Although space does not allow us to answer every question asked of CAA regarding this measure, we believe the following Q&A format, based on factual data, sound research and sources cited, should help to address 10 of the most commonly asked questions.
Q: Why be opposed to this measure if it results in economic improvement for Leitchfield?
A: If generating revenue is the primary benefit of passing this measure, then the argument fails at its strongest point. One must weigh any economic benefits against the losses to see if there is a net gain or a net loss.
For example, from 2005-08 the Leitchfield Police Department and the Grayson County Sheriff’s Department reported a combined total of 396 citations for Driving Under the Influence [DUI]. During the same time, the county reported 21 alcohol-related fatalities. When you combine the lesser DUI costs with the lifetime wages and taxes lost from those killed by a drunk driver – to say nothing of the pain of losing a loved one – it makes any economic “gain” from the sale of alcohol pale in comparison.
Further, Mothers Against Drunk Driving [MADD] point out that alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. cost the public as estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses.
In addition, the Kentucky League on Alcohol and Gambling Problems points out that the public costs of alcohol usage not only includes lost wages, but also medical, administrative and employer costs [absenteeism], and property damage. When a measure like this passes, everyone is penalized for the benefit of a few.
It is CAA’s position, therefore, that any financial gain is significantly offset and results in a net loss when compared to losing the lives of our loved ones, along with the combined lifetime financial losses that families and the community experience, as a result of the sale of alcohol.
Q: Don’t the number of deaths always go down in those counties that pass the “Limited 100” measure?
A: It is as untrue to say the numbers “always go up” as it would be to say they “always go down.” It is true that out of a 5-county area that passed this measure, the total numbers show a decrease, however, the Kentucky Traffic Collision Facts show a 9.9% increase [188 persons killed] in 2007 in alcohol-related collisions. In any case, whether the total numbers go down or on occasion go up, it is CAA’s position that every life is worth saving.
Q: Why do you maintain that insurance premiums would go up in this measure is passed?
A: CAA has never stated that passing this measure will result in our premiums going up; however, local insurance firms confirmed that residents of an entire zip code would be subject to a “hidden tax” [by having our premiums go up] if / when there is an increase in accidents.
Since the use of alcohol clearly affects one’s driving, it stands to reason that all of the residents of Leitchfield and Grayson County will find their premiums going up if / when there’s an increased number of accidents.
Q: Wouldn’t passing this measure result in an Applebee’s or Ruby Tuesday coming to Leitchfield?
A: After checking with national chains that serve alcohol, they have indicated that our town is too small for their restaurants.
Q: Why are you opposed to economic growth?
A: CAA is strongly pro-business, pro-family, and supportive of our economic development as a community and county. We applaud those city leaders who seek to bring additional industries, small businesses and increased tourism into our community; however, given the true costs of alcohol, we believe passing this measure will not be in the best interests of our community.
On the other hand, if you take the combined tax benefit to Leitchfield in 2007 of four [4] of our major businesses – apart from providing hundreds of good-paying jobs – nearly one-half million was raised in tax revenue. And these firms came to us without the presence of alcohol in our restaurants.
So, just as a “rising tide raises all boats”, firms like these benefit everyone without any of the negative downsides associated with the sale of alcohol.
Q: Shouldn’t we have the right to drink in a restaurant if we’re of age?
A: If a person is of legal age to drink, certainly he or she has that right; however, the question before us is whether we want Leitchfield’s restaurants serving alcohol. It is CAA’s position that all of our residents are better served by remaining a dry city [and county] and seeking out businesses like the ones we currently have [or had] to move to our area.
Q: Why do you maintain that passing this measure will threaten “family values”?
A: Our commitment is to seeing families strengthened, not weakened. Because alcohol as a drug is clearly involved in a number of social, physical, financial and human-life issues, it is not “family-friendly.”
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA], alcohol harms the baby of a mother who drinks during pregnancy. The damage caused by prenatal alcohol includes a range of physical, behavioral, and learning problems in babies. Babies most severely affected have what is called Fetal Alcohol Syndrome [FAS]. These babies may have abnormal facial features and severe learning disabilities.
In addition, NIAAA points out that alcohol adversely affects our senior adults. Slower reaction times, problems with hearing and seeing, and a lower tolerance to alcohol’s effects put older people at higher risk for falls, car crashes, and other types of injuries that may result from drinking.
Q: Why do you say that alcohol sales will cost Leitchfield more than it receives in alcohol sales?
A: The cost to taxpayers involves far more than the initial price of the alcohol. According to the sources listed below 1/4th of all Emergency Room visits are alcohol-related, as are 50% of all homicides, 50% of domestic violence, 48%-60% of people who die in house fires, 2/3rds of intimate partner violence, 45% of violence between men and women, and 40% of rape and sexual assault offenders were drinking at the time of their crime. In addition, an estimated 480,000 children are mistreated by a caretaker with alcohol problems.
[Sources: National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc.; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; The New England Journal of Medicine, and the Alcohol Policy XII Conference, Washington, D.C., 2000]
On a larger scale, according to one news release, “For each dollar in alcohol and tobacco taxes and liquor store revenues that federal and state governments collect, the report said they spend $8.95 dealing with the consequences of substance abuse and addiction.” [Erin Roach, Baptist Press News, June 10, 2009]
Q: Since Grayson County already has cases of under-age drinking, bootlegging and alcohol-related crime, how will defeating this measure make any difference?
A: Regardless of the drug – Meth, pills, alcohol, etc. – the need is for it / them to be less accessible, not more. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism it is important to be aware of the health consequences of alcohol abuse and dependence [alcoholism].
They state that people who start drinking at an early age [for example, at age 14 or younger] are at a much higher risk of developing alcohol problems at some point to someone who starts drinking at age 21 or after.
To make alcohol more available is like making a loaded gun more available. However we vote on this measure, it sends a clear signal to our youth. If their physical safety, health and very lives are our concern, then voting “no” on March 23 conveys our continued desire for their well-being.
Q: Since a comprehensive study conducted in dry counties in both Texas and Kentucky revealed that DUI and alcohol related traffic citations are more likely in rural areas where alcohol is prohibited, isn’t it safer to buy the alcohol locally?
A: “One comprehensive study” is hardly sufficient to overthrow the overwhelming evidence that, regardless of location, alcohol and driving do not mix. Accord to www.antidrug.com, regardless of how far one drives to obtain the alcohol, it is absorbed as short as 5-to-10 minutes and can stay in the body for several hours.
In addition, Mothers Against Drunk Driving [MADD] state that 50-to-75% of drunk drivers who licenses are suspended continue to drive and that a first-time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested. Beyond this, in a 2008 poll measuring the traffic culture of Americans, AAA found that 88% of the respondents felt that drunk driving is a serious traffic safety concern.
Leitchfield is a special place with special people and a great place to raise a family! In fact, Kentucky is a beautiful state; however, driving her roads locally or state-wide calls for clear vision and quick responses to ever-changing road conditions. Just as one can readily see the need for eliminating tweeting, texting, and emailing while driving, the same is even more true when alcohol comes into play. If anything, more counties, not less, should go dry.
For all of the above research and reasons, CAA encourages the residents of Leitchfield to vote “No” on Tuesday, March 23rd.
Post a Comment
