Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:17 PM | Contributed by Chitown
Alan Steen, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission administrator, signed an order clearing the way for alcohol sales at the theme park, the agency announced this morning. Both Steen and administrative law Judge Tanya Cooper ruled that such sales would not violate state law. Opposition has been fighting the permit for a year.
Read more from The Dallas Morning News.
UPDATE 2/26: Opposition reaction in The Dallas Morning News.
But... but... what about the kids?!?!
Oh man... now I'm going to get barf on myself from all those drunks vomiting off of the loops!
Thank goodness Texans finally have a place to drink...
How does the logic of "more places to drink = more drinking" compute?
(re: more drunk driving accidents)
It seems to me, if I wanted to drink, I'd find a place to drink whether I'm in Six Flags or not.
Cue PSA of children crying with cute bunny being held at gunpoint off camera. "Ok kids you were all warned. Since they're now allowing booze sales at Six Flags Over Texas we'll be returning the Sgt.-Hopps-a-Lot to God."Last edited by Cropsey, Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:34 PM
Welcome to 2009 and finally got a Clue!
Now it'd be fun to visit SFOT and get totally stupidrunk and cause a scene. ;)
We think so much alike... I wanna go and get "Homer Simpson when he visited the beer factory" drunk.
I don't really believe that selling beer at SFOT would lead to all the horrible things outlined in the protests. I personally don't see a need for it at amusement parks, either, but I don't think it causes any harm.
Hershey sells beer in much the same fashion as proposed for SFOT where it's meant to be contained to the area where it is sold and I don't see any issues there. At least we know it doesn't hurt their family-friendy atmosphere anyway.
Having said that, I am intrigued by this statement:
"Fors argued for scrutiny of all alcohol licenses and said that impact studies should be required before a permit is issued."
I would be interested in seeing impact studies carried out. Not so much because I think it would prove the opposers' points. But rather, it might be interesting to see the data for such a thing. Are there certain geographical locations in the US where there are likely to be more problems? What about certain venues over others? That kind of thing.
I know we have lots of anecdotal opinions on the topic. But it would be interesting to apply some data instead of just the emotion that keeps being thrown about.Last edited by Carrie M., Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:54 PM
They're really stupid though and forgot about one key thing. A lot of the rides go upside down at Six Flags, so the drunks are going to spill the beers all over everyone in the loops. I want my kids to be able to come out of a loop without some dunks beer pouring on their damn head. The kids deserve to be able to enjoy a good ole loopin' coaster without getting a face full of beer.
Carrie M. said: But it would be interesting to apply some data instead of just the emotion that keeps being thrown about.
That's downright un-American, Carrie... :)
Haha. Yeah, how 'bout it, right? :)
I call discrimination. Why are they singling out the drunks who will go on the rides and barf? What about the drunks who will climb up on stage and try to become part of the shows? Or the ones who will fall asleep on the benches?
Carrie M. said:
Are there certain geographical locations in the US where there are likely to be more problems?
Just in Michigan, I'll take a rough guess: Allendale, Houghton, Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Houghton, Big Rapids, Marquette, Ypsilanti, Mt. Pleasant and Houghton.
That's just a rough guess though. ;)
An interesting comment from the second article:
In 2007, Texas recorded 1,292 traffic fatalities in which at least one driver was legally intoxicated, according to federal government figures.
I'm not defending drunk driving, but of those 1292 fatalities, in how many was the drunk driver found to be at fault? And how many were caused by the sober driver who wasn't paying attention?
Come on man, you can't be serious.
Alright - situation.
Guy has 2 drinks after work. On the way home, he gets t-boned by a soccer mom who runs a red light and isn't paying attention. Kid in the mini-van who is unsecured smacks their head on the windshield and dies. It still goes down as one of the 1300 deaths associated to drunk driving even though the "drunk" was not at fault and by all reasoning may have been driving just fine.
I'm not saying it will make up a large portion of the statistic, all I'm asking is that the numbers be represented right, not skewed. Just like lowering the limit from .12 to .08 didn't stop drunk driving, just made more people "drunk" drivers.
I'm sure I will regret responding to this, but...
You would never be able to go back and prove that the accident would have occurred regardless of whether the other driver was drunk or not. It stands to reason that an accident, however initiated, can often be avoided when the other driver is alert and aware.
That's why when a driver pulls out in front of someone, fault gets decided by where the vehicle gets hit. That's because if the car is hit in the rear of the side, it is determined that the driver who hit that car had enough time to avoid the accident had they been in control of their vehicle and alert.
The same idea would apply here.
Beyond all of that... who gives a crap? Breaking the law is breaking the law and getting caught is getting caught.
Besides, the number was used for comparison to other states...where the method of counting is the same. 38% is 38% either way you count it.
You must be logged in to post