News-Miner Editorial
The right step
Mayor’s idea to limit some alcohol product worth a look
Published Saturday, March 29, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Fairbanks Mayor Terry Strle is on the right track by opening the discussion about a way to get high-alcohol beers and wines out of a central portion of the city. The idea, broached at Monday’s City Council meeting, is to create an “alcohol impact zone” in which the sale of certain types of alcohol products would be banned.
It’s worth talking about.
The mayor is correct — and almost everyone knows it — when she says “drug and alcohol abuse is a huge problem in this community.”
And knowing that, local leaders would be irresponsible to do nothing about it.
Mayor Strle has particular insight into the issue, having served as a chapter president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and, while executive director of the United Way of the Tanana Valley, being heavily involved in a project that identified alcohol as a leading community problem. Her knowledge from that service is no doubt useful and should serve to quell any idea that she is heading into an area in which she has little expertise. If she’s embarking on a crusade, as some critics have begun to suggest, well, trying to reduce the prevalence of chronic public drunkenness is certainly a worthy crusade.
Bring it on.
Several efforts at reducing the number of chronic inebriates have been tried over the years, with varying degrees of success. Chronic public inebriates burden the law enforcement and judicial systems, the health system — in particular Fairbanks Memorial Hospital — and social service agencies. They affect businesses.
This is, and has been for a long time, a problem in need of a constant series of answers.
But instituting a limited prohibition zone isn’t without its own problems. For example, one of the major concerns about reducing chronic public drunkenness is that the inebriates will simply move to another part of the city. One area’s problem gets shoved off to another area, and that’s not right. It’s a major point that any discussion of a new impact zone must address.
The potential hurdles, however, shouldn’t be offered as a reason to stop a study of the idea. Alcohol impact zones have worked elsewhere. There’s every reason to believe, for now, that they can work in the city of Fairbanks.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Your editorial is terrible. Her "alcohol impact zones" are nothing but pure socialism. Alaskans, by and large, whether they be liberal or conservative, are not seeking out more government intervention in people's daily affairs. You cannot cure social ills through government programming and regulation. I whole-heartedly disagree with this editorial and feel that the city is becoming just another nanny government - something many Alaskans moved here to escape. The more the nanny government plans and regulates, the more people come to expect it to plan and regulate, which equates to less people relying on themselves to make right choices in their daily activities. The Fairbanks City Council has had some real dusies in the past year or so, including their $20 head tax on people who work in the city. This is just another example of how a few self-righteous individuals think they can cure societies ills spending other people's tax dollars in the process.
Amen Gopking!!
So, I'm curious, gopking and cassidyak: Alaska consistently ranks among the highest states in the nation per capita for substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide. We know these issues are intertwined with alcoholism. Our children go to school with kids whose parents are involved with the issues above. A drunk driver could take any of us out at any given moment.
How would you propose to fix the problem?
They really do not wont to FIX the problem, it is all part of the INCOME. Why is it that they FIXED the smoking problem with higher taxes, why not then do the same thing with alcohol? Price it for what it is costing the city, I dont think the DRUNKS could afford $100.oo a six pack, and gosh we could spend it on more government employees...
gopking - Regarding your fear of "socialism" and a "nanny state":
We all should condemn such tendancies by the government. However, there are exceptions to any rule, and this is one.
Chronic drunks who fuel themselves with high-test rot-gut booze need to be controlled by whatever means. Cans of Steel City and Mad Dog litter the areas frequented by these drunks. These are their "drugs of choice". Many responsible cities are tired of paying for the police and 911 calls for these offenders, and have passed this law. DUI's and domestic violence cost us all, physically and financially. Drunks need a nanny state - left unattended they steal us all blind.
By the way, I'd suggest that the city council open their eyes and allow for the reopening of the much-needed grocery store on Gaffney, once the rot-gut booze ban is passed.
gopking, You have obviously lived here a while and understand Fairbanks. This editorial is, IMHO, out to lunch!!! For one, Fairbanks was founded and populated by crooks and drunks from the start!!! This used to be the "wild west", the "last frontier". Unfortunately we are no longer either!! If I were living in the city, I would be organizing a recall effort of the mayor and city council. How dare they pass these measures. Please folks, listen to KFAR 660. Listen to the views of old time Alaskans...Individuals that have staked all their lives and their fortunes, as meager as they might have been, to building what we have today here in Fairbanks. I do not agree with everything I hear on there, but it sure is NOTHING like what one reads here!! Thank you DNM for the opportunity to comment on issues in the interior and Fairbanks.
I think they should add whiskey to the list. Whiskey is the alcohol of choice for most of these downtown folks.
"Chronic drunks who fuel themselves with high-test rot-gut booze need to be controlled by whatever means"
Speaks of fascism doesnt it?
"Chronic drunks" are people, just like you and me, who happen to be caught up in addictions. Trying to control their access to the poison that is slowly killing them is a way of trying to help them.
Hopefully our city fathers - or in this case our city mothers - are not thinking of the chronic drunks as vermin to be eliminated from our city streets, but rather as men and women and even teenagers who need help.
There are people living on our streets who are wonderful people when they are sober. Whatever we can do to help them get free of their addictions is good. True, there may be some who truly want to drink all the time. But the majority want out of that lifestyle, and just don't know how to get free. Buying them some time to get the alcohol out of their system will allow them to think right - perhaps for long enough to seek help. Making the poison harder to obtain might just do that for some.
It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the socials ills caused by alcoholism in our community. The problem is the solutions that have been proposed so far. When a "nanny-state" is imposed, it is imposed upon all of us, not just a select few. And it won't stop with alcohol. Governments that create "nanny-state" type legislation concerning one issue soon realize they will have no problem creating "nanny-state" type legislation concerning other issues as well. It is not the proper role of the city - or any government - to be creating programs such as the one references by the editorial. You want a non-socialist solution to the problem? How bout increasing penalites for Drinking in Public? How bout the city helping the state in prosecuting DUI's and Domestic Assaults? The city used to. It no longer does.
Maybe they want to be drunks. Look, I am sure you think you are just trying to help these people, but listen. Did it ever occur to you that people dont want your help? Who are you to say who needs help? That maybe what you think is best for someone isnt what they want? Its called freedom people. Leave other people's alone and fight all attempts by others, no matter how well intentioned, to take it away.
Just my 2 cents. Got to get it in before someone decides I should be able to.
I agree....the more we come up with programs as these, the less freedom there is. I don't think that's what we want. Or better said, I'm not willing to give up my freedoms. If you are, that's fine, but don't take mine along with you. It's not your place.
gopking and Reader1, I agree with both of you! This is just a classic example of govt. gone bad! Joe Vogler said it best:
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
And, by the way, I do not know about every person, but I believe the drink of choice is R&R.
I fear the socialists are winning guys. People by and large have forgotten the principles that this country was founded on. They have been brainwashed little by little to accept the "nanny-state" as gopking calls it. They somehow believe that they are ENTITLED to the fruits of someone elses labor. That the solution to every problem is more government.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine
Since the newsminer seems to reprint the same articles, but in different forms, I'll just insert my statements from yesterday, with slight changes:
What is the real problem here? Is it that we are trying to save people from themselves? Because, if that's the case, we should be focusing on treatment and intervention programs, not bans.
I think it is more likely that we are passing judgment and being embarrassed by their actions.
Does anyone really think that getting rid of a few types of alcohol from a few local stores is going to make a significant impact on the "huge drug and alcohol problem in this community"?
It seems to me that this is about sweeping these people under the rug so that the "good upstanding citizens" of Fairbanks don't have to look at them anymore. Would any of you allow your children to clean their room in a similar manner? I know that I would not. So, why would it be OK for us to do this on a community level?
"Mayor Strle has particular insight into the issue, having served as a chapter president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving"
TRANSLATION - Mayor Strle has a bias against drinkers due to her roots in an anti-drinking coalition who have been largely responsible for the current harassment we are experiencing on the highways by our law enforcement officers.
Gopking,
"How bout increasing penalites for Drinking in Public?"
A chronic alcoholic doesn't care about the penalties. Look at the # of alcoholics who continue to drive after their licenses have been revoked. Increased penalties, outside of treatment or jail, doesn't stop the person from drinking, nor does it treat the addiction.
"How bout the city helping the state in prosecuting DUI's and Domestic Assaults? The city used to. It no longer does."
This decision was made because the city didn't have the # of attorneys necessary to prosecute these cases. Still doesn't.
Let's keep the dialog open toward reducing the impact of substance abuse on our community. I think we are a creative community, and although we sometimes disagree, solution comes by respectful dialog.
Newsreader:
As a person who frequently drove home at 3 am, dodging drunks in the process, I appreciate having a stronger law enforcement presence out there, picking the drunks from behind the wheel before they crashed their weaving cars into mine.
I don't at all think Mayor Strle has a bias against drinkers. I think she is looking at a problem and trying to seek the best means to reduce the # of deaths, the # of children abused or neglected, the # of violent crimes, and the # of senseless victimization of innocent people due to the ravages of alcoholism. I have read nothing to suggest that she is biased; rather, I think she's being responsible.
How many in-patient residential treatment programs are there in the city of Fairbanks? I know that the Ralph Perdue center used to be a 30 day in-patient treatment facility but wasn't that closed? So if the city really wanted to combat the problem of too many drunks on the doorsteps of the downtown area wouldn't one way to start be making sure that those who wanted to seek treatment could? I've never had to battle the problem (alcohol addiction) but it would seem to me that by offering help to those who want it would be a step in the right direction and if the state isn't willing to pay for (isn't that why RP closed?)than shouldn't the city be willing to at least step up and offer something? I don't think making it harder to get or more expensive is going to fix the problem. Making it harder to get or more expensive doesn't stop the drug users, why should it stop the alcoholics?
Rockee - can you honestly tell me that banning a few types of booze from a few stores is "the best means to reduce the # of deaths, the # of children abused or neglected, the # of violent crimes, and the # of senseless victimization of innocent people"? Seriously, do you honestly think that banning mad dog 20/20 from Cushman street is going to do any of those things?
And, I'd like to mention that I just saw a group of these "chronic public inebriates". They were passing around a plastic 5th of WHISKEY! Not "high-octane" beer or wine. So, not only is this a sham to try to cover up a problem (rather than fix it), it isn't even going to do that, because they are drinking Whiskey and NOT the types of alcohol these "crusaders" suggest.
i used to be one of those chronic inebriates that you're talking about in here. i somehow survived, got off the street, got sober, got a job and now live a productive tax paying life. i'm rare, most of us die out there. the great majority of those i drank with out there on the streets during the 1990's and early 2000's have died from alcohol related causes. you can't legislate away alcoholism. you won't stop them by banning certain types of alcohol. they'll just drink something different, they will just move. most of them already have moved to different areas of town. i see them, i recognize them. sometimes i try to urge them to try and do what i did, they usually laugh at me.
you can't scare off drunk drivers with tougher sentences. that only works for nonalcoholic drinkers. an alcoholics mind doesn't work like normal peoples do, especially while intoxicated, which is most of the time. only reason tougher dwi laws will work is because they will be behind bars and just can't drive. i fear that there is just no solution to the chronic inebriate problem other than just locking them up. it is best to just get used to having them around.
Remember the 18th amendment.
"Look at the # of alcoholics who continue to drive after their licenses have been revoked. Increased penalties, outside of treatment or jail, doesn't stop the person from drinking, nor does it treat the addiction."
Rockee - your comments assume that it is the government's proper role to stop people from drinking and get them treatment for their addictions. That is not government's role. These individuals have to want to change themselves for the better. Other than locking them up for longer periods of time when convicted of their alcohol-related crimes, I don' see government's role in the issue. We're not running a daycare, we're trying to a run a city.
I agree with Bugger, just increase the taxes on alcohol.
Alaska leads the nation in R&R sales. Its not bad actually, better when its ice cold.
I too will repeat my earlier comments: Until they ban booze (which I'm not voting for), people have the right to be stupid drunk. Enforce the laws as they are and let people behave the way the want to behave within the constraints of the law until they don't have that right anymore. Taking away MY high-octane (yes, tongue in cheek here) because someone else breaks the law is just stupidity and smacks of control. I don't need more laws, more rules, more regulations. Deal with those that can't deal with the laws, rules and regulations and let the rest of us be. Give me a break here.
I disagree with increasing the tax on alcohol. Why should people who aren't causing problems have to pay more?
Gopking ~ probaility statitics. It is the future and hopefully the present of social policy.
"For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. ~ no later than 1935.
I agree that this is a terrible editorial. I remember hearing about other cities targeting chronic inebriation through localized bans on high alcohol beers and wines. One would think that a newspaper would have the wherewithall to find out if those bans have helped. Prohibitionist initiatives have a poor track record. Is there any reason to think this will turn out differently? NEWS MINER EDITORIAL STAFF: Go ahead and research the issues you write about. It's part of your job.
Frankly, I'm much more worried about the drunks in cars, who will not be affected by this kind of ban. I, too, frequently drive late at night and early in the morning, and I'm always glad to see the police out there in force. I have never been pulled over (in Alaska), and if I ever am, I figure I'll just blow a .000 and be on my way.
Still, there's no getting around the fact that our DUI penalties are not preventing people from driving drunk. Jail time isn't the answer, because it's too expensive and too abstract to act as a deterrent. The mandatory class for offenders is, by all accounts, a joke (though it's a nice place to meet like-minded people). Why not just take their cars and permanently revoke their licenses? Harsh, but it beats them destroying my car and permanently revoking my life. And maybe we'd finally get some decent mass transit in this town.
if you ask me we should fight back...they are taking our rights away. at school my son can not even search the black death"bubonic plauge" because it comes up as tasteless and obscene...we are losing our rights...we need to fight back
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.