Comment Guidelines
When I started writing the blog I didn’t know how long it would last or if anyone would read it, much less comment on it. At the time, I didn’t feel it was necessary to have any formal comment policy. Since readership has grown and there are more comments, I think it’s time to put up set of guidelines to keep the conversation civil.
First, anonymous comments are allowed. WordPress will ask you for name, email, and website automatically. If you want to comment anonymously, it is best if you choose a user name and comment under the same name each time. That makes it easier for others to respond to your comments. If you’d prefer to comment using your real name, that’s fine too.
Second, please be respectful and polite. Specifically, this means:
- Argue for or against ideas, dispute facts, offer opinions, but don’t attack people.
- Assume others’ factual errors are innocent mistakes, not attempts to mislead.
- Assume others are smart and well meaning.
- Don’t bait others; don’t put words in others’ mouths.
- Don’t use hate speech.
Third, comments with two or more links are held for moderation. This is a default WordPress setting. It helps keep spam comments off the site. If one of your comments is held for moderation I’ll approve it as soon as possible, but it will usually be after business hours.
If necessary, I’ll edit or delete offensive comments.
What seems to be missing in this debate by the mayor and the city council is the ramifications regarding the public health of the community. Part of good governance is to consider all sides of an issue and make decisions accordingly. As such, significant research exists which demonstrates that increased alcohol outlet densities also increase violence in neighborhoods in which such outlets exist, rates of drinking and driving, vandalism/damage to property, and underage alcohol consumption. Specifically, this applies even more so to communities in which colleges are present. For example, some studies indicate that approximately 50% of businesses that sell liquor will sell to underage patrons. So if we have 10 businesses who sell liquor, 5 will sell to underage consumers. If we double the number of outlets to 20, now about 10 will sell to minors, an so on and so forth. Now I have no objection to looking at changing the liquor code. However, using the “better for business” mantra may be a bit overstated. Research also shows that more liquor outlets in an area tend to be prohibitive in attracting alternative businesses. Shouldn’t we look at the establishment and recruitment of more diverse businesses that can be sustainable to our community? I look at potential harm that can be done by not examining all of these issues in depth. Who will monitor the expanded sales outlets and make sure that employees are trained to serve appropriately? More police? More resources for compliance checks? Not likely in this financial climate but something that must be considered before making this decision. What will the financial and social costs be? In required treatment for abusers of alcohol? The state has decimated any funding for such treatment and it is getting worse. What about costs to the legal system with more access related to underage drinking? Whether we like it or not, such legal regulation exists, and could put a strain on an already bulging system. These hidden costs, along with healthcare related to alcohol overdose, can have a significant negative impact on a community. Have these things been taken into consideration?
It’s not just so easy to make this decision when the impact of the decision has not been examined or discussed in depth. Has the city done the research into these topics? Do they think it “doesn’t apply to our city,” that we are somehow unique and can avoid some or all of these possible consequences. Have they studied the possible impact, done a cost/benefit analysis?
In the end, again, I am not against a change in the liquor code. However, I hope the change is done with integrity, foresight, and insight. Look at all factors, not just ones that serve for convenience. If the code as it stands is unfair in terms of who holds licenses, then change it. But don’t open up the floodgates for possible harm without studying the issue in the name of perceived “fairness.”
Thank you.
Anonymous
June 27, 2011 at 10:01 am
[...] are welcome, but I urge you to take a look at the comment guidelines before posting. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
Blogging Hiatus Over, Posting Frequency Uncertain « The Carbondale Observer
January 5, 2012 at 7:34 am