Recently, a self-proclaimed ‘anti-prohibitionist’ on our city council had an article in the paper about how we shouldn’t allow a wine on the sidewalks ordinance to pass, because of the litter we would see, the open alcoholism, the moral dilemma and the cost involved.
I cannot fathom what is not wrong about this idea. First of all prohibition anywhere hasn’t netted us anything. We tried it decades ago with alcohol, and even had the votes to constitutionally amend it into law. Finally, the problems exacerbated so greatly that we constitutionally amended our mistake. The war on drugs needs no introduction or comment on its utter failures.
While he is not a prohibitionist, he would rather prohibit it on Main street, as well as continue the prohibition on your own street and sidewalk that you pay for. The only options he can see are other taxpayer funded government jobs, like more parks, city parking lots, more statues around town for tourists to see… All expensive and may do nothing for tourism, we really have no idea.
Allowing alcohol on the other hand, costs taxpayers $0, reduces police time enforcing the prohibition and allows them to focus on problem drinkers that disturb the peace, etc. In effect it cannot be anything more than a net gain for the city. If the allowed drinking would cause such a problem, why hasn’t the city seen a crimewave every night at 2am when the bars close down? It seems relatively straight forward to me.