Pick a pale, grab a British beer; drop in a couple of microbrew specialties and maybe a Tallgrass or two.
Old Rum’s Liquor Store at 906 E. 12th Ave., encourages its customers to assemble their own favorite beers or try out several new ones. Almost anything goes, except the old favorites, like Budweiser, Coors and other popular products.
And, coincidentally, pumpkin and Oktoberfest-type of beers also are in season.
“We call it just kind of ‘create your own sixpack,’” said owner Bob “Hubba” Rumold. “Or you can buy one bottle at a time, or 10, however it works out.”
Rumold made some changes at the store shortly before classes began for the fall at Emporia State University.
“This has been quite an undertaking here so far, moving stuff around, putting in new shelves,” he said.
Rumold set aside an area for the sixpack selections, put in new shelving and stocked the shelves with more than 100 beers new to Old Rum’s — imports, microbrews, German and English beers, and other specialty brews, from Tallgrass in Manhattan, to Schafly’s in St. Louis, to other beers from Colorado and California.
“I had to price them by the bottle,” Rumold said. “Some are like $1.49 apiece, and some of them are $2, $3 apiece, depending. ... And it’s not on everything in the store. It’s on some of the imports and the microbrews.”
Rumold said he had noticed a similar set-up at what he called a “beer store” in Wichita.
“They’ve got hundreds and hundreds of beers like that, that you can make your own sixpack,” he said, adding that he decided to give the plan a try in Emporia. “Something to keep things fresh and new here in the store.”
Rumold said that the seasonal beers have done quite well recently, and that the pumpkin beer is especially well-liked.
“It’s like drinking a pumpkin pie,” Rumold said. “It’s pretty good.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by johncanyon (anonymous) on October 12, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally... A store with some variety.
To bad you are not open on Sunday, I hope you don't get burglarized on account of it...lol
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 12, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Old Rum's is probably my favorite liquor store in town. Liquor Locker is a close second, though. Hooray beer!
johncanyon,
Indeed. There have been days that I felt like I would do anything for a cold brew. I imagine there is more crime on Sunday on account of people being frustrated with the system smothering their rights. I'd imagine some folks would see burglarizing a liquor store as a way to protest government intrusion, but I wouldn't recommend it. It ain't the store owners fault, so please don't take it out on them. Besides, they might raise prices to recover their losses, so then you’re burglarizing all of us! Perhaps the townsfolk will keep their religious views out of the polling place the next time Sunday sales hits the ballot. I guess that’s what religious folks like to do though; tell others how to live even when they’re not hurting anyone.
'enry
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad the liquor stores are not open on Sundays. it gives those hard working business owners and their help a day of rest.
Anyone remember growing up in Emporia, (seems like a hundred years ago), when NOTHING was open on Sunday?
No gas, groceries, no movies or resturants, no bars or bowling alleys.
After church everyone had the day off.
Maybe a trip to grandma's house for fried chicken and mashed tators?
Ahhhh, the good ole days.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve....I certainly remember those "blue law" Sundays.....and as I look back at them now they don't really seem all that bad.
Something else I remember is a few years ago during a push to open the liquor stores on Sundays...some of the strongest opposition came from the same store owners. They liked having Sunday off.....and by keeping Sunday sales illegal it kept a competitor from getting a leg up by opening on that day. Sunday liquor sales is a religious issue only in the eyes of a few people that want to make it so.
Like YY4U pointed out recently....many employers also like Sunday closings because it might help more of their workers to show up for work Monday morning.
Posted by create (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I can't wait to try some variety. I've been enjoying Sam Adams, now I'll try these. Congrats to Old Rum's for presenting a variety. I hope he gets busy with these new selections. It's so refreshing to see someone brave enough to break away from the usual around here.
And that goes for food too. I wish there were a restaurant here that could post a sign daily and serve only that food. It wouldn't have to be too many dishes, just a couple. No need for even a menu. "Today, we are eating in Bavaria." Or Portugal, or Provence or Moscow or New Delhi. You know the same cut of meat can be prepared so many different ways. It doesn't always have to be chicken-fried, or grilled and put on the ubiquitous bun.
Wow again for the variety of beer at Old Rum's. Good marketing move!
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The idea of local dishes from around the world would be great......and I would be a frequent guest at such a place. Unfortunately...the math in a town the size of Euphoria usually doesn't add up. Not a large enough population base to produce enough inquisitive people to make it work.
Posted by create (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm afraid you're right, biscuit boy. But those same-old-same- old people who eat out a good deal of the time are going to local places that serve same-old-same-old food. Maybe, just maybe, a local diner already doing business might get brave enough and take us one day a week to Bavaria or Moscow, etc. That diner wouldn't even need to buy any extra equipment except for a saute pan if they don't already own one. Imagine a sign outside a local diner that says, "Today, and all day, we are serving only Irish Stew, the best Irish Stew in the World!" I would eat Irish Stew for breakfast.
It could be like the Soup Nazi..."No hamburgers for you!"
I think I'll start a movement and call it STOP THE MEATLOAF!!!
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure when a liquor store tries a little variety everyone likes it but if a meth lab tries a new recipe everyone freaks out. ;)
R.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the owners don't want to be open Sunday, there's nothing to say they can't opt out and stay closed is there?
Good move Hubba, hope it works out for you.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks.....Yea...what's up with that....we also want new food recipes.....so meth cooks can't try something new? :-)
neighbor.....no, there is nothing to say they can't opt out and stay closed except competition for the limited dollar. If the guy across the street opts open while you opt closed you have lost business you will never be able to recoup. The idea then is that it is better to keep the law as it is.
Posted by me (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks,hope you were kidding lots of difference between alcohol and meth.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry bisquit, but stores can't have their cake and eat it too. Loyal customers will buy from their chosen merchant whether they are open or not on Sunday. I'm not saying Sunday sales are absolutely needed(stock up on Saturday folks), but I do agree the law is very outdated and unneeded. The stores should have the option to be open on Sunday or not.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
King Liquor has had specialty beers and "build your own" six packs for months and months. And you should see the wine selection - WOW.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor....you are largely correct in what you say....and I personally don't care one way or another.....I don't even drink alcohol. I was just trying to point out that there are many reasons the Sunday ban on alcohol has persisted other than religious resistance to Sunday sale
me.....I know that I was just kidding...and I will take the liberty of speaking for seriouslyfolks to say I am absolutely certain that he was also.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I was just kidding. That's why there's that little winky no nose smiley fella' after my post. Thanks for getting it biscuitboy. I throw a lot of stuff out there and hope some of it is funny. I'm a quantity comedian not quality. I throw so much stuff out there occasionally I get a laugh. I always have one person I know will laugh and he goes by the name R.
R.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know most of these liquor store owners and they all will do what they can legally do to please their customers, (including the mixed 6-packs. But give them their Sundays off if they want, and just stock up on Sat. I'm open on Sundays because my staff says they want the hours, but if they change their minds, NO BIGGIE! If a liquor store owner wants to open on Sunday, they can petition the city to change the law.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have friends who live in Comanche County, Kansas. That's still a "dry" County. If they want to go to a liquor store, they have to travel to Freedom, Oklahoma or Ashland, Kansas. That's like having to drive to Topeka from here. At least we have Slabaugh Retail Liquor Store in Strong City for those "dry" Sundays :-)
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor,
Thank you for being reasonable. The arguments above against Sunday sales are ridiculous.
What if I work on Saturday and can't buy any booze until Sunday? What if I own a liquor store and I need to get a leg up on the competition to survive? If you don't want to be open on Sunday, that's fine; have your day off. If I'm a liquor store owner that needs the money, please don't tell me what I can and can't do just so you can have your day off. Why not take Monday off? Just because it's legal to sell on Sunday doesn't mean you'd HAVE to be open. If you are afraid of losing business, there's probably a market for Sunday sales.
'enry
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry,
You are correct in your argument that the business owner should decide,(not the city). That argument was used here, in Emporia recently and it didn't wash.
However, if YOU feel that strongly about it, find a store owner who wants Sunday sales, get a heavy drinking lawyer to write up a request to the city commission, and get on their agenda to have them change the ordinance.
I think the pertinant ordinance is:
Sec. 4-18. Days And Hours Of Retail Sale 2:
No person shall sell at retail any alcoholic liquor:
(1) On Sunday;
(2) On Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; and
(3) Before nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. or after nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. on other days. (1962 Code, § 4-107; Ord. 840, § 1, 7-6-1977; Ord. 87-15, § 2, 7-1-1987; Ord. 94-36, § 1, 8-17-1994)
If it has been over 10 years since this has been voted on, the commission could at their discreation change it themselves.
just a thought!
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sorry about the above spelling, coffee wasn't done yet.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe there should be some charity that buys a lot of booze and gives it away to the needy folks who run out of booze on Sunday for whatever reason. Whether they are in denial at what lushes they are when they buy their booze earlier in the week. Or if it took their date more to pass out than they had anticipated on Saturday night. Or they work from 9 A.M. to 9 P.M. Monday - Saturday ,as has been suggested by some, and there is no way that they can ever get to a liquor store to by their needed booze. Perhaps there is some stimulus moneys for this much needed charity.
R.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
enry- Alot of folks feel the same way about the smoking ban, it being rediculous and yet another attempt at social shaping. I seem to remember you supporting that so does that make you a hypocrit?
IMO not selling booze on Sundays, holidays, election days, and before or after certain hours was nothing more than an attempt at social shaping to try and get the public to conform to beliefs of the "religious" sect of our society. Granted, we don't need a bunch of drunks at the polls, but like most laws drawn up there are ways around the law(buying the booze a day in advance). The authors of our constitution were very wise and their forethought on many subjects is very impressive. It's too bad that they didn't include an amendment to deal with the immigration of descendents of the very people many of our forefathers left Europe for because of their overbearing and over taxing ways.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor,
Now, don't you go getting unreasonable on me! ; - ) I agree that these "Blue Laws" are unjustified attempts to push one's preferences on others. I don't agree with you that the smoking ban fits this same category.
The smoking ban didn't ban smoking on any day of the week nor did it ban the sale of tobacco on any specific day. The smoking ban banned smoking in a way that harms others. How does BUYING alcohol on Sunday harm anyone? I wouldn't be in favor of banning the sale of tobacco on Sunday either. I don't care what you choose to buy or what day you choose to buy it on. I DO care if your actions directly harm me or my fellow citizens. Any dangerous USE of alcohol is already banned. Simply buying the product harms no one. They are completely separate issues, so no, I am not a hypocrite.
'enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't the smoking ban just the "religious" sect in our community trying to stop our fun?
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Blue laws are no different than the smoking ordinance. The smoking ordinance pushed the desires of one section of our society onto all citizens, it removed the ability for all us to make our own choice on the matter. No one forced anyone to go to establishments where smoking was allowed, no law nor person stood in the way of businesses opening that chose to not allow smoking. The same supporters of the blue laws are typically also involved in the anti-tobacco crusade, the anti-porn, the anti-gun, etc. The "be like me" crowd typically also support the tax and spend politicians. By only supporting freedom of choice on what works best for you enry and what you agree with, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition of hypocrit.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor,
So...do you think health and sanitation codes restaurants must follow are the same as Blue Laws too? Do you think building codes fit into that category as well? What about laws against rape and murder? Wouldn't those all just be the desires of a specific section of society?
You are wrong, my friend. The smoking ban is about public health and protecting one citizen from another's actions NOT about a section of society's preferences.
I'm not telling you not to smoke because I’m a non-smoker. I'm telling you your smoke is harmful and others shouldn't be exposed to it against their will. I guess I'm part of the "be like me" crowd that thinks you shouldn't hurt others because we don't. Is that bad?
Yes, I see your point about not having to go inside the businesses that allowed smoking. That, however, is not fixing the problem; it's ignoring it. I may be able to avoid it, but the single mother working in the bar may not have it so easy. Don't punish the people who aren't harming anyone by making them go elsewhere. Instead, punish the smokers by making them step outside for 2 minutes. Seems fair to me. You probably think we should allow rapists to walk the street and only send innocent people go to jail so they don’t get raped. That is how backwards your logic is.
'enry
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry 'enry, not taking your bait. You are a waste of my time.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor,
I hope your weren't on the debate team. The whole "I have no rebuttal so I quit" defense never went over well with the judges... I win!
'enry
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have rebuttal to all your rants, but it's all been hashed and rehashed hundreds of times on all the other threads that you have ambushed with your obsessive compulsive behavior. The only thing you win is the title of being the most redundant.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor,
If I'm redundant it's only because people like you refuse to see any perspective but your own. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you actually considered my points.
'enry
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've considered your points, considered their merit, and dismissed them as being contrary to what I consider to be factual and something I would support. The ordinance passed and was put into effect, it's old news, you should let it go and move on to the next societal habit that irks you and your ilk.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor
I should let it go? I wasn't even the one who brought it up here! Steve_Corbin mentioned it in passing and then you ran with it on October 14, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. You called me a hypocrite even though I hadn't even mentioned the smoking ban on this thread. I was then forced to defend my position on both topics. You brought up the smoking ban here. Maybe you should take your own advice, buddy. You lost; let it go.
I can support one ban and not another without being a hypocrite because they are entirely different. Where did this "all or nothing" mentality come from? Obviously you aren’t looking at each subject individually and you base your opinions on generalizations.
I thought we agreed on the Sunday sales point, but you weren’t satisfied being on my side, so you had to bring up the smoking ban to get me all riled up… Can’t we just agree on one thing?
'enry
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can carefully consider a position and then reject it. Careful consideration is not a guarantee of acceptance...as much as we might all wish it were so.
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I was then forced to defend my position..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
I learned in my Assertiveness Training class up at our renowned University of higher education, that no one can "force" anyone to do any such thing including in a court of law. That is a choice made by the "defendant." This same principal applied to the "forcing" others to enter smoking allowed businesses, but whatever.
As long as I'm here, I might as well comment on another statement:
"If I'm redundant it's only because people like you refuse to see any perspective but your own. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you actually considered my points."
That applies to both sides of any argument, but the assumption that the other side wasn't considered just because the end result wasn't assimilation is pretty ignorant.
I know, hashed and rehashed, but I was bored.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof,
Ok...so maybe I wasn't "forced" to defend myself, but I felt compelled to state the reasoning for my differing stances on the two subjects. I have good reasons to support my position on both Sundays sales and the public smoking ban. If I don’t explain why I support one ban and not the other, I’ll be labeled a hypocrite. So, to preserve my dignity, my own pride “forced” me to reply.
In terms of being redundant, I can understand how others feel like they say the same thing to me over and over without the message sinking in. Well, I understand their viewpoint. I can see how they might feel they should be allowed to do anything they want in a privately owned building. On most things, I would certainly agree. The reason I don’t feel this way about smoking is that it harms others who happen to be nearby. I just don’t feel you should be allowed to harm others regardless of where you are. Yes, I know I don’t HAVE to go inside a place where folks are smoking, but that is taking away MY freedoms when I’m not even the one hurting people. I’d rather stand-up to these people and let them know their actions aren’t welcome. By telling me to go somewhere else, you are asking me to turn a blind eye to an injustice. I’m just not willing to do that.
Does anyone REALLY think the sale of alcohol should be banned on Sunday? If so, please provide your argument, but don’t say you want Sunday sales banned simply because public smoking is banned. They aren’t the same thing, so please don’t put ‘em in the same boat.
‘enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't the Sunday liquor sales thing go to a vote recently? If so, does the current law reflect the will of the people(the majority of the voters)?
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is agreed that you have your prerogatives and I have mine. The voters had theirs on both issues and they voted. Like Steve said, if you want to bring it back to a vote either of the commissioners or the citizens, go for it.
Personally, despite my outspoken religious views, I couldn't care less whether alcohol is sold on Sundays or not.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks,
I think it was like 5 or so years ago and, unfortunately, I was unable to vote here at the time due to my legal status at the time. Also, I think the will of the people has changed dramatically since then. This is the new world order, remember? :- )
Personally, I don't think Sunday sales should have been put up to a vote. Who am I to tell you what you can and can't sell on any given day? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't sell on any given day? Is that really something that should be up to the people? What if I don’t want tobacco sold on Sunday? Do you think I have the right to vote for it? I don’t think I should have that right.
The smoking ban is different because allowing people to smoke in public places affects the health general public. In other words, the voters were able to decide whether they thought the harm justified the ban. There were numerous studies that show SHS is harmful. My problem with the Sunday sales ban is that it isn’t based on any tangible evidence. Should we really be allowed to vote on something that is ENTIRELY based on one’s religious beliefs and/or personal preferences? I think not.
oh4theluvof,
So you are saying if Sunday sales gets back on the ballot you would vote to allow it? If it doesn’t even impact you, why would you vote in a way that would take my rights away?
‘enry
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Sunday liquor sales gets back on the ballot, I will not vote for it. I do not promise to vote at all, but I will not vote for it, if I do vote. Like I said, I care about this the least amount that anyone can care about anything. Your second question is asked in a baiting manner, but seeing as I wouldn't vote that way, there's nothing to bait.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ferkrisake HenryVIII,
Quit arguing, call Tracy at the City Managers office and get on the commission agenda to overturn the ordinance!
While your at it include candy throwing @ parades and the Fourth of July fireworks ban.
Get ur done
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with oh4theluvof...I personally could care less about Sunday liquor sales.....I don't drink nor am I religious......I just don't care. But to assume that because I don't care I would vote to support your position "enry is a quantum leap. If it came to a vote I would not vote on it one way or another because I don't care.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should I care about voting in a way that takes your rights away....You obviously didn't give a tinker's damn about the rights of smokers.......and please don't bother to explain again the difference.....its been explained to death. Like goodoleboy posted on another thread today....Nothing is going to change any-body's mind on this issue now.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad your back, biscuitboy, and your "little dog too"
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve_Corbin,
I wish I could, but alas I don't have the huevos to put my name out there... Since you're not anonymous and already have the connections, could you ask 'em for me? I'd sure appreciate it.
biscuitboy,
Sure I care about the smokers' rights. That's why I wouldn't support a ban on the sale tobacco on Sunday. I also wouldn't support a ban on tobacco products in general. (I think the ban on flavored cigs is stupid) I just don't care for their "right" to harm others with their actions.
I think you folks are forgetting that I am an occasional smoker. I enjoy puffing on my favorite pipe and a few kinds of cigars, but that doesn't mean I'll make others enjoy them with me.
In this country, people are held accountable for their actions. If you hurt someone, you should expect to have some "rights" taken away. We send people to prison all the time for harming others, but you don't complain about that. All we are asking smokers to do is step outside. If it means not harming people, I don't think that's much to ask. Apparently, to some smokers, smoking is SO important it is worth harming others in public places. And that makes me sad.
You and oh4theluvof say you wouldn't vote on the Sunday sales matter one way or the other. Why not? You vigorously defend the rights of smokers and bar owners, but not drinkers and liquor store owners? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
'enry
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"enry....I believe the difference with me....oh4theluvof can speak for herself if she is so inclined.....is partly because the smoking issue was taking away rights that were already established (the right to go into a bar and have a smoke along with your drink). Now that right is totally gone even though the sale of cigarettes remains legal....and that banishment is so broad there was no exceptions even considered.
The right to buy liquor on Sundays however is an expansion of rights that don't now exist. I believe that should only be done after great thought and deliberation...a fear of opening Pandora's Box if you will.
But there is one more reason I feel this way and it may be the most important one in my mind. You see, I don't smoke either.....(I'm such a good little boy for not being religious). :-)But the smoking ban proponents were so arrogant and self-righteous during the run up to the election....they used such dirty tactics....they refused all attempts at compromise.....and many of them (old crack as example) gloated so much in their victory.....they put a bad taste in my mouth it will take years to get rid of. So in some ways.....I would not support a change in liquor sales....just because you ( and old crack) wanted me to. That's about as honest as I can make it my friend.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HenryVIII,
I'm sorry your don't have the "eggs" to pursue your drive for Sunday sales. I think I will leave it up to the owners to decide what they want.
Buscuitboy,
enjoy your honesty:)
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry.....you don't read so good, do you. I did not commit to voting OR to not voting. I only committed to not voting to ban Sunday liquor sales. From the business owners' perspective, I do see an argument. However, the thing that tips the scales for me is the fact that alcohol causes a lot of direct deaths: driving accidents that kill the sober people, rages and beatings that kill others, alcohol poisoning..........the list goes on. Too many people don't have self-control, especially around alcohol, and the population has seen fit to place many restrictions on it, for this reason. There are age restrictions, but there are also time restrictions as Steve listed above. Alcohol disrupts and harms society when it is isn't controlled enough. You saw a parallel with SHS and that's fine. For me, the numbers needed to be much more concrete and direct. Alcohol has adverse effects on people who aren't participating in the drinking OR the drinking environment; smoking only has adverse effects on its direct environment. For me, that made the smoke less necessary to control. I agree with biscuitboy about the "no compromise" stance on the smoking ban as well, but that wasn't the deal breaker for me.....I had already chosen a position based on the ideas I presented.
That is why I will not commit to voting to allow Sunday liquor sales but also won't vote to ban it. Take it, or leave it.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof,
Sorry I don't read so good...Hooked on Phonics failed me...
You claim "alcohol causes a lot of direct deaths". INCORRECT! If you get hit and killed by a drunk driver, it wasn't the alcohol he bought on Sunday that harmed you; it was the crushing force of the car he was driving. Had he obeyed the EXISTING laws against drunk driving, his purchase of alcohol on Sunday would have no affect on you. Again, alcohol was not the direct cause of death in this situation. I support laws against drunk driving for obvious reasons, but Sunday sales have nothing to do with that.
The same goes for your other example about someone getting beaten to death by someone who had consumed alcohol. The alcohol itself did not cause the harm. His fist or whatever weapon the drunken person was wielding did the direct harm. You don't have to be drunk to kill someone with a car of by beating them to death. In other words, alcohol isn't the direct cause of harm.
In your example about alcohol poisoning, alcohol WOULD be a direct cause of harm, but ONLY to the person consuming it. Therefore, their actions only harmed themselves. This is why I’m not in favor of banning tobacco or fast food sales. I don’t care what you do to yourself. Even if someone forced another to drink alcohol and that resulted in death, it wouldn't be alcohol's fault because those actions are already illegal. Forcing someone to consume that much alcohol is, essentially, a form of assault. I feel forcing someone to breath SHS is also a slight form of assault. Any form of harming another person where alcohol might be a contributing factor to is already illegal. There is no need to ban Sunday sales as long as people follow existing laws. Until the smoking ban, the same couldn’t be said for public SHS exposure because it was tolerated and there was no direct law against it.
In summary, I can purchase/consume alcohol anytime of any day without harming others. I HAVE self control, so don't punish me by taking away my rights simply because other people can't follow the rules. Do you recommend outlawing guns because some idiots break the law and shoot people? I don't. Why my booze on Sunday then?
'enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
enry,
Anyone that defends alcohol so vigorously most likely has a problem. Please get help.
http://www.aa.org/?Media=PlayFlash
For your health.
R.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks,
It's not that I NEED the alcohol; it's the principal of the matter. What if they decide to ban the sale of gasoline on Sunday next? What if they decide to ban the sale of tobacco on Sunday? I'm fighting, not for my need to drink booze but, for our right as Americans to live freely!
'enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know you feel like you have to defend your self and justify everything you do so you can live with yourself but you really need to admit you have a problem if you want to start down the road to recovery. Please think about your health.
R.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks,
Don’t worry about me; I’ll be fine. Besides, it’s normal to have an unquenchable thirst for the devil’s brew isn’t it?
You should really turn that diagnosing eye of yours on yourself. Some of your posts on these boards resemble the nonsensical scrawlings of a mad man. I suggest you seek psychiatric help ASAP before you lose what's left of your mind!
Just kidding, fella. Your posts often make me smile because they are so strange. I appreciate your sense of humor. Keep ‘em coming!
All,
Here’s a little comparison that should help you identify how you would vote regarding Sunday sales if you are unsure about how you feel. Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario A
1. You buy tobacco on Sunday. = No one hurt.
2. You smoke tobacco. = No one ‘cept you hurt.
3. You smoke tobacco in a public enclosed space. = Good chance others hurt.
Scenario B
1. I buy alcohol on Sunday. = No one hurt.
2. I drink alcohol. = No one ‘cept me hurt.
3. I drink alcohol and drive a car. = Good chance others hurt.
In scenario A, at what point should the actions be banned? (1, 2, 3, or none of the above)
In scenario B, at what point should the actions be banned? (1, 2, 3, or none of the above)
Theoretically, your answer to both scenarios should be the same. If your answers differ between the two, please explain why.
For the record, I would answer ‘3’ for both scenarios. I wouldn’t say 1 or 2 because you should be free to do as you please as long as you aren’t harming others. I wouldn’t say ‘none of the above’ either because I’d be allowing people to harm others and that’s not a freedom anyone should have.
'enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know you're just kiddin' as am I. I personally don't care if alcohol is sold on Sunday. I personally would vote to keep things the way they have always been. It's important that things don't change. I mean who can argue with the logic that, "It's always been that way." that just makes sense. If it ain't broke don't fix it. ;-)
R.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Best DUI Arrest in History!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyeowWloL...
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U.......You are right...that's the best I've ever seen ! I doubted anybody could do that with the alphabet.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
a clip from t.v.show Reno 911, but it is funny
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought that blond haired cop seemed familier....duh.....
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)