CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT
CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT
ALCOHOL
THE CURRENT CONTEXT:
An excerpt from an article by Radley Balko of the Cato Institute summarizes how the movement to harass consumers of alcohol is taking its example directly from the anti-smoking movements:
Armed with a slew of junk science studies from organizations such as the Center for Science and the Public Interest, the Center for Alcohol Marketing to Youth, and Columbia University's Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse, anti-alcohol advocates are finding receptive audiences in state legislatures, Congress, and federal agencies for all sorts of nasty bills and public policy initiatives aimed at restricting your access to alcohol.
Just as they did with tobacco, they're attacking on several fronts. They want to raise taxes on alcohol, and restrict alcohol manufacturers from advertising on billboards, at sporting events or in mainstream magazines. They want to use zoning laws to limit the number of places alcohol is sold. They want to curb consumption with overly aggressive drinking and driving laws (and enforcement). And they want to force restaurants and bars to take a variety of other measures to encourage their customers -- you -- to drink less….
Twenty-two states have imposed restrictions on ''happy hour'' drink specials. A spokesman for the Fairfax County police department recently defended police raids on local taverns by telling the Washington Post, ''You can't be drunk in a bar.'' In Bloomington, Ind., cops began arresting of-age college students for walking home from off-campus bars while intoxicated. When asked if he'd rather drive students home, a Bloomington cop told the Indiana Daily Student, ''Alcohol abuse is the problem, not whether or not you're going to be driving.''
Forty-four states now have laws that hold bar owners liable for any damages caused by their alcohol-consuming customers, after they leave the bar. Another 31 states apply those same liability standards to private residences. In Chicago -- a town rich with the lessons of Prohibition -- 400 of the city's 2,705 precincts are now dry, and each election adds a few more.
None of this happened by accident. A well-funded, well-organized campaign is afoot to make it as difficult to drink a beer as it is becoming to smoke a cigarette. This ''neo-prohibition'' has advocates in the news media, academia and most certainly in government. Sandy Golden, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Alcohol-Free Kids, has said, ''We're 10 to 15 years behind the tobacco people, and we want to close the gap.
The article concludes with the following observation: "You thought it was absurd when city and state officials told you that you could no longer smoke in a bar. Just wait until they tell you that you can't drink in one, either."
Because most Western countries reject restrictions on alcohol based on religious or moral impulses, the campaign is often being pursued via the backdoor of concern for drunk driving (just as the "de-normalization" of smoking is pursued through the backdoor exaggerated issue of second-hand smoke).
Just as Canada, and then Europe, replicated the American approach to tobacco control with a delay of a few years, we have already seen parallels. Bar and restaurant owners in Canada are now also being held liable for the actions of customers that leave their premises. In 2001, an Ontario Real Estate firm was found liable for one of its employees who drank alcohol at the office Christmas party and then became involved in a drunk-driving accident – they were ordered to pay $300,000 to the employee. The judge ruled that "employers must protect employees from harm, even at a jolly Christmas party, even if the employee drinks to excess, gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, is involved in an accident and is convicted of drunk driving." In British Columbia, hosts of private parties at their homes were found liable for the actions of their intoxicated guests after they left the party.
For an excellent and entertaining resumé of the folly of prohibition in the U.S., please refer to the paper by Bob Ramsay at http://www.dpft.org/history.html "A History of U.S. Drug Laws". If anyone wants to see what government policies regarding alcohol will look like in Canada within 10 years, they need only look at the anti-smoking campaign today, or emerging alcohol policies in the United States.
OPPONENTS:
Health care professionals and policy experts in the course of their careers generally migrate back and forth between various issue areas, taking expertise learned from campaigns against smoking to alcohol or obesity, or vice versa. Hence the same actors who intend to trample over fundamental liberties to eradicate smoking, obesity or sporting injuries argue for similar multi-pronged government invasions to diminish alcohol consumption. Special interest groups modeled after anti-smoking organizations, such as Campaign for Alcohol-Free Kids (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids) also frequently advocate invasive legislation. Other groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, should not be seen as opposing CAGE, since CAGE agrees strongly with strict penalties for drunk driving and an emphasis on personal responsibility for one’s actions. CAGE’s disagreement only comes into play when the issue is extended to absurd lengths, such as finding the hosts of parties or the owners of bars liable for the poor judgement and criminal negligence of others, or some of MADD’s more recent recommendations which border upon the preposterous. (see: MADD press release, 14 June 2005.)
Additionally, some devout religious groups can be expected to support increasing curbs on public consumption of alcohol.
ALLIES:
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's
appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."... Abraham Lincoln ( December 1840, taken from the website of CLASH, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment)
Allies include groups mobilized to counter the smoking-ban movement such as CLASH, cited above. Such groups have understood the larger nanny-state phenomena afoot in the West, and oppose puritan-minded interventions on other issues such as alcohol irrespective of their own preferences. The same holds true for libertarian organizations. Industry groups such as brewing and liquor companies, the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association and various bar associations also strongly oppose government encroachment on the alcohol issue, but are hampered by their obvious financial agenda on the issue.
Some other groups, such as "Modern Drunkard Magazine," promote an irresponsible abuse of alcohol (albeit in an amusing manner) – although these groups may heartily agree with aspects of CAGE’s mission, their philosophy and approach differs greatly. CAGE has no links to such groups.
Groups such as MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are philosophical allies of CAGE's insofar as they seek to reinforce the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions. CAGE only hopes that the directors of MADD will abandon their recent trend toward preposterous recommendations, such as extremely low alcohol limits for driver, and even a zero alcohol tolerance for the person in the passenger seat beside the driver. Such extreme positions decrease the credibility of MADD. and reduce the effectiveness of its important message and mission.
CAGE will appeal to liquor and brewing corporations for funding. In New York, Rheingold Brewing ran a series of advertisements poking fun at Mayor Bloomberg’s "quality of life" initiatives, which indicates that some alcohol industry actors have come to the same conclusion as CAGE regarding the slippery slope of nanny-state intervention.
CAGE’S POSITION
While CAGE strongly endorses efforts to stop drunk driving, it deplores any hypocritical and invasive approach to alcohol control. Laws forbidding anyone from operating motor vehicles or heavy equipment while intoxicated are clear and necessary; laws forbidding the sale of alcohol (so-called "dry counties" in the United States) impose one set of values on everyone. Jurisprudence holding someone liable for the intoxicated behaviour of someone else also threatens to yank society back to Medieval Europe or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – both places where families were held strictly liable for the behaviour of each of their members. Once again, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions – in this case, the intentions of the nanny state and concerned health activists.
CAGE would like to remind everyone that each individual is responsible for their own actions, and people should therefore consume alcohol in moderation. Intoxication impairs judgement, and responsibility for maintaining good judgement must remain with each individual. Ironically, a society riddled with too many lifestyle restrictions and nanny-state interventions may encourage people to drink to excess in an effort to break free and forget about it all!
2005-8-26 Hotel Godin and the hypocrysy of Québec's Alcohol commission. Beryl P. Wajsmann, president of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montréal, blasts the Régie des Alcools for its ludicrous decision regarding the hotel Godin, and highlights some of the absurdities of our dirigiste state. Throughout this piece, Mr. Wajsmann speaks our language!
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF MONTREAL
INSTITUT DES AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES DE MONTRÉAL
1411 rue Peel, édifice Marine, bureau 502, Montréal, Qc, H3A 1S5
26 August 2005
Montreal
Institute Bulletin No. 319
MESSAGE FROM THE MAIN
HEY STATE! STAY OUT OF OUR FATE
THE TRAVESTY OF THE HOTEL GODIN AFFAIR
Paris was always worth it, and you received in return whatever you brought to it. And this is how it
was in the early days, when we were very happy. If you were lucky enough to have lived there,
then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris was a moveable feast.
Ernest Hemingway
Thats pretty much how we Montréalais feel about our Big Easy North. Our moveable feast. You
do get back what you put in. But youve got to be given a chance to put something in. Youve got
to be given the chance to live lucky.
This past week those dry and brittle souls from the netherworld of the nanny-state took some of
that chance away..again. The Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux ( in other words the
controlling body of fun and games in Québec) has decided in its sagesse not to grant a liquor
license to the Hotel Godin nine months after its opening and its revitalization of a rundown corner
of Montreals Boulevard St-Laurent, the Main to all of us here.
In its nineteen page decision, the Liquor Board outlined the grievous sins of the owners who,
allegedly, have tolerated overcapacity in their other establishments; sold booze after hours, and -
horror of horrors - sold alcohol without accompanying food orders. My, my, my, my, my. I do feel
safer now that Im protected against such purveyors of pleasure.
The board concluded its decision with the suffocatingly hypocritical comment that the Godin
could pose a threat to public security and public peace. Well from where I sit the only ones
threatening my security and peace are the statocratic social engineers who would put us all in
straightjackets. I dont need my fun and games controlled.
The group behind the Godin has revitalized the St. Lawrence strip over the past several years by
opening some half-dozen restaurants and clubs in the three blocks running north from
Sherbrooke St. The city and province certainly havent objected to taking in the increased tax
revenues these establishments have brought in and quickly took credit for the clean-up of the
strip that was essentially the result of the efforts of this group of entrepreneurs. And Belinda
Stronach obviously wasnt worried about her peace and security when she held her swanky party
at the Godin during the Conservative convention in Montreal this past March.
To add to the duplicity of this decision, the Régie - which also controls gaming and horse racing in
the province - has just given approval in principle to moving the Montreal Casino into one of the
poorest sections of the city over the objections of almost every social action group who have
warned of the risk of increased gambling addiction among the very people who could least afford
it. It has also approved the sale of the Montreal racetrack, located in another underprivileged
section of Montreal, to a private group with no consideration given, or conditions imposed, for
some minimum levels of public housing which residents of the area have been demanding for
years.
Short of any new evidence coming to light, this looks like nothing more than the usual salissage
sliming so common when some bureaucrat gets pissed off.
Whats really troubling about this whole affair however is that it brings into stark relief once again
how feckless and frivolous our society has become. Instead of having the courage to address the
real political and distributive problems of our society, our legislators set up these regulatory
bodies, that are nothing more than transparent fronts for more tax collection, and sell us a bill of
goods that all this is for our own welfare. This is their evidence of their public service.
In fact, aside from bringing in more revenues on the backs of the working men and women of this
country, the only other practical use of these tentacles of the state is to obfuscate and complicate
our lives to the point where we dont notice that our political elite wreaks havoc on the laws,
institutions and assets of this nation. To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, its time to talk sense to the
Canadian people.
Citizens cede their natural liberties to a state in return for the provision of those services that even
the strongest among us need, and that are best delivered in commonweal, so that each of us as
individuals can have the freedom to realize our full potential as human beings by pursuing our
singular passions and poetry. Public security, food, health care, education, human welfare, these
are the appropriate agenda items of governance. The state has no role to play in dictating,
defining or denying our pleasures and passions.
This was the message and metaphor of Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he boldly stated that, the
state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation He wasnt just talking about sex. He was
talking about protecting our private lives from state rape. Thats what he tried to entrench in the
Charter. How far we have fallen in the past twenty years.
In the past year alone we have lived through a flood of new rule and regulation infringing on our
individual territorial imperatives. Quebec copies Ontario on smoking bans. Ontario goes a
congenital idiots step further by restricting everything from types of dogs that can be kept to what
helmets you have to wear when you ride a bicycle. The education Minister even made it a crime
to leave high-school before you are eighteen. The federal government is considering utilization of
electronic security anklets, legalizing interception of emails and allowing random stopping of cars
for drug checks. The CRTC pulls radio licenses for inappropriate words and language, controls
foreign broadcasts and balks at allowing satellite radio.
Police raid reporters homes without warrants. Businesspeople are forced to fill out forms for
revenue departments informing on their outsourced contractors. City Halls in Montreal and
Toronto put street level surveillance cameras in downtown cores. The CCRA announces giant
new databases that will share citizen information, once kept confidential, vertically and
horizontally through all departments and with all governments. Biometric ID cards are to be
introduced. And we are told its all for our own good.
Well we can decide that. The point of a free society is to have the freedom to make mistakes. The
freedom to choose what is injurious to us and what is not. Public security measures must never
be allowed to mirror precisely what we seek to destroytyranny over our freedoms of action and
assembly.
The tolerance of the governed is becoming sorely strained. Nobody elected anyone to do this. We
dont need to be protected from ourselves. It has become abundantly clear who poses the real
danger to our private peace and private security.
We Montrealers want our streets teeming with sensual echoes framed in smoky blue-grey hazes
fuelled by intoxicating spirits. We crave to hear the sweet murmurs of pleasure. We yearn for
those breathless encounters with the precipice of peril and menace. Without all this life would be
nothing but a vast treadmill from birth to grave.
In the face of what George Jonas has called the divine right of bureaucrats, a disrespect for
authority through the indulgence of national vices rather than national virtues may be our last
surety against autocratic authority. As he went on to write, they are safety valves that mitigate the
fiats of the interventionist state All that stands between us and the sterile false pieties of our
governors.
Without a healthy degree of anarchic resistance, what is life? Life in the only way it was truly
meant to be lived. Life in all its glorious, chaotic and passionate uncertainty and unpredictability. If
we succumb to the modern Lilliputians we might as well put a warning label on our existence..and
stay in bed.
Beryl P. Wajsman
President
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
.
MENU
SHORTCUTS TO
