To the editor,
Regarding statistics quoted by a local citizen regarding alcohol arrests as recorded in the “jail log” section of your newspaper, I know the person who wrote that letter and I can assure your readers, she and her husband are very nice people with honorable intentions.
However, this is a subject of which we have always differed but I believe we respect one another’s views.
I noticed in today’s jail log there were 10 alcohol related arrests from March 17-22 or a 6-day period. The average arrest per day would be 1.66 or less than two arrests per day. The statistic that my friend gave of 28 arrests in an 8 day period would be 3.5 per day. Or using 9 days including March 10 and March 18 the number of alcohol related arrests would be 3.11 per day based on the time frame she used. My point being in order to try to get a reading on this, will likely take months, or perhaps a year or longer to try to see if the county going wet is really contributing to a rise in number of alcohol arrests on an average basis, and not taking just a few to several days of arrests to try to cite a trend either up or down.
An increase may prove to be, but I doubt it, as I have observed in general since the jail log started appearing, that alcohol arrests were frequent, and during an era where the county was dry for off premise consumption and not as many private clubs in restaurants as there are today.
I watched a documenty on the History Channel Valentine’s night, of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, which on Valentine’s day during the prohibition era, one hugh crime organization who was trying to gain control of alcohol sales in Chicago gunned down in a massacre form, some members of another crime organization. According to this documentary, upon repeal of prohibition brought somewhat of an end to the crime organizations, and which due to very large price gauging on alcohol sales, were able to fund other crimes such as prostitution, illegal gambling, racketeering, etc. I doubt the manufactures of alcohol today are involved in these type of crimes, nor are involved in price gauging which can be a form of crime.
Or as I indicated during the campaign of the wet/dry issue being on the ballot, I feel prohibition has proven that it does not work, with alcohol still being available to those who drink whether drinking is only minor or major. I find it amusing that the wet vote was about two-thirds in favor, but on my frequent visits to the grocery stores, I see very few shoppers shopping for beer and wine, or beer and wine in shopping carts, or at the checkout counter.
So why did the wet issue pass by such a large margin I am not sure, but have some theories, such as backlash of trying to keep the town dry, to keep tax revenue local instead of it going to some county, convenience when a small amount of alcohol is used as part of a food diet, and perhaps other things not related to over indulgence.