I see in Sunday's Town Talk, where mayor Fields is talking about regulating alcohol in the city of Pineville, citing the decisions of local restaurants to move from Pineville based on the restrictive laws north of the Red River.
I recall a local initiative in those wards in the early 1980s. I was living within the city limits of Pineville and someone had found a loophole in the law to get a likker license. That loophole led to some really weird establishments. I seem to recall a Bob's Auto Parts and Package Liquor, or somesuch nonsense.
Some of the natives were incensed and started circulating a petition to ban alcohol north of the river. The four choices (if I remember correctly) were: 1) ban all alcohol north of the river, 2) sell some alcohol in restaurants, 3) sell all alcohol in package stores and other alcohol in restaurants, or 4) open a honky-tonk on every corner.
I signed the petition, proudly, gladly, thanking the lady who bore it for the opportunity. She thanked me for supporting the banning the sale of alcohol. I told ber that I was glad it was coming for a vote, because I wanted to see a honky-tonk on every corner.
You see, I love smokey old barrooms and clear mountain mornings. I keep alcohol in my house. I have a liquor cabinet devoted to those beverages. I may have a drink every three or four weeks, or I might not. I think that prohibiting alcohol was a great national experiment that ended in 1933. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.
However, I understand that other folks have opinions that are different from mine. I respect those opinions, misquided as they might be. In using alcohol as in most things, great freedom demands great responsibility. Demand responsibility of those that use alcohol. To those that can't seem to be responsible, the jail awaits.
I think we ought to treat adults like adults, and I believe in the democratic process that drives most local decisions. Put it up for a vote. After I vote for a honky-tonk on every corner, I'll abide with the majority.