Some of the closest votes weve had in our online news polls this year have dealt with alcohol.
Last month, we asked readers whether they thought Cheese Days patrons should be allowed to carry around the Square beer and wine they purchase in taverns. The vote was just slightly in favor (194-177), and the Monroe City Council later approved the special use permit provision that will allow people to carry beer around with them at Cheese Days.
The Times editorial board (me, General Manager Carl Hearing and News Editor Jim Winter) wrote a newspaper editorial opposing the provision, taking the position that it jeopardized Cheese Days standing as a family event. That said, we understand the reasons the Cheese Days organizers and many patrons would want people to have the ability to walk around with beer and wine. Well see next month how it works out.
This past weeks question also dealt with alcohol. It dealt with the Amethyst Initiative, a consortium of 129 (as of this morning) university presidents who are urging that the national drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18 to help curb binge drinking on their campuses. Our online poll vote was close, and frankly I was a little surprised.
There were 114 people who said no, the drinking age shouldnt be lowered. But there were 110 who said it should. I didnt expect so many people to say yes.
I fail to see how lowering the legal age to 18 will do anything but encourage even more underage drinking. I think the more accessible alcohol is, the more it will be consumed.
I agree with university presidents that current laws and practices arent working in terms of keeping younger people from drinking in excess. Actually, the laws often dont work very well with older adults, either.
I just think there has to be a better answer than simply throwing up your hands and saying, Lets just let them drink legally. Judge Harold V. Froehlich of Appleton has some interesting ideas in his guest commentary, Its time for limited prohibition, in todays edition. I think some of his ideas are more creative, and probably more effective, than lowering the drinking age. If you havent yet read Froehlichs commentary online or in print, Id urge you to do so.
And then tell me what you think is the best solution for curbing underage (and legal-age) binge drinking.
Last month, we asked readers whether they thought Cheese Days patrons should be allowed to carry around the Square beer and wine they purchase in taverns. The vote was just slightly in favor (194-177), and the Monroe City Council later approved the special use permit provision that will allow people to carry beer around with them at Cheese Days.
The Times editorial board (me, General Manager Carl Hearing and News Editor Jim Winter) wrote a newspaper editorial opposing the provision, taking the position that it jeopardized Cheese Days standing as a family event. That said, we understand the reasons the Cheese Days organizers and many patrons would want people to have the ability to walk around with beer and wine. Well see next month how it works out.
This past weeks question also dealt with alcohol. It dealt with the Amethyst Initiative, a consortium of 129 (as of this morning) university presidents who are urging that the national drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18 to help curb binge drinking on their campuses. Our online poll vote was close, and frankly I was a little surprised.
There were 114 people who said no, the drinking age shouldnt be lowered. But there were 110 who said it should. I didnt expect so many people to say yes.
I fail to see how lowering the legal age to 18 will do anything but encourage even more underage drinking. I think the more accessible alcohol is, the more it will be consumed.
I agree with university presidents that current laws and practices arent working in terms of keeping younger people from drinking in excess. Actually, the laws often dont work very well with older adults, either.
I just think there has to be a better answer than simply throwing up your hands and saying, Lets just let them drink legally. Judge Harold V. Froehlich of Appleton has some interesting ideas in his guest commentary, Its time for limited prohibition, in todays edition. I think some of his ideas are more creative, and probably more effective, than lowering the drinking age. If you havent yet read Froehlichs commentary online or in print, Id urge you to do so.
And then tell me what you think is the best solution for curbing underage (and legal-age) binge drinking.
