Scream, rant!! Yet another neoprohibitionist attempt....

*********
A bill to create a wine and beer tasting pilot program in 30 Washington grocery stores may send children the wrong message about alcohol, lobbyists for substance abuse prevention said last week.

Julie Peterson of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention said grocery stores are simply the wrong environment for events that promote alcohol consumption, regardless of the rules they follow.

"The more children and adolescents are given a favorable impression that the community supports alcohol and alcohol use, the more likely they are to engage in behavior like drinking," Peterson said.

"That's just the issue about modeling this in a grocery store. That you're there shopping for family groceries and having a casual attitude about sampling beer is very concerning to us."
************
So what is next, anti-obesity folks lobbying to have food samples removed from grocery stores? Has personal responsibility gone the way of the Dodo bird in this country?

Has personal responsibility gone the way of the Dodo bird in this country?

In a word - Yes.

Has personal responsibility gone the way of the Dodo bird in this country?

Hoke took it all.

Randy, what's really outrageous is that Oregon allows tastings in grocery stores. And, the proposed bill is very limited in scope.

[James Roscoe]

You can sell beer and wine in grocery stores? What will thy think of next? This is outrageous! I need to call Pat Robertson or someone like that. We need to start a crusade!

In a word - Yes.

I'm afraid you're right, Bob.

Hoke took it all.

Who?

Oregon allows tastings in grocery stores. And, the proposed bill is very limited in scope.

Insult to injury, eh? I guess it keeps the Europeans similing....

I need to call Pat Robertson

Give Jimmy Swaggart a call. You can wear trench coats, carry flashlights, committ immoral dalliances, you know, the routine drill....

Randy, how do the wine retailers stand on this issue?

I remember that for years retailers joined with the Drys to prevent New York grocery stores from handling wine.

Randy, how do the wine retailers stand on this issue?

No comments that I've seen so far -- I'm sure they'll follow suit with NY.

I guess my idea to open two dozen drive-thru Bourbon tasting kiosks in WA should be put on the back-burner. I bet BC has hundreds of 'em!

That's just the issue about modeling this in a grocery store. That you're there shopping for family groceries and having a casual attitude about sampling beer is very concerning to us."

OK, maybe I'm missing some of the social context here, but IMO the context of shopping for family groceries is exactly the context that should be given to wine and beer. If that context is not established, the alternative left to children is to learn from their peers as they grow up, which is much more likely to involve alcohol abuse. IOW banning tastings in grocery stores is not only wrong; it's counter-productive.

Sounds to me if this org. wanted to do some real good, they are missing a golden opportunity. Instead of trying to prevent sampling, why not fight for "sip, swirl, sniff, spit " literature and posters to be presented at each tasting? Although any restriction could be seen as a loss of some liberty, I think this is a livable (as well as responsible) compromise. An impressionable mind seeing wine and beer being enjoyed for flavor would do a lot of good.

[
OK, maybe I'm missing some of the social context here, but IMO the context of shopping for family groceries is exactly the context that should be given to wine and beer. If that context is not established, the alternative left to children is to learn from their peers as they grow up, which is much more likely to involve alcohol abuse. IOW banning tastings in grocery stores is not only wrong; it's counter-productive.

You're exactly right, and that is why anti "substance abuse" groups like this can't accept kids learning that wine or beer in the context of a meal is perfectly normal.
These groups need large numbers of drunks and junkies to keep them in business. Better they experiment in the street with alcohol and drugs - keeps the "anti whatevers" employed.

One need only look at the litigious nature of our society; the courts are reinforcing this idea that we can blame others for our bad decisions and get away with it (don't get me started on class action, tobacco, etc.).

The kicker is, there are a lot of people who AREN'T any good at making good decisions. I know a certain alcoholic who is recently clean who won't even go to the grocery store alone because this person is afraid that they will "slip up". What bothers me is that this person now thinks that alcohol shouldn't even be sold in grocery stores...thinks it should be in state run liquor stores only (as if that would really stop someone who was determined to get drunk???).

I'll take a world with drunks, junkies, fat people and lung cancer patients over a Brave New World anyday.

You know, I just have a lot of trouble sympathizing with you guys.

Certainly, I think the anti-alcohol brigade has its head up its collective you-know-what. But in my province we can't buy wine and beer in our grocery or convenience stores, let alone have a taste. Not too long ago, our only option was the government-owned alcohol monopoly.

And let's not even get into prices. Expect to pay double in Canada what Americans pay for many wines.

From my perspective, you guys have it good.

From my perspective, you guys have it good.

Exactly, Mike. And the only way to keep it that way is to complain/rant/make yourselves heard. It's the American way, and it works surprisingly well sometimes!

I'm just envious. During my last visit to San Francisco I was blown away with the selection at Safeway.

I'd love to be able to pick up a bottle to go with dinner on occasion and not have to drive across town to a decent wine store.

You're exactly right, and that is why anti "substance abuse" groups like this can't accept kids learning that wine or beer in the context of a meal is perfectly normal. These groups need large numbers of drunks and junkies to keep them in business. Better they experiment in the street with alcohol and drugs - keeps the "anti whatevers" employed.

John, I have to say that in all honesty I never thought of it this way ... but you may very well be correct. That would mean that much of the anti-alcohol sentiment out there has monetary gain in mind rather than the desire to "temper" the effects of overconsumption - how cynical! But then, why should that surprise me?

For a long time I assumed that much of what was preventing North America in general from moving towards a healthy Mediterranean-type view of wine as an integral part of the culinary culture - or at least envisioning a place for wine in said culture - was a narrow religious interpretation invoking a general opposition to the consumption of alcohol. Of course, this is fundamentally (pardon the pun) unbiblical in and of itself, but once inertia gets the upper hand, good luck stemming the tide.

You're exactly right, and that is why anti "substance abuse" groups like this can't accept kids learning that wine or beer in the context of a meal is perfectly normal.
These groups need large numbers of drunks and junkies to keep them in business. Better they experiment in the street with alcohol and drugs - keeps the "anti whatevers" employed.

I guess my experience with this would indicate that money's not the driving force here. I've spent a fair amount of time with people in the "recovery community". Most of them are very much against what you and I would consider to be a sensible approach to alcohol sale and use by the public. But for the ones I've known, it has nothing to do with money. Most of them would gladly give up their counseling businesses and such if it were due to a lack of patients to counsel. The thing that drives them really is their experience with violent behavior, neglected children, and broken homes and the fact that much of that has been associated with alcohol. While I do fault them for not being able to see beyond their own experiences and the experiences of other hardcore alcoholics, I can't fault their motives.

That's not to say that everyone involved with this kind of thing is strictly in it for the benefit of their fellow man - I'm sure there are some profiteers in there. But I think they're very much in the minority.

Mike

Ditto what Mike said.

I have been intimately involved with an extended family who has been devastated by alcoholism (and prescription drug abuse, it seems that the two often go hand in hand) and recently attended a very intense two day intervention led by a couple of "experts" in the field.

These people have experienced the horrific symptoms and consequences of this disease, up to and including prolonged, drawn out death, and have tunnel vision when it comes to the subject.

It's like people who have been affected by some sort of disease or event (think Christopher Reeves and spinal cord research, or Michael J. Fox and Parkinsons research, MADD, etc.). They have been so strongly affected by whatever the event/situation is that they make it a personal crusade. Unfortunately, the alcohol/drug abuse crusaders don't stop to think about the fact that the vast majority of the population is able to enjoy a drink or two without any problem, and that it can in fact really enhance one's health and happiness when used responsibly.

I'm cynical enough to believe that there are some who are motivated by money, but, in general, I agree with those who say that the opposition is idealistic.

The anti- people are usually fundamentally opposed to the thing they are against, whether it be alcohol, abortion, the death penalty, whatever. Being ideologically opposed, the bad thing must be opposed at every opportunity. Compromise is only a temporary expediency, the starting point for the next wave of opposition. In this case, they oppose a healthy inclusion of beer or wine with meals because, to them, there is not, cannot be, any such thing as a healthy inclusion of alcohol.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who think "everyone" is responsible for those that cannot handle their own problems.

While I sympathize, I don't think the rest of us should have to adjust our lifestyles to suit their needs.

Richard