For generations the town I live in has been dry, meaning that they do not sell alcohol. The county is wet but the within city limits the sale of alcoholic beverages is not permitted. This past election we have had a referendum vote on dry vs. wet. I have seen some pretty vitriolic votes before in state and national elections but this one was pretty rough.
I am a Christian and unabashedly so but I do consume an occasional drink or two. Usually a beer or two while on the BBQ or a Friday night glass of scotch with a cigar. I do not believe that drinking in and of itself is a sin. After all, Jesus Himself turned water into wine. The sin lies in drunkenness from what I have read. I personally do not care if our small town of 2,000 is wet or dry I will still go to the Class Six on Fort Hood to buy my beverage of choice. For the record, I live in county and not within city limits so I could not vote on this measure.
There were basically two distinct arguments for the vote. 1. Allowing the sale of alcohol will promote underage drinking and make it easier to get said beverages in the hands of those who will abuse them. This argument was put forth by the religious set of our town. It is an argument I reject completely out of hand. I have lived and traveled many places both wet and dry and have not seen a direct correlation between heavy drinking of minors based off of this distinction. That is, of course, my opinion. The people on this side of the argument also feel that drinking is a sin. Let us be honest though, if people want to drink they will get it.
2. The other side of this argument says that the town is losing out on massive revenue streams from the sale of alcohol. Some businesses refuse to come in and set up because of the prohibition within city limits. This argument is also laughable. In a major city it would make sense but truth is that in a town of 2,000 you could drive three miles from the courthouse and be out of city limits. What is stopping someone from setting up shop at that distance? Zoning? It is a bit ridiculous.
As I said earlier I could care less either way, however, I would vote yes if I could vote on this measure. Why? I would vote yes because it is not the place of government to limit liberty but to ensure it. I see this as an individual responsibility and not something the government can tell me what I can and can not do. I said before that if people want to drink they will but it isn’t someone else’s place to tell me that I can’t. That is between God and me.
In the final days of the Whig Party before the Republican Party rose from its ashes they were infiltrated by an ultra-religious constituency. They basically pushed the party to take on a more theocratic platform which ultimately caused their downfall. Once the Whig party went the way of the birds and the new Republican Party was formed this ultra-religious element was left without a home. They then joined the Democrat Party which in turn lead to Prohibition. Prohibition gave rise to organized crime.
I believe that politicians need to be grounded in God and that they should make sound and Godly decisions. These decisions must be liberty minded though. God has granted us free will to decide to do what is right or wrong and not to force us. The government needs to take that same stance.