Wine tax and gang signs
Legislature bucks people's will on wine sales
More than 11,000 Tennesseans now have joined the grocery stores' Red White and Food campaign to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores. Legislative analysts have determined that it would generate $27 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.
"The number of people joining Red White and Food combined with Middle Tennessee State University's survey finding that 62 percent of Tennesseans support wine sales in grocery stores demonstrates this is a significant consumer issue," says Jarron Springer, president of the Tennessee Grocers and Convenience Store Association. "We believe legislators should strongly consider consumer sentiment when deciding this session whether to allow retail food stores the opportunity to sell wine."
So why does no one think this bill will pass this session? It's simple. Liquor stores and the state's Christian crazies are against it. That's an unbeatable combination at the Capitol. Polls could show 99.9 percent of consumers favor it, and it still would lose. In his testimony to the House State and Local Committee, even Springer was forced to acknowledge the cold wind blowing in his face.
"Some observers are saying this legislation to allow wine in retail food stores is already dead this session," he said. "I know they wouldn't relay this information unless someone in power was saying it. I certainly hope you would hear all the evidence before making a decision." —Jeff Woods
Crimes 'R' Us
For a largely rural state, one wouldn't expect Tennessee to be a leader in the art of rape, murder, assault, robbery and auto theft. But according to Congressional Quarterly, we more than make up for our down-home ways with a nasty flair for criminality. In the latest crime standings, Tennessee scores an impressive sixth among the most depraved states in then union. Nevada, Louisiana and South Carolina rounded out the top three, while New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine are the least criminal states. —Pete Kotz
Banning gang signs
Metro police are working on a law that would make gang signs illegal. At first glance, banning gang signs seems like a law everyone, no matter their political stripe, can line up against. Libertarians can call it unconstitutional. Conservatives can decry the money wasted locking up every kid imitating Lil Wayne. And University School seniors can bemoan their lack of hand-gesture options during the obligatory pre-prom photo session. After all, what's a boy to do if he can't toss a little West Side flava at that Nikon? But further inspection reveals that the law might actually work. Police Sgt. Gary Kemper, head of Nashville's gang unit, is on board, and no one knows more about Music City's Bloods, Crips and Gangster Disciples. That's because the ban isn't about putting more people in jail. It's about treating gangs like the cohesive organizations they're striving to be, thus nullifying them.
Here's the gist: Let's say there's a gang terrorizing downtown Nashville. For argument's sake, we'll call them the Campfields. Everyone knows the Campfields are up to no good. They stalk about in Legislative Plaza, flashing their signature sign (a "C," naturally) and robbing little old ladies.
According to Kathy Evans, the Metro lawyer responsible for writing the bill, Nashville police and neighborhood leaders would have to satisfy a high burden of proof that the Campfields are 1) a gang and 2) breaking the law. This would only be possible with tons of evidence—in California cities like San Francisco and San Diego, where similar bans exist, this means providing thousands of pages of discovery documents.Evans says the bill is narrowly focused to target only actual gang members. The effect being that it reduces profiling and prevents gangs like the Campfields from grouping in their normal haunts. That makes recruiting new members more difficult. And research from other cities shows that, because gangs are extremely territorial, they're more likely to stay hidden rather than find a new place to gather."In the places where this has happened there's been a huge reduction in gang activity," says Evans. "It freaks them out to be on a list. It's the community saying 'We know who you are.' It's totally psychological."
The bill is still in draft form but will be in the legislature soon. Here's hoping, when it finally reaches the statehouse, people like Evans will actually have time to explain the intricacies of why it works, rather than pulling out plastic waterguns, making pew-pew noises and saying "gangs bad" over and over. —Caleb Hannan
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Jarron Springer contradicts himself with his surveys - which is it, 62% or 99.9% in favor? Regardless of that discrepancy I tend to believe the survey showing 62% in favor of is correct. I am one of those that supports grocery sales of wines, as well as allowing wines to be ordered by mail from out of state. The arguments for such sales are far stronger than the worn out whining of the package store owners and those that want to impose their religious beliefs on others. Lets get Tennessee up with the rest of the country and stop this silliness.
like
dislike
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW 27 MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS WILL BE GENERATED IF THIS GOES THROUGH? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ? SHIP MORE DRINKERS INTO THE STATE ! IF THIS WAS SUCH A GOOD DEAL FOR THE STATE IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY PASSED . THE BEST THING ABOUT OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS THAT ALMOST 100% OF THE DOLLARS GENERATED , EITHER BY TAX REVENUE OR PROFIT REMAIN IN THE STATE . DOES THE OWNER OF KROGER LIVE HERE ? HEY , I JUST HAD A THOUGHT , HOW MUCH MORE REVENUE COULD WE GENERATE FOR THE STATE IF PORNO WAS MORE CONVENIENT ? I'M JUST SAY'IN...........
Excuse me, HorseSense, but Jarron Springer did not contradict himself at all in this article. He quoted a MTSU survey which revealed the support of 62% of Tennesseans. The author of this article stated that polls could show "99.9 percent of consumers favor it." Springer was not citing both numbers. Re-read the article. Do your homework on basic economics. Surveys only sample a small portion of the population. Polls get a more accurate cross-section and a larger sample of the public's opinion. Also, the author's statement "In his testimony to the House State and Local Committee, even Springer was forced to acknowledge the cold wind blowing in his face" was not a slam on Springer. It drives home the fact that no matter how much an association/organization can support/reject a cause, legislature still has the power to vote based on their personal opinions and not necessarily represent the voice of the people. You're just another face in the crowd who hears what they want to hear and likes to spend way more time criticising than you spend at the polls trying to get people elected that WILL represent your desires (or do you even vote..........?).
In regard to the story on wine sales in grocery stores, let me first say I'm all for it. That being said, please do not lump all Christians (ever heard of wine at Mass?) into a group of overzealous busybodies! It's a relatively small number of people who think wine (or any other alcoholic beverage) is inherently sinful. As I understand it, the biblical injunction is against drinking to excess rather than in moderation. It does strike me as strange that "objective" journalists label anyone who doesn't agree with their position on an issue "crazy".
Tennessee really needs to move into the 21st century when it comes to wine sales. The liquor store businesses are against it for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with benefit to consumers. The bible thumpers are under the mistaken belief that keeping wine out of groceries will somehow prevent people from drinking. The moralists are under the mistaken impression that wine in groceries will magically increase the number of problem drinkers. Count me amongst the 62% that are looking forward to the day when Tennesseans finally get the convenience of picking up a nice merlot with their flat iron steaks, potatoes, broccoli, and carrots, with chocolate dipped strawberries for dessert.
By the way, the real HorseSense post is the one entered at 10:36 a.m. today. The one that misread the article and confused the percentages on a 1:46 post from yesterday is not me. Ah, the shame! My moniker, the one I have been using for over a year, has been misappropriated. While I applaud your cleverness false "HorseSense" I implore you to cease and desist, and come up with an equally clever but unique name for the comments section.
