Beech Tree News Network

Some additional considerations regarding the alcohol vote:  

I’ve read many of the opinions about the alcohol vote. I’m literally scratching my head. I consume alcohol, but I could care less if you legalize it. I would be in favor of “no,” just to avoid the turmoil. Why stir stuff up if there’s nothing to gain?

But what about this county?!  Am I just too uppity? Are my expectations too high? In reality, is it actually better than I realize? Is there a list of ideas besides liquor sales that skeptics like me could get a little comfort from? If so, please share the insight. I’m very hopeful for such options.

Okay, time to put on my helmet. For the sake of needed progress I must be painfully honest about what my eyes see: this county is one step above a dump. Sorry, but after all, about the only  commerce coming here recently has been garbage. Your immediate problems are escalating poverty, no jobs, apathy and methamphetamines. Alcohol is not on the immediate list. To me, these problems may already be beyond resolve. There’s been a lot of talk of sobering people up here. Let them take an objective look around their county. That should sober them up.

Regarding apathy, is our most serious problem actually apathy in leadership? Have they just lived in the midst of this too long, have they come to accept it, numbed to the fact that its steadily, rapidly getting worse? Are they aware that it’s close to a failed state—and that it will be their failure when it bottoms out?  Attorneys, civic leaders, clergy, business leaders who should be desperate for any opportunity, seem driven to not only condemn this option, but beat it into the ground with vengeance. They’re adamant they “KNOW!” something when their sources seem barely above speculation. They quote national statistics as if to imply the same horrors could come here. Yet those statistics already reflect Butler County; we already have a wide presence of alcohol. A former county attorney shared seeing families destroyed by alcohol, but he didn’t produce any probability that loosening this law will make it worse. Preachers present scripture that defines God’s laws to be practiced by his people, but there’s little to support that God ever intended for man’s inferior government to have any responsibilities in his Holy directives.

Then there’s talk of liberals, big government and taxation. They’re trying to take a law away, not add one. This simple ABC board has jurisdiction over one commodity. I hate taxes. I believe in shrinking the government. Some revenue must be though. This is a new commodity, and they’re always the most forgiving choice for a tax. If there is $300,000 a year potentially to come from an alcohol tax, less than half of what has been estimated by the pro sayers, then we need to 1. Pass the sales, then,  2. immediately put a campaign together to insist that we be grandfathered in as eight other counties have been recently for the same purpose. These laws in question are unfair for Butler given that barely a fifth of our population lives in the city. That’s a far lower percentage than most.

Finally, there were some touching testimonials about family losses. If you blame alcohol, then yes, you can hate it, like a murderer of a family member, but its misplaced animosity. Alcohol is just stuff. It can do nothing itself. It needs a person to do damage.  For every person that loses their way, say twenty don’t. You can’t expect that if you start drinking as a child, abuse it for years, then quit from total disgust, that laws are needed now for everyone else. I thought a lot of my older brother, and I still harbor guilt. Mike died at 44, one of the worst cases of alcoholism I’ve known. Still, I can’t blame alcohol for Mike’s death. My family failed Mike in raising him. Hate to say it. They were very good people, but they made mistakes. In rebelling, Mike turned to alcohol, tobacco and speeding. Anyone of them would have killed him. Sadly, too many young people in this county die from speeding that weren’t drinking, just young and reckless. So do you blame the car?

Again, all I’ve really heard is speculation from either side. The only information I think has relevance comes from other KY counties that have added legal sales recently, and the source is objective and accurately informed. Those have been VERY positive, and the tax revenue is impressive. They do reveal that they saw some increase in DUIs, but point out that they anticipated that, and it was hard to label a rise in crime anymore than an increase in law enforcement presence and vigilance.

Feeling a bit of an outsider with a different vantage, I’m smelling there is more here. I see two sides locked in a heated rivalry that seems to be about more than this vote. I’m sensing two sides that don’t like each other for who they are. Both sides should strive to be objective and give those of us who don’t fit in your either of your petty clicks a chance to strive for at least some improvement.  It's common sense that any money earmarked for law enforcement allows other funds to be diverted from the budget for other purposes. I was robbed three times last year. Meth related. Increasing law enforcement is exactly what I’m hoping for.

Again, I have no interest in promoting alcohol. I have a vested, vital interest in this county, and that is my only concern.  As I review all different opinions, I see three topics that I don’t think have received much consideration.

1. REGULATION.  Anytime you ban something, you are creating a commodity for criminals to potentially exploit. But many overlook that when you ban something, you also deregulate it. In the case of alcohol, you abandon the option, and frankly the ethical responsibility, to control its potency, quantity, and where and who it's available to. It turns that responsibility over to criminals. Apparently, the state regulations dictate that we can have only five alcohol outlets in this county. How many outlets do the illegal suppliers say we can have? Strict regulations work toward preventing the sale of alcohol to minors and people who are intoxicated or otherwise impaired, and there are stiff penalties for those flagrant sellers.  How many bootleggers card your teenage kids, or deny a staggering customer. Once you accept the absolute truth, that drinking exists in Butler County as much as it exists where alcohol sales are legal, and that there is no way that keeping sales illegal is going to effect that fact, then it soon becomes obvious that regulation empowers you to influence its effect on your community. Prohibition denies you of that.

2. OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS.  In our area, most counties have larger municipalities where voting numbers are more concentrated and they can push to keep alcohol revenue in their urban areas. Not so with Butler, which would make countywide sales unique and possibly open up opportunities not yet considered. What if the location of these liquor outlets were regulated for many reasons including where their best revenue potential would be? What would sales be in locations like the crossroads on Hwy. 231 a mile north of Warren Co. and Hadley, at Davis Crossroads just north of Logan and Chandlers Chapel, at Rochester adjacent Ohio and Muhlenberg counties, out Hwy. 70 near Edmonson Co? What potential for income are in these locations where substantial revenue might come from the communities in adjacent counties who are farther from their wet county seat than they are from Butler’s county line? If they buy beer there, they might buy gas and staples. What if adjoining counties came here to do business with something other than their toxic waste? Would it provide enough income to save some of our country stores that we’re losing? Is that progress?

Wine is a growing agricultural opportunity in the state. Our state has incentives for such start-up businesses. In most of the region, alcohol restrictions and zoning make it very challenging to start a winery, but they might choose to start one in this county if it we were less restrictive. With wineries, usually agri-tourism occurs as well. Would it be bad if we had one or two wineries in the county?  Our leadership needs to consider everything.

3. REPEAL.  We can change our minds after this vote. This can be repealed, and should be if it contributes to any setbacks in the community. Because neither side really knows what hidden problems (or unexpected benefits) might come from this, it only makes sense that this should be under trial and scrutinized. If it shows that it is counter-productive, then that empowers the opposition with proof that it is a mistake. Conversely, when this same opposition seeks to impose its interpretation of moral code on a whole community using law, while justifying their reasons for doing so based on mere speculation, then they may deserve resentment from others. After all, they’re are declaring their cause is about doing good for the community, not to promote and infuse their religious doctrine on others. Any proposed solution deserves objective consideration, especially when it has the support of many.

You don’t know this won’t work. You just speculate, seemingly with ulterior motives. Why not try it? Have a meeting the day after the vote, and put plans in place for a possible repeal. I’ll help lead that charge, and If it makes things worse as you insist it will, then we’ll have proof no one can argue with.