- Local every day in
Neither of my parents were big drinkers while I was growing up. I do remember sitting down to dinner one evening at the age of 13 (my sister was 17) and seeing four Bartles and Jaymes wine coolers awaiting us, the caps popped off, drops of condensation sliding down the foil label as if racing for the table top.
I felt a trap coming. Like a drug dealer who realizes a deal is about to go bad, I glanced at my sister with narrowed, suspicious eyes. She just shrugged. My parents announced that while they didn’t endorse under-aged drinking, they hoped that educating us on drinking responsibly and openly would lay a foundation of trust, meaning they were chasing the impossible dream that we would call them anytime we became really wasted with our friends and needed a ride home.
With that, we all raised our wild berry wine coolers and toasted responsible drinking. Despite the fact that I had been drinking since I was 10, I put on an awful display of acting, pretending that I abhorred the taste and wanted nothing to do with this demon practice until I was at least 42 years old. This pleased them immensely as they envisioned a life in which their kids just said no to alcohol.
These are the things fairy tales are made of. But the point is they gave me a choice, which is more than some people had in past years. On Jan. 16 we observe the 92nd anniversary of one of the darkest day in American history, from a personal rights standpoint: the prohibition of alcohol.
Don’t get me wrong. I recognize that the forces behind prohibition—namely The Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League—were noble in their intent. They felt that the nation was falling apart economically as well as in the home and something had to be done. In their minds, from the banning of alcohol a sober nation of gentler, clear-minded citizens would be born and all of life’s problems would be magically sucked into the rabbit hole. Politicians would suddenly be shocked into morality and corruption would up and drift away like hot ashes in the wind.
Oh, the irony! Instead, corruption and crime skyrocketed while the money it cost to finance the war on alcohol, and the taxes lost on its sales, created a worse economic situation for the government than they had before. Prohibition also caused the price of alcohol to soar, which was a big incentive for the criminals who saw a golden opportunity to reap the benefits. In addition, politicians were taking bribes, and the number of bars in America actually doubled during the 13-year ban.
Despite my love for the almighty hootch, this isn’t about the booze. Though my parents’ idealistic visions could be comedic at times, they were onto something when they offered their 13-year-old son an alcoholic beverage: Steel-fisted restriction invites rebellion, which eventually leads to deceit. On a more global and societal level, it breeds corruption. Perhaps my parents didn’t have it all mapped out in such detail, but the general notion was kicking around upstairs.
I don’t know about you, but the biggest tramps I know today either went to Catholic school, or some other private school that segregated by gender where co-existing with members of the opposite sex was forbidden. Same goes for the college kid who sucks down four Super Big Gulps a day because he was not allowed to drink soda until the age of 16. The truth is: The more we’re told to stay away from something the more we think, “I’ve got to have it!”
Even so, at least in their youth the Catholic school girl and the Big Gulper didn’t know what they were missing. One of the main reasons prohibition failed is that the government tried to revoke a right—an American pastime—that had already been in practice for centuries. Imagine if cell phones were suddenly outlawed, or the Internet, or (please God, no) Tivo. It ain’t happening, brothers and sisters.
Prohibiting our right to self-indulge is nothing short of oppression. While chivalrous in its attempt, you can’t clean up the nation by suspending rights and freedoms, even if they present a risk. Risks are part of life. They provide enjoyment and excitement and, more importantly, they allow us to learn from our experiences.
I didn’t grow up in the 1920s, but I still know plenty of prohibitionists today. Maybe not all of them are focused on alcohol, but in one form or another, they want to choke out danger until each of us is sitting in a Lazy-Boy in our living rooms, houses locked down, helmets on, eating our organic peas and watching the PBS special “Why Stepping Out Your Front Door Can Kill You.”
These are the same fanatical nut jobs who want Walnut Creek bars shut down at 10:00. They are the people who piloted the movement to ban playing tag at school. TAG. A game that has been around since Abraham Lincoln was a kid but has suddenly become an evil beyond measure for parents who had a child fall down and hurt him/herself. So they spend all their energy and every waking hour circulating petitions and holding up picket signs until children are no longer allowed to run or touch each other for fear of having too much fun at the cost of a skinned knee.
Let’s get to the burning question that’s on everyone’s mind: “But, Barman, what about all the drunk driving and senseless alcohol-related deaths? What about alcoholism?”
I am not in any way, shape or form defending the super-sized moron who climbs behind the wheel after drinking. Nor am I defending any such irresponsible behavior such as college hazings or the countless other idiotic acts that occur from alcohol. But you cannot make a law prohibiting a self-indulgence based on the poor choices of some. You can, but if you ban one of them, you have to ban them all. Otherwise the people will catch on to your hypocrisy and rebel in a violent and corrupt fashion. Consider this:
Of the 44,000 people who died last year in an auto accident, 10,800 of them were alcohol-related. That means approximately 75 percent, or 33,200 people, died in sober-related driving accidents. It doesn’t take alcohol for people to drive like an idiot. Sounds like a driving prohibition is in order. Let’s look at some other stats that demonstrate the result of risky behavior in our society:
- 5,000 people drowned last year.
- 8,600 people died from poisonous liquids or solids in the home.
- 4,500 deaths from falling off something.
- Three million injuries or deaths caused by knives each year.
Based on these stats, we should instantly ban swimming pools. Pull mushrooms and cleaning products or other poisonous products off the shelves. No more climbing trees, kids, and no more cleaning the gutters on that ladder, dads. Someone died. And knives? I can picture it now:
“I’d love to give you a steak knife to cut your pork chop, Uncle Bob, but an irresponsible man stabbed his wife last year and so knives have been outlawed. Here, try this spoon.”
Fried food, airplanes, cliff diving, tackle football, rock climbing, hunting, bungee jumping, whitewater rafting, unprotected sex. All of these things are conveniences or indulgences that are based on risks that we live (and die) with every day, and to single out alcohol as the evil substance that is causing society to collapse is hypocritical on a monstrous scale. Just because it’s not your chosen risk doesn’t mean that you are right or that it should be outlawed.
My parents had the right idea: If you want to make a difference, educate people about the risks involved so they can make smart choices. Don’t preach from a soapbox and tell them why they should want what you want. The only thing we hear when you do that is: “I am a better person than you who makes better choices than you and since I don’t believe you are smart enough to make your own choices. I would like to make them for you.”
In the end, drinking is a choice, just like every other indulging activity you might partake in like overeating or watching too much television or going to church. Alcohol is only one of a thousand addictions in our society, so stop picking on it and allow us our blissful sedation. Because if you ban it, all we’ll do is turn to something else for pleasure, like climbing tall trees, and then how many deaths will you have on your conscience?
Cheers, until next time,
The Barman
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Bunny Galladora
9:13 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
I signed a Youth Temperance Council Pledge (teens of WCTU) at the age of 12. I have never used alcohol. Despite what you say, the WCTU DOES NOT WANT TO BAN THE GAME OF TAG. In fact, we play lots of games that the people you are talking about might consider “dangerous” during our co-ed camps. We also have contests…where, believe it or not, some people win and others loose.
I am a retired Deputy Sheriff, married to a Police Officer. I am the mother of five adult children. Two of our five children are Police Officers. One is a Paramedic. One served in the military--he skydives, owns and rides a Harley. One, well, is into ECON.
As a family, we see the damage alcohol does. This year 1,717 college age students will die with alcohol a contributing factor. Your facts are wrong about Prohibition and so are your stats.
That being said, the WCTU has worked for people to take personal responsibility to sign a pledge not to use alcohol.
SR
10:29 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
Speaking locally we had 3 or 4 people killed in alcohol related accidents in 2010, a record for Walnut Creek. Last year we had the most alcohol related accidents the city has ever seen. Our downtown bar problems that impact our safety, good name as a city and property values are fueled by one thing-alcohol. I can't help but feel like I'm being told cigarette smoke is safe by a tobacco farmer.
TheRealBarman
10:52 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
Bunny, Bunny, Bunny...you've missed the whole point, just like all the other prohibitionists. All you're doing is arguing that since YOU have taken the oath, everyone else should. You're arguing that since you and your children do risk-taking activities it's ok to ban another activity that you are against. And just like all the other prohibitionists, you like to throw stats in there like 1,717 college students will die this year with alcohol being a contributing factor, which implies that alcohol is the only pleasurable thing that is dangerous. 5,000 people will drown this year, with swimming pools being a contributing factor. Let's have people sign a pledge to not use swimming pools any more.
I don't even have a problem with you getting people to sign your pledge, as long as it's their choice. Choice is the key here. It's not your right to choose someone else's indulgence, risky or not, despite the consequences, unless you're going to take away peoples' rights to choose every other indulgence with a negative consequence.
Also, if you'd like to challenge any of the prohibition stats specifically, I'd be happy to address them.
I must go now. My bourbon is getting watered down.
SR
11:54 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
It is you who are missing the point Barman. If everyone sat at home and drank responsibly there would be no issue here. The fact is we have a significant problem with alcohol in this community. One that no matter who you are, drinker or non-drinker, old or young, are paying for with your tax dollars, property values and of course potentially your life. I'll grant you the chances of being killed in a car accident are low but should we really let you people in the alcohol industry run amuck with little or no oversight while the rest of us poor slobs pick up the tab? How many fights, alcohol related sexual assaults, injuries, car accidents and robberies in the downtown area is it going to take? I like a good Martini from time to time but I am not willing to let sleazy bar owners dictate the direction of public safety in our community. As you can read from numerous comments in a variety of media forums you are a vocal but extremely small minority.
TheRealBarman
3:03 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Ahhh, yes, let's judge and attack people we have never met and know nothing about: the "sleazy" bar owners. Like Moe Syzlak from the Simpsons, they most likely have a shotgun behind the bar while they deal in child labor and use an extension cord for their belt.
Now, considering that 64% of Americans drink alcoholic beverages, I would assume that I'm not in the minority. Even so, the minority is not such a bad thing. The minority used to think the world was flat. The majority used to burn women at the stake for being witches. In the 1940's the majority of Germans were led by a man who did not drink a drop of liquor. Perhaps that's who we should aspire to become.
This is America, SR. If you would like to live in a dry country, move to Kuwait. Their hooch-less policy seems to have produced an excellent system of government.
I could go on, but I am a busy man and have a fine bottle of Maker's Mark calling my name.
Cheers, until next time.
SR
3:21 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
You can cite all kinds of extreme examples to distract from the central argument but it won’t change the facts. Bottom line is no one is arguing for prohibition. We are arguing for common sense. And yes, sleazy is an accurate description for many of the people that own the most problematic nightclubs. They are a stain on the community, not an asset. If they are forced to close and you are out of a job so be it. Feel free to make your arguments at the city council meeting when LIFT appeals their reduction in operating hours. See how much support you get. Don’t forget to bring a drink.
TheRealBarman
3:42 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
That's the beauty of it, SR. I will never be out of a job because people love to drink. They drink to celebrate, they drink to drown their sorrows. They drink whether rich or poor, violent of peaceful. No matter what happens to LIFT or the other nightclubs, people will continue to drink in WC. It's the American way.
thedubc
3:53 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
"we had 3 or 4 people killed locally....." If you can cite numbers of the population increase/decrease over the years per alcohol related deaths, then you can make an argument. If you cant, then dont site numbers with no meaning behind them. The bar scene is the least of my worries. Id rather see traffic enforcement rather than worrying if a bar has to close at 1200 rather than 1am. I see more people blowing red lights and speeding in WC than anywhere else. Drives me crazy. For your reference, here are a few dry counties you can move to SR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county
SR
6:14 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Not sure what you mean dubc. Walnut Creek is built out. The population is always hovering around 65,000. In 2010 we had 3 or 4 DUI traffic fatalities. For the past ten years we've had 0 or 1 every year.
obiwan
6:57 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
I, for one, have never advocated prohibition. On the other hand, I don’t feel that we need to lay out the welcome mat to every boozer in the Bay Area.
I agree with Barman that “you cannot make a law prohibiting a self-indulgence based on the poor choices of some”. But you CAN expect the provisions of a licensing agreement to be honored.
Most of the town’s bars were never licensed as bars – they were licensed as RESTAURANTS that supposedly offer alcohol only as a complement to the meals they serve. We have become a destination for out-of-town drunks because of all the “restaurant” owners who cater to them.
Expecting a bona fide restaurant to stop serving booze after the dinner crowd has left might not be as direct as asking ABC to pull the restaurant’s license altogether, but it does still enable the restaurant to offer their dining customers a martini with their appetizer. And if the food at LIFT or Redux or any other “restaurant” isn’t appealing enough to attract dining customers, then maybe the next owner will hire a better chef.
It’s not about prohibition; it’s about expecting restaurant owners to honor the provisions of the license they hold. Restaurants rarely create law enforcement issues.
Deborah Burstyn
7:00 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
We need to roll up that welcome mat that's luring thugs from all corners to come here to drink, fight, steal and make our community unsafe. Whatever it takes. Fewer bars. Fewer hours. More cops. Better bar bouncers. I don't care. As long as something gets done.
Paula Miller
7:38 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Right again Obiwan and Deborah!
Please notice that the only person who has mentioned Prohibition is the Barman. He serves it up as a very weak argument to back up the irresponsible bar owners who are shutting their eyes to what goes on in their bars.
No one wants to prohibit drinking in RESPONSIBLE restaurants and bars in downtown Walnut Creek. We just want them to abide by the laws that govern their establishments and be good neighbors as they do business in Walnut Creek.
The Council has to meet this problem head on at long last and give the Police Department the support they need to provide a safe environment for ALL citizens in our town as well as those who visit.
Clean it up or get out of town! We deserve better.
Deborah Burstyn
7:41 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Correct as usual, Paula. Except for the City Council part. Expect nothing except business as usual.
m sheridan
12:01 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Part of WC bar problem is that the liquor permit is granted on physical address primarily rather than on the track record of the applicant. The WC City Council could change this by modifying local laws. The Council could also revert back to the" Chief Karl era" granting the Chief of Police the authority to temporarily close any bar as a public nuisance and keep them closed until they had a formal hearing. This system was in place in the late 80's to late 90's and seemed to work very well as it impacted only bars who were generating alot of police calls for fights etc.
Deborah Burstyn
3:13 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The temporary closure due to "public nuisance" makes sense. What happened to change that? Why don't we have that option for public protection now?
Jojo Potato
5:35 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Barman, I really appreciated your reasonable discourse. I will ignore those with axes to grind about Walnut Creek restaurants and bars and such. Nice to hear from someone who can take a reasoned outlook on things.