Opinion: Editorial
Putting a ban-aid on it
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Inching toward legalization (November 23, 2009)
- Dissent: An impaired decision (November 23, 2009)
- Nike contracts: Nix or fix (November 20, 2009)
- Another justified denial (November 19, 2009)
- Woulf at the door (November 18, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
This is it, everyone. The umpteenth time is the charm. The city has finally found a way to take care of the moonshine problem downtown. After a brief flirtation with quotas and more protracted courtships with the Alcohol License Density Plan and bar raids, Madison has stumbled upon its Silver Bullet (no, not that one).
Drawing inspiration from a Green Bay law, the city plans to ban certain people from buying booze. Although the plan may strike some as paternalistic, this board’s collective objection is based on the practicality, rather than ideology, of the law. Simply put, it will not work, and there are three main reasons why.
First, the law as it is proposed does nothing to address the sale of alcohol in bars. Madison Police Department Capt. Joe Balles told the Herald addressing bars would be unnecessary, since people are not usually incapacitated in bars. Such a comment makes us proud that our police personnel spends so little time in bars and so much time serving the public, but more to the point, pulling those seriously addicted out of liquor stores will only serve to push them into bars.
Second, as almost any student on this campus can attest to, it is not difficult to get firewater if you really want it. Whether in bars, or via friends, strangers and the Monona spirit store, people will still be able to get their sauce.
Third, individuals can be removed from the list after 180 days of “sober” living — which amounts to staying out of detox for that period of time. Without any efforts at counseling or treatment, it seems as if the city is content to give these “habitual drunkards” license to go on a bender and wake up on library mall only twice a year. Rather than helping these troubled individuals, the city appears to only be concerned with sweeping them under the rug.
Although better than punishing bootleggers by catapult, the flaws of the bill makes us wonder as to whether those crafting the plan were perhaps handcuffed by the current state of the economy. We understand there is a recession going on, and the city may be strapped for cash. However, we did not know it was also out of intelligent ideas.
1 Comment | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: b2154c0a
Although I agree the alcohol ban is a bad idea, I have to question the logic here. Because alcoholics can acquire alcohol through secondary channels, it’s a bad idea? We should assume because it’s 100% preventive, we shouldn’t do it. I’ve never in my life heard of a law that was 100% effective. Murder is illegal, but it still happens. Most of the cars on the beltline are speeding, should we just turn it into the autobahn? The real issue here is a government telling people who committed no crime they can not purchase a legal product. Being drunk is not a crime or a danger to the public. The city and state have much bigger issues then chronic drunks.