Seattle: the word is no longer Thunderbird
"Alcohol impact area" -- what a lovely concept! Seattle has 'em, and the mayor, council and state liquor board have conspired to ban sales of 29 brands of beer and wine in the zones, in response to citizen complaints about "homeless alcoholics".
Do I really need to show what's wrong with this picture? Given that some idiot got the idea, and another idiot voted for him, I guess so.
First let's deal with principle...and the principle is equality before the law. Picking out specific brands discriminates against certain manufacturers. More than that, it's racist, given that Old English 800 and Thunderbird (and the others) have a definite association with Certain Ethnics, so that a ban affects them disproportionately. (Would it ever occur to anyone to ban Jägermeister?) There are a lot of equally potent microbrews in Seattle; why aren't they on the list? It is an "alcohol impact area" not a "Colt 45 impact area." And what of the many hard-working people who come home from their Hard Work and like to drink malt liquor?
Then there are the consequences. Since the homeless don't stay at home, or rather, where they stay is home, they'll migrate to other parts of the city where they can buy their favorite tipple, pissing off those neighborhoods. Meanwhile, assuming they don't find equally high-value beverages to sell that aren't on the list, the small stores will go under and we'll have yet more complaining about neighborhoods underserved by groceries and discrimination against the Certain Other Ethnics who run the stores. And it won't dry anyone up; it will just encourage alternative beverages. Maybe there'll be a renaissance of moonshining.
"Well, okay, smarty," you might say. "How would you fix the problem?" Well, I don't see the drinking as a problem separate from that of homelessness. But if it is, there are many solutions, of varying humanity, morality, and constitutionality. My own Modest Proposal is this: since Seattle has shown itself willing to legislate morality already, and in honor of its strong anti-war contingent, I think they should just institute Sharia and be done with it.
Thaks to dustbury, via (accidentally) rightwingprof.
Comments
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: September 2, 2006 10:38 PM
I would think that the producers of Colt 45, etc. might have a good reason for suing.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: September 3, 2006 05:25 AM
Care to chase that ambulance? ;-)
"Beer doesn't make people drunk; people make people drunk."
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: September 3, 2006 11:18 PM
No, it would be a thoroughly reasonable complaint of discrimination. Some brands are banned, some are not. What right does the city have to ban some but not all? (Ignoring the question, of course, of what right does the city have to ban any of them?) I can get drunk on Katzenbrau* same as Colt 45, although it might take me more bottles and more money to achieve the same level of intoxication.
*Katzenbrau, is of course, the American imitation of Lowenbrau.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: September 4, 2006 07:13 AM
I didn't imply that it was unreasonable; I asked if you thought it could be personally profitable. Not that I should be outing you here or anything. ;-)
"Pussybrew" indeed!
Posted by: suzy
Posted on: March 12, 2009 12:23 PM
There is nothing quite like drinking schwag beer from a brown paper bag. The malt liquor industry is alive and well.