Given the belief that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, one might question why we would revisit the question of a “canned beer only” permit for the Columbus Softball Association.
We tackle this topic because the decision gives rise to questions of the methods and motivations used to discourage underage drinking.
The permit was denied last week by the Columbus Park Board on a 4-3 vote. Board members Jane Davis, Glenna Engdahl, Bill Gannon and Brad Hansen opposed the request. Chairman Tom Hunt, Gary Puetz and Dave Slusarski voted to grant the permit. Steve Kohl and Joy Meister were not at the meeting.
The latter fact gives rise to association President Brian Brownlow’s plan to bring the issue back at the board’s April meeting.
Meister said she favored the permit and Kohl said he was inclined to support it with a “sudden death” clause should any violations of the permit occur.
Board member Bill Gannon said although the association may toe the line, he was concerned that problems could develop in areas of the park beyond the playing area.
We believe beer and other alcoholic beverages are consumed at Gerrard and other city parks ” permit or no. To believe otherwise would be naive. Consumption beyond the confines of a permit area is a police matter and should be dealt with accordingly.
We also believe the fear expressed by permit foes regarding the “canned beer permit” encouraging underage drinking is misguided. Underage drinking is a parental and law enforcement responsibility ... the latter coming into play only when the former fail at their task.
We, like Project Extra Mile, are adamantly opposed to teen drinking. Journalists are keenly aware of the volatile cocktail that results from mixing alcohol and teens.
We do not, however, believe it is reasonable, let alone practical, to think young people’s eyes can be shielded from the fact that adults drink alcohol. Better, we believe would be to show our youth that
alcohol can be consumed in a
responsible fashion.
We have offered a regular space on this page to Project Extra Mile to assist them in their fight against teen drinking.
The public persona of this group, however, too often takes on a prohibitionist tone. Their efforts to increase taxes on alcoholic beverages on the theory that a higher price would deter underage drinking would be an example of that approach.
An underage drinker determined to get a six pack or a pint of distilled spirits will not let a few pennies or even dollars stop them.
Let’s attack teen drinking through educating parents and teens and unyielding enforcement of alcohol laws.
“Drying up” a softball complex is a hollow victory at best and, at worst, re-enforcement for people who oppose Project Extra Mile.
Print This Story
Email This Story
