Chatham County Online BBS
February 09, 2012, 08:46:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the best Chatlist posts at Chatham Chatlist Highlights
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Referendum for countywide liquor by the drink  (Read 13160 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chathambooks
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 04, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
Date Registerd:April 29, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
Posts: 1748



« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2008, 08:59:05 PM »

VAHeel -

I am not talking about religious reasons. I am talking about FACTS. About proof of the impact of what liquor by the drink allowances can do to a community.

BTW - I am NOT speaking on behalf of CCV - I know that many members of CCV do not share my views on this subject.

I do intend to fight this. It will not be a CCV effort Wink
Logged

"You can't baby proof the world".

~Muddylaces
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2008, 09:04:34 PM »

What proof is that?  What facts?
Logged
chathambooks
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 04, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
Date Registerd:April 29, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
Posts: 1748



« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2008, 09:13:25 PM »

Oh my - overwhelming proof of the negative impact. I did a Google search and happened to find a NC County study -

http://www.jsad.com/jsad/downloadarticle/LiquorbytheDrink_and_AlcoholRelated_Traffic_Crashes_A_Natural_Experime/3904.pdf
Logged

"You can't baby proof the world".

~Muddylaces
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2008, 09:15:35 PM »

I was JUST ABOUT to post the same link.  no kidding.

The study does say there is an increase in "alcohol related traffic accidents" which I think is to be expected when there is more drinking.  It was "quasi-experimental," whatever that means, and more than two decades old so I wouldn't call it "overwhelming proof," but I would say the conclusion that it draws, that "16 to 24% in both the number of police-reported alcohol-related accidents and in single vehicle nighttime accidents among male drivers 21 years of age and older in counties implementing LBD," seems reasonable.
Logged
Mayor Randolph Voller
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 02, 2011, 04:51:11 PM
Date Registerd:August 01, 2008, 03:44:19 PM
Posts: 285


« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2008, 09:17:13 PM »

Dear VA Heel et al:

A countywide referendum by law covers the whole county---so if it passes the entire county including its municipalities will be able to offer liquor by the drink.

Conversely, if a countywide referendum failed a municipality could still place liquor by the drink on the ballot for just its municipal jurisdiction.

Regards,

Mayor Randy Voller




Logged
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2008, 09:18:31 PM »

Heres another interesting article about liquor by the drink the western part of the state

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/03_08/03_26_08/fr_liquor.html
Logged
chathambooks
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 04, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
Date Registerd:April 29, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
Posts: 1748



« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2008, 09:20:51 PM »

The study does say there is an increase in "alcohol related traffic accidents" which I think is to be expected when there is more drinking.

Thank you - point taken.

I was looking for other studies - many that I have seen over the years. But I happened to see this Carolina county study.

Logged

"You can't baby proof the world".

~Muddylaces
chathambooks
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 04, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
Date Registerd:April 29, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
Posts: 1748



« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2008, 09:23:39 PM »

Positives and negatives to both sides here.

I look forward to a spirited debate and respectful disagreement on the issue!

I do hope that folks will keep religion out of it. We'll see.
Logged

"You can't baby proof the world".

~Muddylaces
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2008, 09:24:51 PM »

I don't think it can be disputed that liquor by the drink will result in more DUI citations, or even more alcohol related accidents.  banning all alcohol in the whole county woudl also likely result in less.  So would requiring people to be home by 9.  It's a tradeoff between safety and individual liberty.  We all have to draw the line that we think represents the proper balance for ourselves.  If you place it at LBD, I guess I can't judge you for that decision, it's a personal values thing, but I will say I don't think that's where it belongs.
Logged
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2008, 09:25:42 PM »

I think it's going to be difficult to keep religion out of it.  Some people will oppose it because of their religion, and they will bring it in. 
Logged
BillyRay
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 20, 2010, 10:21:03 AM
Date Registerd:December 16, 2007, 09:38:22 AM
Posts: 394



« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2008, 09:28:33 PM »

Positives and negatives to both sides here.

I look forward to a spirited debate and respectful disagreement on the issue!

I do hope that folks will keep religion out of it. We'll see.

Unfortunately, Ms. Books, your Mormon Church is famous for pumping money into fighting local ballot issues they oppose because of their religious beliefs. You reckon they will stay out of this one?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 09:33:52 PM by BillyRay » Logged

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear . . . William E. Gladstone:
chathambooks
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 04, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
Date Registerd:April 29, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
Posts: 1748



« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2008, 09:32:58 PM »

There they go....
Logged

"You can't baby proof the world".

~Muddylaces
BillyRay
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 20, 2010, 10:21:03 AM
Date Registerd:December 16, 2007, 09:38:22 AM
Posts: 394



« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2008, 09:35:42 PM »

Hey, yur the one who said you wanted to keep religion out of it. It's a fair question to ask if your church is going to get into the fight, isn't it.
Logged

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear . . . William E. Gladstone:
VAHeel
Guest
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2008, 09:37:27 PM »

it is true, though.  The mormon church pumped millions into prop 8, as did Focus on the Family.

I can understand if you dont' want your religion brought into it, but the Mormon church is historically and publicly against all forms of alcohol, the perception is going to be that you oppose this for religious reasons, especially since you will be on the same side as many people who do.  You'd be better off addressing it early than trying to ignore it.

Define the debate.  Get all the real reasons you don't want liquor by the drink out there early, get people talking about that before they have time to decide why you're against it for themselves.
Logged
Claude Bowles
Guest
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2008, 09:40:06 PM »

If they want to take a position on it, fine. But let's not be hypocritical and ask that people leave religion out of the discussions here, if in fact any particular church is going to fund an effort to oppose it.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!