mzal@pegasus.UUCP (08/06/84)
In its never ending war against drunk driving, NJ is currently working on two new interesting lines of attack (or at least so claimed the reports I heard - I'd be interested in details from other more informed parties). First, the ABC is planning on disallowing so-called "happy hours" or "attitude readjustment hours" where drinks are usually half priced. I wonder if there is any evidence to support the idea that people are going out and getting crocked when drinks are cheap? Since most happy hours end early in the evening and most drunk driving accidents occur later in the evening, this seems unlikely. For that matter, does the state realy think those people will not drink because drinks are more expensive? Certainly, nothing in the newspaper article I saw offered hard evidence to suggest that this was a particular problem. The second plan is a bill which is currently in the state assembly which bans the sale of 120 proof or greater alcohol. This bill was introduced into and passed in the state house in one day. How is that for giving the people a say in their laws? A lobbyist for state liquor store owners remarked that there was no time for any response to this swift procedure. He did, however, note that because the sale of 120 plus proof alcohol has traditionally not been very great, he did not expect significant economic impact. I wonder, is there any evidence implicating this super alcohol in an unusually high number of accidents? If the sales of this kind of stuff have been small it seems unlikely to be so. If my concern seems pretty petty, consider that two shots of 60 proof booze contain as much alcohol as one shot of 120 proof super booze (though the two 60 proof shots are a lot easier to drink). Now, when some enlightened state legislator realizes this, we will see a new bill, banning all booze which is 60 proof or greater - which will mean no more vodka, whiskey, rum, to name just a few. This may seem absurd, but the US did ban alcohol once, and the way I read all this, it seems like we are drifting that way again. Minimally, what I see in these two cases is the state, striking out against the rights of people (to buy what they want) and businesses (to set their own marketing policies) with no evidence to suggest that what they are striking out against is part of the problem. This trend toward emotional, non-analytic government action concerns me greatly. -- Mike^Z allegra!pegasus!mzal Zaleski@Rutgers