Somerset goes wet
PastorTom

Englewood, CO

#42 Jun 27, 2012
Let the wicked profit from the sell of this drug. We, as Christians, intend on fighting this scourge. The Lord will provide a strong economy and job market. We refuse to sell out our values for a profit! London is a city of God, a role model for Christian values and ethics. This will never change. As always, Blessings to all
the one

Madisonville, KY

#43 Jun 27, 2012
With quite a number of the people I know who call themselves Christians in London, all you have to do is look at them. After looking at them, that would be the best argument you could make for someone to converting to satanic worship or Islam, which is basically the same thing. You have to either accept the full word of God, including the part where Jesus turned water into wine for his first miracle, or you reject it. Rejecting one part is rejecting it all in God's eyes.
Interested person

Richmond, KY

#44 Jun 27, 2012
XMan wrote:
I've gotta say that I'm actually proud of London for once. I mean, selling alcohol does make money, but at what cost? I've seen many families broken by its influence, and enough red-faced fools to know that it's no good-and don't argue that they can get it elsewhere as a reason for them not to have it here. It's better not to have London's hands dirtied by the selling of it, and I won't change my mind about that point. I'd go far enough to say that if they sell alcohol, they may as well sell pot and heroin for as dangerous as they are. All I know for sure is that as soon as they sell it here, it'll end up in some high school-ers' hands sooner or later, and then the s**t will hit the fan, all for the sake of a few bucks.
So what are London's resturants serving? Colored water? Face it man you all screwed up and now you will have to live with the economic consequences.
XMan

Cynthiana, KY

#45 Jun 27, 2012
Interested person wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are London's resturants serving? Colored water? Face it man you all screwed up and now you will have to live with the economic consequences.
If it had been up to me, they wouldn't be serving alcohol at all. As is, it is still better than selling it in stores. There are laws against being drunk in public, after all. I continue to believe that money is no substitute for public safety.
HelpMe Gov

Mount Vernon, KY

#46 Jun 27, 2012
Can't lose what you never had. Drunks, signs and destruction can you tell me how we can lose those?

London is still the destination for many family oriented vacations and living. We are different and for that London is tops in my book.

Growth by county:

Spencer 11,766 14,301 21.5% 1
Boone 85,991 97,139 13.0% 2
Scott 33,061 36,726 11.1% 3
Oldham 46,178 50,517 9.4% 4
Trimble 8,125 8,759 7.8% 5
Shelby 33,337 35,900 7.7% 6
Garrard 14,792 15,850 7.2% 7
Grant 22,384 23,983 7.1% 8
Jessamine 39,041 41,508 6.3% 9
Bullitt 61,236 64,909 6.0% 10
Nelson 37,477 39,635 5.8% 11
Madison 70,872 74,814 5.6% 12
Laurel 52,715 55,488 5.3% 13

Not too bad for a bunch of hillbillies.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#47 Jun 27, 2012
"The Lord will provide a strong economy and job market." LOL, both are doing well right now, huh?

"London is a city of God, a role model for Christian values and ethics." Is that why so many people in London are hooked on meth?
PastorTom wrote:
Let the wicked profit from the sell of this drug. We, as Christians, intend on fighting this scourge. The Lord will provide a strong economy and job market. We refuse to sell out our values for a profit! London is a city of God, a role model for Christian values and ethics. This will never change. As always, Blessings to all

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#48 Jun 27, 2012
"As is, it is still better than selling it in stores."

Which poses a greater risk to the public?

1. Requiring people to drive to a bar, drink and drive home.
2. Allowing people to buy alcohol at the store, bring it home and drink at home?

"I continue to believe that money is no substitute for public safety." It's not about public safety for you Christian fascists. It's about control. Fortunately, most of the control has been stripped from you and the Christian Taliban is but a shadow of its former self.
XMan wrote:
<quoted text>
If it had been up to me, they wouldn't be serving alcohol at all. As is, it is still better than selling it in stores. There are laws against being drunk in public, after all. I continue to believe that money is no substitute for public safety.
the one

Madisonville, KY

#49 Jun 27, 2012
The Moist law was a very stupid law to begin with. You are endorsing drunk driving, as you have to consume the drink inside the restaurant, and you know good and well that 80 percent of them are driving home afterwards. The Moist law needs to be scrapped entirely. I'm all for London going Wet, as then you can take it home before consuming whatever you bought. At least a liquor store checks IDs, whereas your local bootlegger doesn't care if you're a 12 year old, so long as they get their cash they can still buy it. So, the next time someone dies locally from a drunk driving accident, the odds are very good that you can thank the Moist law and/or your local bootlegger for being somewhere behind it.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#50 Jun 27, 2012
I agree with most of what you said. I don't think that the moist law should be scrapped, however, because some freedom is better than none. People who drink and drive should be punished, not law-abiding citizens.

Yes, making the town moist before making it dry is ass-backwards. It shows that public safety is not a valid argument for the archaic prohibitionists.
the one wrote:
The Moist law was a very stupid law to begin with. You are endorsing drunk driving, as you have to consume the drink inside the restaurant, and you know good and well that 80 percent of them are driving home afterwards. The Moist law needs to be scrapped entirely. I'm all for London going Wet, as then you can take it home before consuming whatever you bought. At least a liquor store checks IDs, whereas your local bootlegger doesn't care if you're a 12 year old, so long as they get their cash they can still buy it. So, the next time someone dies locally from a drunk driving accident, the odds are very good that you can thank the Moist law and/or your local bootlegger for being somewhere behind it.
Okabe

London, KY

#51 Jun 27, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"As is, it is still better than selling it in stores."
Which poses a greater risk to the public?
1. Requiring people to drive to a bar, drink and drive home.
2. Allowing people to buy alcohol at the store, bring it home and drink at home?
"I continue to believe that money is no substitute for public safety." It's not about public safety for you Christian fascists. It's about control. Fortunately, most of the control has been stripped from you and the Christian Taliban is but a shadow of its former self.
<quoted text>
I am no Christian, I am no fascist, and you are falsely inferring that all who buy alcohol will drink at home. If you can tell me one good thing selling alcohol will do for London, excluding making money, feel free to tell me. I've seen for myself the danger of alcohol, and do not wish to see London open to it any more than it already is. Bartenders are supposed to cut people off, and are not to serve those already intoxicated.
Blasphunny

Murray, KY

#52 Jun 27, 2012
XMan wrote:
I've gotta say that I'm actually proud of London for once. I mean, selling alcohol does make money, but at what cost? I've seen many families broken by its influence, and enough red-faced fools to know that it's no good-and don't argue that they can get it elsewhere as a reason for them not to have it here. It's better not to have London's hands dirtied by the selling of it, and I won't change my mind about that point. I'd go far enough to say that if they sell alcohol, they may as well sell pot and heroin for as dangerous as they are. All I know for sure is that as soon as they sell it here, it'll end up in some high school-ers' hands sooner or later, and then the s**t will hit the fan, all for the sake of a few bucks.
You lost all credibility when you compared pot to heroin. By the way In good ol' God-fearing London Kentucky I never had any problem getting booze or weed when I was in high school, if you have the money then you can get it. Frankly you seem quite ignorant of the whole situation. Prohibition doesn't solve any problems and actually creates quite a few in turn.
lbr

Mount Vernon, KY

#53 Jun 27, 2012
London will never grow cause of who they have in office. they think walmart is the only thing london needs London sucks I was born and raised in london and they will never change

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#54 Jun 27, 2012
"and you are falsely inferring that all who buy alcohol will drink at home." I made no such inference. Some people will drink and drive, some will not. Punish the law-breakers and keep your nose out of my business.

"If you can tell me one good thing selling alcohol will do for London" I don't care if it will do any good or not. Prohibition ended in 1933. In a supposedly free country, I should be free to buy a legal product. If you don't want to drink, no one can make you.

"I've seen for myself the danger of alcohol, and do not wish to see London open to it any more than it already is." There is a long list of products that are dangerous. Do you want to ban them all?

"Bartenders are supposed to cut people off, and are not to serve those already intoxicated." Adults are responsible for their own actions. Punish the law-breakers, but do not trample on my freedoms.
Okabe wrote:
<quoted text>
I am no Christian, I am no fascist, and you are falsely inferring that all who buy alcohol will drink at home. If you can tell me one good thing selling alcohol will do for London, excluding making money, feel free to tell me. I've seen for myself the danger of alcohol, and do not wish to see London open to it any more than it already is. Bartenders are supposed to cut people off, and are not to serve those already intoxicated.

Since: Jun 12

London, KY

#55 Jun 27, 2012
Blasphunny wrote:
<quoted text>
You lost all credibility when you compared pot to heroin. By the way In good ol' God-fearing London Kentucky I never had any problem getting booze or weed when I was in high school, if you have the money then you can get it. Frankly you seem quite ignorant of the whole situation. Prohibition doesn't solve any problems and actually creates quite a few in turn.
I was not comparing pot to heroin, but if I was heroin is much more dangerous. Rather, I was comparing alcohol to heroin for the danger present in both products. I realize that it is possible to get both pot and alcohol in London if you have the money, but it would be even easier for teenagers to get booze if it was sold in their own backyards.

Since: Jun 12

London, KY

#56 Jun 27, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"and you are falsely inferring that all who buy alcohol will drink at home." I made no such inference. Some people will drink and drive, some will not. Punish the law-breakers and keep your nose out of my business.
"If you can tell me one good thing selling alcohol will do for London" I don't care if it will do any good or not. Prohibition ended in 1933. In a supposedly free country, I should be free to buy a legal product. If you don't want to drink, no one can make you.
"I've seen for myself the danger of alcohol, and do not wish to see London open to it any more than it already is." There is a long list of products that are dangerous. Do you want to ban them all?
"Bartenders are supposed to cut people off, and are not to serve those already intoxicated." Adults are responsible for their own actions. Punish the law-breakers, but do not trample on my freedoms.
<quoted text>
Even if alcohol is consumed in the home, it can lead to unnecessary sexuality (including sexual harassment), domestic violence, and other criminal activities just as easily as illegal drugs and prescription drug abuse can. Even those who don't drink will be effected by crimes committed by drinkers, such as DUI's. Products that are dangerous should be banned or severely regulated, in my opinion.
You want freedom, but the freedoms you wish for in this case cause unnecessary harm to others, and aren't necessary to lead a good life. I myself see no good reason to drink alcohol in the first place.
Blasphunny

Murray, KY

#57 Jun 27, 2012
Okabe wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not comparing pot to heroin, but if I was heroin is much more dangerous. Rather, I was comparing alcohol to heroin for the danger present in both products. I realize that it is possible to get both pot and alcohol in London if you have the money, but it would be even easier for teenagers to get booze if it was sold in their own backyards.
Alcohol and heroin are still incomparable but regardless I don't think the problem with teens would be worse, if anything it will become better. The teen years are often quite rebellious and forbidding something is often a guarantee that a teen will want to try it. This is also true if you lie to them, teens will know when you are exaggerating the dangers associated with a substance and this will lead them to not take anything you say seriously. Furthermore if alcohol was legal it would also be regulated. Bootleggers do not check your ID before selling to you, trust me.
Blasphunny

Murray, KY

#58 Jun 27, 2012
Okabe wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if alcohol is consumed in the home, it can lead to unnecessary sexuality (including sexual harassment), domestic violence, and other criminal activities just as easily as illegal drugs and prescription drug abuse can. Even those who don't drink will be effected by crimes committed by drinkers, such as DUI's. Products that are dangerous should be banned or severely regulated, in my opinion.
You want freedom, but the freedoms you wish for in this case cause unnecessary harm to others, and aren't necessary to lead a good life. I myself see no good reason to drink alcohol in the first place.
"Even if alcohol is consumed in the home, it can lead to unnecessary sexuality (including sexual harassment), domestic violence, and other criminal activities"

That is true if you happen to be a douchebag but frankly if that is the case I think you have the bigger problem of you being a douchebag to address first.
I have been around alcohol all my life and have consumed it myself for a good portion of it. I have a good relationship with my family and have great friends. A problem involving alcohol is usually just a symptom of a bigger problem and not addressing it by using alcohol as a scapegoat only masks the true cause.

"Products that are dangerous should be banned or severely regulated, in my opinion."

Banning a substance never works. If people want it they will get it even if it means creating a lucrative criminal black market to supply it. The problem here is we treat drugs as a criminal and legal issue when it should be treated as a medical and education issue.

"You want freedom, but the freedoms you wish for in this case cause unnecessary harm to others"

In a few cases sure but those cases should be dealt with regarding the specific nature of the issue. Solving a problem with a blanket campaign is simple but simple solutions are often the least effective.

"and aren't necessary to lead a good life."

If I lived my life only based on necessity I would kill myself.

"I myself see no good reason to drink alcohol in the first place."

Good for you but others feel differently and don't like it when you impose your personal values on them. Interacting with people is absolute hell for me because of my severe social anxiety. I have an agile mind but it comes to a halt around groups of strangers, I cannot describe how horribly frustrating this sensation is. Alcohol allows me to interact with people at parties without me coming off as a slow-witted freak.
the one

Madisonville, KY

#59 Jun 27, 2012
Okabe wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if alcohol is consumed in the home, it can lead to unnecessary sexuality (including sexual harassment), domestic violence, and other criminal activities just as easily as illegal drugs and prescription drug abuse can. Even those who don't drink will be effected by crimes committed by drinkers, such as DUI's. Products that are dangerous should be banned or severely regulated, in my opinion.
You want freedom, but the freedoms you wish for in this case cause unnecessary harm to others, and aren't necessary to lead a good life. I myself see no good reason to drink alcohol in the first place.
If we're going to ban all products that lead to unnecessary sexual activity, let's go ahead and ban bologna. After all, you already know what balogna makes you....
Businessman

Chicago, IL

#60 Jun 27, 2012
I am a successful London Businessman who runs several profitable enterprises. I was going to open a new division in both Corbin and Somerset which would have employed several hundred workers in $45,000+ jobs. However the wet vote in both towns has caused me to cancel my plans and stop construction of my plants. London should be proud we stayed dry and did not vote in alcohol. Somerset and Corbin both lost out on these high paying jobs. Too Bad.
loss for words

Lexington, KY

#62 Jun 27, 2012
london citizens are the losers this town should have went wet

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

London Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
the real snitches of london (May '09) 7 min Misplacedalien 48
Michael Earl Douglas is a rapist 1 hr CaptObvious 8
The Seth Rich Murder 4 hr asd 12
Brave 11 year old calls 911 after finding drugs... 5 hr Giving Recognition 4
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 6 hr another viewer 163,774
One Word Thread (Jul '10) 6 hr China DNA Grab 2,470
add a word--drop a word (Apr '10) 6 hr texas pete 1,514

London Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

London Mortgages