Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

I-1183: State liquor control doesn’t increase safety

Letter by John A. Falkowski, Milton on Oct. 31, 2011 at 3:06 pm with 7 Comments »
October 31, 2011 3:06 pm

The statements against Initiative 1183 are so false and misleading it’s pathetic.

We are told that state control is paramount in protecting our youth from the increasing presence of alcohol if this bill passes. Let’s examine the factual data between Washington and Massachusetts. The data exists in many formats if one bothers to check. Both states are blue so there is no political slant in the comparisons.

In population, Washington is number 13, Massachusetts is 14. Massachusetts is privately controlled. For the year 2009, deaths per 100,000 under 21 was 0.7 for Massachusetts, 1.6 for Washington, more than double. For deaths under 18, Massachusetts had 88, Washington had 224, almost triple.

According to the Chamber of Commerce for the United States, 65 percent of all underage drinking cases investigated were the result of an adult supplying the alcohol. Private vs. state control made no difference.

As for the increase in per-capita consumption, again data indicate it is higher in state-controlled states because of limited access and limited hours which tends to result in binge buying.

Vote yes on I-1183 and get the state out of the liquor business.

Leave a comment Comments → 7
  1. fatecreatr says:

    Good info, thank you.

    I also am forced to wonder why it would be more unsafe to give business who already sell alcohol more of a product selection.

    It’s not like fast food restaurants and book stores will start selling booze. The only result is hard alcohol next to the existing beer selection right?

  2. twentymuLeteamhas1more says:

    quoting the Chamber of Commerce of the United States? Oh boy

  3. commoncents says:

    I’d be intereted in the comparison between those same two states of the average miles driven by those aged 16-19, are the laws similar in regards to when a teen can drive and the allowing of passengers, are they of similar population density and what alternative modes of transport are available for individuals. See, it’s really quite simple…if the party is up the street then I don’t have to drive but if it’s 30 miles up the road?

    When you compare then you must look at all aspects not just one and say that’s the only factor at play.

    As for the increase in per-capita consumption…the yes on 1183 group touts the ofm report when talking about the increase in money being provided to the general fund as a selling point. However, that same document says that sales (and consumption) will increase 5% due to Which is it? Will consumption (and revenue) grow with increased access or will it decrease since binge drinking will no longer be a factor?

  4. daggercat says:

    And the statements FOR are so false and misleading it’s pathetic. If I were to base my decision on the ads, which are, for the most part, an embarrasment for both sides, I wouldn’t know how to vote. I base my decision on the fact this initiative has too many flaws. Removing the state from the business of selling alcohol will require time and serious discussion, because this IS serious business.

  5. itwasntmethistime says:

    fatecreatr — The reason it would be unsafe is because hard alcohol is way more toxic than beer. Both will make you drunk, but it’s a lot harder to drink enough beer to get alcohol poisoning. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but if you are pounding beers you will probably puke or pass out before you can drink enough to kill yourself.

  6. beerBoy says:

    The statistics cited in the letter help make a case that privatizing sales would not have a negative impact upon youth.

    But – since the statistics are for an age group but not confined to alcohol related fatalities – more specific evidence would be required to make a thoroughly convincing conclusion. One must make some assumptions not provided by the data (even though they seem to follow logic) in order to conclude that youth alcohol related mortalities in Massachusetts are not impacted by private sales.

  7. daggercat says:

    It’s that statistic to back up any argument thing again…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0