Re: Don't cry for me Colleen Garry -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:37:29 06/25/01 Mon
Author: Math Girl
Subject: Re: Don't cry for me Colleen Garry
In reply to: UNNaturally 's message, "Don't cry for me Colleen Garry" on 10:38:32 06/22/01 Fri

UNNaturally--

I agree with you that drunk drivers are culpable for numeours fatalities and injuries, whereas gamblers aren't. However, I don't see why the money that is derived from this new tax has to go to the alkies. It should go to those who are victims of drunk drivers and their families. I have a lot more compassion for the 18 year-old quadraplegic who was minding his/her own business when Mr. Joe Q. Public smashed his/her car (probably after 5 similar DUI's before it). Tell the mothers of dead babies killed by drunk drivers that the perpetrator was just "sick". See how that flies.

I grew up with a drunk for a father. He came to my school drunk, spent all my mother's money, left us peniless, and shot through our window. Was he "sick"? Nope. Just another selfish idiot who put his kids last and abdicated all self-control. I have to side with Naturally on this one; the "sickness" of someone who is constantly inebriated doesn't compare to the sickness of someone with cancer, AIDS, or any other such malady. Sorry. As a victim of someone with an alcohol abuse problem, I find the adjective "sickening" more appropos than "sick".

Representative Garry's well intentioned but ill-thought out tax cleaves to two fallacies: (1) we are all victims of some genetic anomaly or poor socialization we can't help. According to her argument, I should be a real lush by now. I made a conscious decision based on my father's comportment that I would never drink and I've stuck to that. We are all NOT victims of genetics or peer pressure; (2) Taxing liquor will result in undue financial burden to alcoholics, thereby inducing abstinence. Sorry, a junkie always knows where to get his/her fix. Is that form a physiologic reaction that is inherent in addiction? Absolutely. But should that be conflated with an illness? Hell, no. A tax isn't going to be the panacea for this.

If we extrapolate Ms. Garry's argument, we'd have to tax Oreos (obesity is linked to genetics and thus is an illness too, right?), prophylactics (some people are sex addicts--isn't that what actor Michael Douglas claimed he was rather than an infidel? A poor, sick guy??), lottery tickets (gambling is part of that addictive personality gene, you know) and cigarettes again (that warning label on the package is too hard to read!!!). How about a little old fashioned self control???

It is time that we STOP being a society of victims and take responsibility for ourselves, our actions, our children and our lives.

I'd also like to comment on your remark on the tax issue. If you think Naturally is paranoid, think about what you pay in taxes to the commonwealth. Go on, add it up. Excise tax, property tax, etc. etc. It's one thing to support tax breaks as a representative and entirely another to undercut that by taxing alcohol. Those actions are inherently contradictory to me. Moreover, I do not see the government as some benevolent force that has a right to have its hand in everyone's pocket. So you can call me paranoid too, I suppose. Don't get me wrong--we live in the best country in the world and I'm not complaining and moving to some remote place in Montana in protest. I do think that the tax burden in the state is inordinate and we don't need another tax which frankly, won't help the people who need and deserve it.

The tax will do more to drive people to NH for their liquor than it will relive the tax burden on small business. As for prohibition of liquor sales on the net, that won't happen either. If people want to sell on the net, they can just go to ebay. It's not that hard. Internet business is very rampant and hard to control.

In summary, while I don't think Rep. Garry is a bad representative, I strongly disagree with her on this issue. I agree with your assessment that drunk driving has serious and deleterious effects on the lives of others. But it is disheartening to me to see Ms. Garry's compassion be so ill-directed. Moreover, her approach to allocating funds to treat this purported "disease" really gouges the taxpayers. It's castigating the many for the few.

Thank you for listening to my thoughts.
S. Lewis, MATH GIRL!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]