WILSON’S LOCAL PRINT AND DIGITAL COMMUNITY INSTITUTION SINCE 1896

State liquor monopoly advocate has conflict of interest

Thank you for being one of our most loyal readers. Please consider supporting community journalism by subscribing.

Posted

Re. “Privatizing liquor sales is wrong for North Carolina” by Larry Etheridge, May 8:

Please be aware that my comments are to discuss the control of alcoholic beverages and not the morality of consumption of liquor.

I read this letter and thought of it as a typical opinion of a misguided citizen who believes that this country cannot function without a “gov-ment” bureaucrat guiding our way. My neck didn’t burn until I read the Times addendum stating the bureaucracy position of the writer. To me, the writer sort of compromises his integrity with this 800-plus-word dissertation attempting to prove his theory. Might this letter be legitimately interpreted as a self-serving tool for the writer?

The framers of our Constitution never intended that free enterprise should have to compete with government bureaucrats for survival. I know, the writer submits numerous statistics to confirm that N.C. liquor control would go to hell in a hat basket if not for our political bureaucrats. That would happen only if the politicians allow it to happen. This state does not have to be a copycat of Las Vegas.

The writer wants us to believe that free enterprise sales of liquor would open further the devil’s workshop because of crime and corruption it might bring forth. I would like to remind the writer that wholesale corruption has been prevalent among his own bureaucratic ABC peers. If you disbelieve me, check the Times archives.

I believe the writer allowed himself to wallow in the depth of hypocrisy by attempting to prove his point. First of all, I just about spilled my coffee when he attempted to crown our esteemed former Gov. Beverly Perdue with sainthood for her statement of having to hold her granddaughter’s hand when walking by the shelves of liquor in the supermarket. Does the writer remember that Perdue was the most formidable proponent of passage of our immoral lottery that robs from the indigent and ignorant to relieve the tax burden of the more affluent? I ask the writer: Does Ms. Perdue hold her granddaughter’s hand when she stands in line behind the lottery losers to pay for her gasoline at the local convenience store?

Also, the letter might have seemed a little less “holier than thou” had some other proponent written it. Is anyone really surprised at the writer’s gathering of numerous statistics to solidify his position of bureaucracy? There might be some naive citizens out in the county that believe the writer is floundering in a state of conflict of interest.

Carl Hinson

Wilson

Comments