Loosened liquor laws will get more people tight

Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: A Pierre legislator is still determined to try to find a way for South Dakotans between the ages of 18 and 21 to legally drink alcohol (booze) in South Dakota. Fortunately, he is running into several roadblocks during his search. One of them is some $17.5 million in federal highway funding given to states for complying with the minimum drinking age of 21. But what about our people between those ages in the military who may have to give their lives for their country? Shouldn’t they have the right to consume booze? But that isn’t the worst of it. There’s more!

FOR THE PAST few weeks I have been suggesting proposals for our South Dakota Legislature when it goes into session in less than three months. I have suggested more and better consumer protection laws, and have listed various financial problems facing our state, such as need for more funding for our highways and bridges, replacement funds for our state’s general fund, and some more restrictions for the state’s retirement fund as well as South Dakota¹s unemployment compensation fund needing a big shot in the arm. Oh yes, I am not forgetting legislation to protect our clotheslines. But I am also opposed to some proposals recently made public.

When Pierre legislator Tim Rounds first introduced the proposal to pass a law that those South Dakotans between the ages of 18 and 21 could legally drink alcoholic beverages, I thought to myself (and to a few others) what a ridiculous idea that was. Well, he is tenacious in his quest as he recently again brought up the idea to a special legislative committee studying the state’s laws on alcohol. It didn’t like the idea, either. But that isn’t the worst of it.

The special committee has now prepared a package of seven proposed law changes for the next legislative session that starts in January 2010. Fortunately, Rounds’ proposal isn’t one of the seven.

Unfortunately, most of those seven proposals would weaken, loosen, or make less restrictive what laws South Dakota does have regarding the use of alcohol in our state.

Now, before any of my readers get the wrong idea, I’m not related to Carrie Nation, nor am I a member of either the Anti-Saloon League or an honorary member of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. To me, these are not morality issues. They are safety arguments.

In addition to wanting to repeal the 23-year-old law where stores were required to have a certain sized warning sign against the dangers of alcohol if consumed by pregnant women, there is a proposal to lift the ban on Sunday sales of liquor throughout the state. That proposition also called for the legal alcohol sales across the state on Christmas and Memorial Day. Our law now forbids the sale on those two observances.

Those last two proposals brought a cantankerous argument among the legislative committee members, but it still passed on a 6-to-5 vote with the committee chairman, state Sen. Tom Nelson of Lead, breaking the tie.

WHAT’S INTERESTING here is that the South Dakota Municipal League wants the local option to stay with these proposals and the South Dakota Retailers Association and the South Dakota Retail Beverage Dealers support repealing the existing laws so liquor can be sold throughout the state 365 days a year.

If the local option stays for cities to decide if they want to go along with the open sales or not, I would almost bet a number of our communities would vote against year-round sales as well as liquor sales on Christmas and Memorial Day; thus at least partially defeating the proposition supported by those other two organizations.

I HAVE HEARD IT argued that Sunday sales of liquor was an economic development positive. At the same time, I have been on a few recruitment visits to out-of-town industries where Sunday liquor sales wasn’t even mentioned. But it was back home when the voters had to decide one way or another. Remember, the words, “economic development,” are almost sanctimonious here in South Dakota.

What was mentioned was what did our community have to offer the company’s employees in the way of recreation if it came to town. What were our parks like? What kind of a recreation program is sponsored by our city? Were there educational opportunities for their employees? What did we have for dining out, restaurants? What are the utilities rates in our town? Questions like that, but not one word about whether or not their employees could, or could not get a drink or a bottle on Sunday.

Anyway, as the list of proposals add up to be addressed by the next legislative session, one thing is for sure. When the issues regarding the use of alcohol come up, it’s a pretty fair assumption they will be some of the most emotional matters that will hit Pierre come January. They may even surpass the tears when the tax problems surface…

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion, retiring after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.