CleggThis

Friday, October 20, 2006

Vote NO! on Question 1



In the hustle and bustle of election time, sometimes its hard to wrap your head around one particular candidate because, at the end of the day, you are really voting on a person instead of actual public policy. Luckily our democratic system allows the people to vote on policy in the form of ballot questions. The staff at CleggThis (a.k.a.....me) always find comfort in rallying around the ballot questions since it directly affects the world around me.

In the state of Massachusetts it always seems that Question 1 is the hot topic issue. Some of you may remember the bogus Question 1 of 1997 that passes banning inhumane hunting traps. The reason this was bogus was that no one uses inhuman traps anymore and any traps that may linger in the woods were out there almost 20 years ago. The real issue that passes were unfair hunting laws that were buried in the public eye by television ads of puppies with legs cut off. Now, in 2006, there is another question up for vote that has the same implications.

Question 1, if passed, will allow grocery stores to sell wine in the state. You may say "but CleggThis, this will allow me to purchase wine for my dinner party all in one place instead of going to two." Fortunately, CleggThis doesn't care about your dinner party because you punked out and served chicken instead of steak.

The problem here is not public safety. There as been no evidence that supports wine sold at grocery stores contributes to more drunk driving and underage drinking. Although the fact that my friends in high school stole an electric handicap cart from the store, during business hours, in broad daylight, suggests that the staff at these establishments doesn't have public safety on the forefront.

The problem with the question is local business. The initiative to put Question 1 on the ballot comes from corporations like Stop + Shop and Shaws, whos only real motivation is to increase sales in an industry that kills local businesses already.

Luckily in the state of Massachusetts the sale of alcholic beverages has been reserved for local businesses. There are no state liquor stores as in New Hampshire. There are very few chain stores in Massachusetts and those that are have a limited number of stores. There is no other reason to pass this ballot execpt to pad the pockets these stores.

Please take a closer look at this issue before you vote "Yes" just so you can get a bottle of red and a bottle of white in the same building as you purchase your Triscuit crackers.

6 Comments:

  • I recognize that picture. That's Smitty's Liquors on route 38 in Tewksbury!

    By Blogger Kyle, at October 23, 2006 10:11 PM  

  • EVIL JOHN SEZ:

    for the first time, EVIL JOHN disagrees with the CLEGGSTER. if your friendly local liquor store needs the power of state laws to keep it competitive then maybe they shouldn't be going up against the big guys. hey, you know who made laws to help the little guy? that's right, COMMIES! hows that working out for you, chaing kai-clegg? barry castro? stalin (whatever your middle name is) lennin?

    now if you don't mind, i have to go cash my welfare checks and buy some boone's at the stop and shop.

    EVIL JOHN OUT!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at October 25, 2006 8:46 AM  

  • I think that it's less about the competition and more about enforcing age laws. One thing they don't tell you is that some convenience stores will also be able to sell wine. Kids get cigarettes under age all the time, if owner's are trying to make a buck, what's going to stop them from selling booze to minors (strict penalties aside) ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at October 28, 2006 12:10 AM  

  • Cleggthis, you couldn't be more right.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 02, 2006 3:36 PM  

  • I think it is sad this law didn't pass. The only thing it would have done was saved consumers like you and me somewhere between 28-28 million dollars a year. That is money that could have been used to help other local buisenes not just liquer stores. I think it is completely bogus that we don't have the right to choose where we buy our wine and beer. Not only is it unfair but it also keeps prices to high. I say if and when this question comes back we all should show the commies like Comrad Clegg where the door to our country is.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 08, 2006 12:32 PM  

  • The monetary fact of saving 28 - 30 million dollars a year is completely bogus. I don't but that for one second. Even if I did entertain that thought for a second, I don't think it outweighs the greed of the big corporations to get money form a product they do not need to survive on. If you actually think Stop and Shop is doing this for "the good of the consumer" then maybe you should move to fantasy land. Maybe you can buy wine in their grocery store.

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at November 09, 2006 9:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home