Inconsistent Thinking on Wine
If there is one thing alcohol produces in America, it’s inconsistent thinking. Combine this with our general proclivity to open our mouth before we think and you have an explanation for the wildly different set of laws concerning alcohol in America and the disparate views on alcohol that range from "let’s party" to "you damn sinner".
A recent editorial from KOMO 1000 in Seattle, Washington is a perfect example.
Washington State is considering a new law that would allow grocery stores to offer 2 oz samples of beer and wine to customers. Sampling of food is currently a legal promotion, but beer or wine. Why? Because it’s alcohol.
Ken Schram of KOMO thinks this is a bad idea:
"Legislators can’t pass tough-enough laws to keep people with multiple DUI’s from careening around on our roads and highways, but they are positively tickled with the idea of passing out merlot and pilsner to folks out shopping for their groceries….I’m confused about why lawmakers find it so easy to pimp for the liquor industry, but find it so hard to pass tougher DUI laws".
Ken’s never met someone who can get drunk on 2 oz of beer or wine. It’s just that he’s anti-alcohol. And he doesn’t care, really, that the legislature is "pimping" for the liquor industry. If "pimping" for industry were his concern he’d advocate that no product be allowed to be sampled in stores as well as ask that all laws on the books that help broadcasters be removed.
Ken makes himself out to be part of that contingent of American’s who believe that alcohol should be kept out of as many hands as possible…because it’s alcohol and it’s dangerous. But alcohol isn’t dangerous on its own. What’s dangerous are the people who abuse it. Now, how in the world do I reconcile that idea with my notion that guns should be far far less available than they are now and more difficult to attain? I usually state it like this: In the heat of the moment I’d much rather have a bottle of Merlot on the table between me and my enemy than a .45.
Bottom line, I don’t like Ken Schram’s reasoning. It’s inconsistency in the employ of ideology.
Leave a Reply