Alcohol threatens my safety on the roads
I am writing this letter in response to Mike Vinson’s article supporting liquor by the drink in McMinnville.
He begins by admitting that introducing liquor will be a factor in lives lost and safety. He answers this by stating it is already available down the road in Manchester, so we might as well have it here.
This is a common argument. It is also an invalid argument. Most us have heard the same argument from our children many times: “But dad, everyone else is doing it. Why can’t we?”
Most parents respond by saying: “If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump with them?”
Somehow we conveniently forget the reasoning we use with our kids when we are the ones wanting to do something that’s not good for us.
The argument was made that it is safer to let people buy liquor in their own community than to force them to buy it elsewhere and drive back. I read an article recently from the July, 2002 issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol, published by Rutgers University. The article was titled “Outlets, Drinking and Driving: A Multilevel Analysis of Availability.”
The article was about a research study done by three professors in Berkly, Calif. The study responded to the very issue we are discussing. The researchers wanted to see if making liquor available locally in restaurants and bars made it safer than making people drive to other cities to get it.
The study found the greater the number of local restaurants serving alcohol, the greater the drinking frequency and the greater the episodes of driving after drinking. Areas where there are more outlets (outlets refers to restaurants and bars) will naturally have more driving while intoxicated events and crashes than areas with fewer outlets.
The article stated, “There is a strong relationship between outlet density and alcohol-related crashes.” The study found for every 10 percent increase in outlet density, there was a 3 percent increase in drinking and driving.
A study at the University of North Carolina focused on the results of making liquor by the drink legal in North Carolina. The study found alcohol-related crashes increased by 20 percent in those counties that opted for liquor by the drink compared to no increase in those that did not allow sale of liquor by the drink.
These studies speak for themselves. It is not safer to make it available locally.
Mr. Vinson also compared McMinnville’s potential growth to that of Manchester. This is like comparing apples and oranges. Manchester is located on I-24. We are not.
Restaurants that located there are not necessarily going to come here. There is no evidence we have the financial base to support these restaurants. If other restaurants do come to our area, they may well close some of the restaurants we already have. That is not economic progress.
He also compares liquor by the drink with technological progress. He implies it is no different than adding Wal-Mart. Again, he is comparing apples and oranges.
Technology moves us forward. Alcohol pulls us backward. I am all for technological and economic advancement in this community. I am not for killing people and breaking up homes.
Alcohol is not going to improve our community. It will do just the opposite.
He says it is not fair people cannot drink if they want to. I think it is unfair I should have to fear they will kill my wife and kids after they drink.
I think it is unfair they force me and many families in this community to have to deal with the consequences of their desire to bring something that is proven to be dangerous and deadly to our community.
The page next to Mike’s article featured a letter from Sandra Billings. She wrote about watching as her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Ask Sandra what she thinks is fair.
Kirk Brothers
Preacher
Central Church of Christ