Shame, Massachusetts, Shame

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Alder on November 9, 2006 7:01 PM: Tweet; Share this post elsewhere: Digg it! - Add to del.icio.us - Add to Stumbleupon - Add to Reddit; Filed under: Ramblings and Rants

Previous Entry - Main - Next Entry

Comments (8)

Floyd wrote:

11.09.06 at 7:45 PM

How can you take anybody from massachusetts seriously, they vote teddy back in and they have john F Kerry as their other senator

Terry Hughes wrote:

11.10.06 at 7:21 PM

Hey, Floyd, nobody's perfect, pal. California gave us Reagan and voodoo economics, and Texas gave us...

stephen Trask wrote:

11.11.06 at 3:27 PM

Why shame?

Alder wrote:

11.11.06 at 3:32 PM

Stephen,

Not sure if you read the article behind the link I posted. Massachussets voters defeated a ballot measure that would have allowed grocery stores to sell wine, something which is currently illegal in the state.

A case of fearmongering, puritanism, and irrationality prevailing over basic common sense.

42 wrote:

11.11.06 at 6:19 PM

I voted for it. the amount of b.s. and lies put out by the liquor stores was ridiculous. "but lil' kids could buy vodka at the gas station!!" nobody bothered to read the measure's real story: wine and wine only, and only in grocery stores. no vodka, no gas stations.

coming from California where you can buy anything anywhere, the booze laws here and in NJ, NY, and MN (other states I've lived in) are just goddam stupid.

mb wrote:

11.19.06 at 6:39 PM

If you are not from Massachusetts, why do you care where we buy our wine? Anyone who wants to buy wine knows where to go to get it. I lived in a town where one of the supermarkets sold wine (each chain is allowed 3 locations in which they may sell wine) and most of the time it was a pain -- the cashier wasn't old enough to ring it up and you had to wait while another older cashier came over to ring it in.

I voted AGAINST the wine law and am happy it was not passed. Those of you who think we are PURITANICAL must not know we allow gay marriage here :) see, we are ahead in some things!

Alder wrote:

11.19.06 at 6:45 PM

MB,

Certainly "puritanical" is going to far (good job on the gay marriage law, by the way).

Given that you seem to be willing for others to do what they want as long as it doesn't bother you, why exactly did you vote against the law?

To answer your question, we care about such things here because such state laws are precedents for other states, just as your cited marriage law is encouraging similar laws elsewhere, the failure of this measure will have chilling effects on many other states strying to break out of the stranglehold of state-run or monopolistic distribution systems.

Thomas Jones wrote:

11.28.06 at 11:34 AM

Basing a state's liquor laws on the insane idea that local family wineries are less capable to keep their products away from kids and less honest in paying their taxes than some soulless corporation or government appointee... is an abomination.

Bureaucracies, like corporations, serve mainly to insulate themselves from the very values of entrepreneurship and personal responsibility that communities need to grow and evolve.