DP
JoB:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you start off by worrying about binge drinkers being given new opportunities to hurt themselves? Now you’re talking about people getting hammered downtown and driving over to Magnolia so they can run amok.
;-)
Ok, I kid . . . But I still detect a whiff of Big Nanny* in some of these arguments against I-1100.
“Raise taxes to pay for increased public alcohol-related costs”? Hell yes, I’d vote for that. — As long as the taxes are put right where they belong: on alcohol.
And since you’ve raised the issue, how much of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state currently reaps in liquor proceeds goes towards alcohol abatement programs, do you suppose? Somewhat less than 100%, I’ll wager.
–David
*Big Nanny is like Big Brother, only with a skirt.