Question 1
John Daley pokes holes in various arguments against letting supermarkets sell wine:
... This is about business, trade and reasonable regulation, not a referendum on the dangers of drinking. It it were, the liquor stores would be arguing against their own existence.
Beacon Hill Wines and Spirits has a blog and uses it to explain why Question 1 backers are lying about who would be able to sell wine should the measure pass and why it matters.
However, the author also says he has yet to see a single Vote No on 1 ad on TV, which means he is either the only person in the entire state who hasn't seen the ads about blood running in the streets or he only watches Channel 2.
You may recall David Drucker as the Cambridge resident so disgusted with the state of American democracy that he moved to Canada last year. Despite the fact he doesn't intend to come back, he's still registered to vote in Cambridge; he reports he recently sent in his absentee ballot:
John Daley doesn't think Question 1 will mean hordes of drunken teens marauding through our streets; he explains why he'll be voting "yes" on Question 1:
... Mostly it's a question of convenience for consumers. In my case, that will mean being able to get two-buck Chuck at my local Trader Joe's rather than having to trek to Memorial Drive. And that's enough for me.
At more stores than the Omni Foods in Chestnut Hill, that is (turns out chains can currently get a total of three liquor licenses).
Ron Newman provides links to both sides of Question 1, a referendum in November on whether supermarkets and convenience stores should be allowed to sell wine:
If you can't buy wine with your TV dinners, the terrorists have won!
- ‹‹
- Page 2