.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to xmikex.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="xmikex:519342"]anonymous said:[QUOTE]I voted no. Do we really need more drunken drivers out on the streets killing people. If you wanna drink and get WASTED go for it. And if you wanna drive after, then you should just go right ahead and drive your car into a tree instead of killing innocent people!! Alcohol is sold in liquor stores and FOOD is sold in grocery stores. Alcohol has no nutrional value to it. Its sad when some people think it IS food :spineyes:[/QUOTE] I'm voting no. BUT I think the drunk driving argument is kind of a dumb one, so much so that I think it's going to push some people to vote yes out of spite. There is hardly a shortage of wine in Massachusetts. Anyone who could buy it under this new law could already buy it now. Increased availibility isn't going to lead to an increase of drunk driving unless you start pumping wine through people's kitchen sinks and water bubblers. The intelligent reason to oppose this is the crippling effect it could have on small buisnesses. Ironically enough if this passed plenty of liquor stores would close eventually, which (I'd have to assume) would lead to a DECREASED availibility of alcohol.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.013 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][