Out There

more alcohol

Posted in Uncategorized by Pete on April 9, 2009

So on Tuesday I addressed the Bethel City council.  I urged them to officially support SB 85, the measure to cut the importation limits in half for damp communities.  I explained how this would mean people would be “limited” to only 10 drinks per day every day, or 70 drinks on the weekends if you prefer to binge.  Here is the math:

Current Limits on hard alcohol are 10.5L or 14 fifths, 24 L/32 fifths of wine, and 12 gallons/127 cans of beer.  Using the guidelines from these guys, 1 serving of alcohol is 1.25 oz of 80-proof liquor, 4 oz of wine, or 1 can (12 oz) of beer.  A fifth is 25.6 oz, so 14 fifths of hard alcohol is roughly 358 oz or so of hard liquor, which divided by 1.25 oz comes to around 286 servings.  Per month.  Add on to that your 32 fifths of wine, which = 819 oz, divided by 4 oz = about 205 servings.  Per month.  Add on to that 127 cans of beer, and you have a total of…618 servings?  Per month.  So basically 20 drinks per day, or 140 on the weekend binge.  Using that same link,  you can see that 10 drinks is enough to get anyone drunk, or even fatally poison a smaller person (once your BAC is that high you’re at huge risk).  So obviously, 20 drinks every day is beyond excessive.

SB 85 would cut it all in half, limiting you to an average of 10 legal drinks per day, or just over 300 per month.  I told the council the only reason you should oppose this measure is if you really think you need that 11th, 15th, and 20th drink.  Every day.  Or that 71st, 120th, 140th drink on the weekend binge.  I also reminded them of the March 10 meeting when a representative from the ABC spoke with them about the possible implications of the bill.  The council wanted to know about possible tax revenue if they go wet (there is currently an initiative to go wet circulating in Bethel, apparently in response to this onerous, egregious intrusion on our personal liberties).  We learned that the amount of additional tax revenue would come to roughly…diddly squat.  The revenue would be limited to what could be raised through a sales tax.  I believe the exception to this would be if the city were to use the “alcohol delivery site” model where one building controls the flow of alcohol for the whole region (the city could help run it and have a special tax on it), but the pro-alcohol side didn’t go for that in a recent election.

I went on to mention the proven trend in Alaska that when a community moves from dry to damp or damp to wet, crime shoots up (this is common knowledge here).  I also pointed out that since every village in the entire area is dry, going wet and/or opposing this measure is really offensive to the region.  Bethel has very low voter turnout, and the election is swung by those who do come out, which is a lot of people from outside who don’t grasp the impact of bootlegged alcohol on the dry villages.  But if they try and go wet I don’t think it would pass.  That’s when people pour into the polls to vote who don’t normally show up, and they vote it down.  Anyway, I summed it up by saying that if you oppose this measure, you’re saying you need that 11th to 20th drink per day, and if you want to go wet, you’re saying 20 every day isn’t enough for you, and the city won’t get hardly any additional revenue, but lots more arrests and prosecutions required, not to mention the heartache and violence from house to house.  To me it’s a slam dunk.  A no-brainer.  I ended by saying I have no problem with people drinking responsibly, that I follow Jesus, who seemed to drink on a regular basis, but I think we should respect the villages’ stated desire to make alcohol as expensive and hard to come by as possible.  The truth is that this measure only impinges on 3 things:  bootleggers, people who don’t want to have to fax in their order twice as often to the Anchorage liquor stores, and people’s sense of independence – government stay the heck out of our lives, which is a proud and powerful Alaska tradition.  But as I mentioned to the council, occasionally government has a good idea, and this is one of them.

So I was done.  And then they tell me that they already officially voted at a previous meeting to oppose the measure.  And the senate stopped taking public input on the issue, though the house still has it in committee.  Which is why I should have written this 2 months ago, when I wrote most of it in my head.  I’m a busy guy, it’s after 1 am and I have to work tomorrow morning but I figured now or never, and maybe just maybe some good could come out of this.  Oh, by the way, I emailed several council members and asked them what their rationale was for opposing it.  I’ve only gotten one reply so far, which said that they opposed it because it is a “hot button issue” and councilmembers will lose their positions if they are on the wrong side.  Hmmm.   I don’t know what the vote was (7-0?).  Sad.

***Update – I forgot to address some stuff from the paper.  Our Juneau representative wrote in the Delta Discovery (scroll down to 2/11/09) that he had multiple problems with the bill and that it was a “drastic reduction.”  He also said he fears it will push damp communities to go wet (which makes no sense – as I stated above – 10 drinks every day isn’t enough for you?), and cause the price of bootlegged alcohol to rise “exponentially.”  If it went up exponentially, then after a little while Bill Gates couldn’t buy a drink.  But I know what he meant.  And I think if a fifth of vodka goes from $100+ where it is now to $200 or whatever, what is wrong with that?  Great!  The more it costs, the less people can buy it, and the less likely that kids will get as much to try.  Studies show that when cigarettes are taxed, kids are less likely to spend the money to get them (through someone else).  Wouldn’t the same thing apply here?  I know I’m on a big soapbox here, but every reason I can think of for opposing SB85 is a bad one.  Selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, disrespect toward tribal sovereignty, etc.

Peter Twitchell also wrote about the issue in the same paper, scroll down to 2/12/09.  In general I like both of these guys and what they write and contribute to the delta.  I won’t rake Peter over the coals here, not now anyway.  Of course SB85 won’t magically fix anything.  Nothing will.  But that isn’t an excuse to do nothing!  To quibble over this bill that has zero affect on a responsible drinker, while communities are drowning in the pain and misery of alcoholism (and quite often literally drowning, or killing themselves, or beating up their families, or…), gets me riled up enough that I would do something dumb like stay up to 2 am to write this post.

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] because they were upset that Sarah Palin had pushed to cut the monthly importation limits (20 drinks per day) allowed per person in damp villages in half, among other […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: