong. Fine to have that belief but not everyone shares it.
Posted on November 2, 2007 6:57 AM
To clarify, I don't believe simply purchasing and consuming alcohol is morally wrong. I DO believe getting plastered, hopping behind the wheel and endangering the lives of others is morally wrong.
Posted on November 2, 2007 7:02 AM
Roger,
That was a well thought out post!
We had prohibition of alcohol in the twenties.....stop smoking campaigns in the eighties.....and now we have prohibition of food (trans-fats and snacks at school)....when the masses realize that it's not the governments job to police what goes into or comes out of our individual mouths and that we ALL need to take responsibility for our actions will we all stop this whining!
Posted on November 2, 2007 8:05 AM
Dan,
Thanks for that clarification. I agree with all of the previous posts.
The call to the 70-plus churches is just plain silly. A quick read of the Bible shows that the first miracle Jesus performed publicly was to turn water into wine. You think Jesus disapproved of drinking?
I can't turn water into wine but I think I should have the legal right to turn wine into water.
:)
Posted on November 2, 2007 9:55 AM
It's too bad Mr. Boyles ruined his case by pitching it explicitly as a Christian one. Otherwise, he surely would have attracted the usual amen chorus favoring tax increases to fund nanny-state regulation. In the future, Mr. Boyles, be sure to observe that you're doing this "for the children." And toss in some slur against "the rich." That always works.
I'm guessing the Baptist/Catholic difference has something to do with that hat the pope wears? Let us know.
Posted on November 2, 2007 10:15 AM
Roger, I do like the mathematical reasoning presented in the post. That offers clear reasoning to show that Mr. Boyles' argument is not necessarily one of safety (I believe it is a sub-reason though). Rather, I believe (as others have noted) that the real reason is one of a religious (Christian) nature. While I applaud Mr. Boyles in his stand, I do not agree.
nit, I like that one..."turn wine into water!" That's a good one for me to store in my memory!
Shalom
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:26 AM
When Archdale passed the beer and wine referendum opponents of the measure promised that there would be strip bars on every corner if it passed. Well it's been over 2 years now since it passed & where are the strip bars.
THEY PROMISED!
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:49 AM
Darryl,
Can't take credit for it. I saw it on a Bernie Mac rerun last night.
Posted on November 2, 2007 12:08 PM
Rufus, you sound TERRIBLY disappointed! I would stop attending those church's in the Archdale area were I you!
Darn nit, I thought you had something going for you...now you just had to go and ruin my weekend!
Shalom
Posted on November 2, 2007 2:38 PM
The Catholic will say hi to you when you see him in the liquor store.
---
Roger
Posted on November 3, 2007 12:02 PM