ALCOHOL SERIES: Negatives outweigh positives

Larry Penkava

ASHEBORO — The economic impact of alcohol sales in Asheboro won’t make a dent in the problems caused by drinking.

That’s the assessment of Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Asheboro, the group opposed to the July 29 referendum on the sale of alcohol.

Dr. John S. Rogers, pastor of First Baptist Church of Asheboro, is a leading spokesman for the opponents of the referendum that gives voters the option to legalize the on- and off-premises sale of beer and wine, ABC stores and mixed drinks.

He spoke to The Randolph Guide about the issues concerning alcohol.

Asheboro has been a “dry” town since 1950, when citizens overwhelmingly voted to ban alcohol sales.

Since then voters have rejected efforts to legalize alcohol sales in 1965, 1977, 1985 and 1994. The city is now the largest municipality in the state without legal alcohol.



Why are ‘anti’ forces so against alcohol?

“Number one is the huge economic cost of the negative aspects,” Rogers said.

Quoting from the Alcohol Cost Calculator on a Web site maintained by the George Washington University Medical Center (www.alcoholcostcalculator.org), he blames alcohol problems as being “the third-leading cause of preventable death in the America,” destroying families, robbing young people of their futures and draining the national economy of $186 billion each year.

“One of my chief concerns about the legalized sale of alcohol is that very few people are aware of the huge cost alcohol has on society,” said Rogers.

Reading from a GWU Web site designed to help employers deal with alcohol problems, he said, “Alcohol problems affect employees in industries from manufacturing to information technology, from the boardroom to the shop floor. Alcohol costs American employers an estimated $134 billion in productivity losses, mostly due to missed work. With a relatively small investment in effective prevention and treatment for alcohol problems, employers can reduce costs and help employees.”

Rogers encourages people to visit the Web site to see the costs of alcohol on business and health.

“I have yet to hear any proponent of alcohol sales even mention anything about the negative cost alcohol has,” he said. “It gives credence to the statement of the Web site, ‘Yet, few people know how much alcohol problems cost at a community and company level.’”

Rogers said that, given the $186 billion cost on the national economy, that translates to a per capita drain of $611 per person. With Asheboro’s population at about 21,600, he said, the local drain is $12,831,000.

“Proponents point to tax revenue our city will receive from the sale of alcohol,” said Rogers. “Sure, there is some tax revenue, but the overall cost of alcohol far outweighs what little positive gain there may be. One estimate that I have heard is that Asheboro may receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000 in tax revenue from the sale of alcohol.

“When I figured on a per capita income for our population,” he said, “this means we would receive from alcohol tax $16.20 per person. Look at the comparisons – a $12,831,000 negative cost to a positive cost of $350,000, a $611 economic drain per person to a $16.20 tax gain. The math is not there.”

That, he said, is one of the reasons he is against legalizing alcohol sales in Asheboro.

“The negative cost related to alcohol is already too high,” he said. “Rather than being an economic stimulus, alcohol really is an economic drain on society. Adding outlets only helps to increase consumption and sales.”

The people who gain are the people who sell it or want the convenience of alcohol, he said.

“The people who lose are all the citizens of Asheboro. In my opinion, we would be much wiser to spend our time, energy and effort on things that will really benefit all the citizens of Asheboro,” Rogers said. “It saddens me when I see business leaders spending so much time and money on something that already costs way too much. What would happen if businesses and churches could work together on things that really matter? I think it would transform our city and our city’s economy.”

Rogers says he is not opposed to the right to drink but he is opposed to increasing the number of outlets in Asheboro.

“We have a distinction in the Piedmont Triad,” he said. “It’s nice not to have to run into booze in restaurants or grocery stores. I think it’s neat for Asheboro to be distinct. People choose to live in a place like this.”



Would hotels flock here?

Addressing proponents’ arguments that legal alcohol will bring fine restaurants and hotels to Asheboro, Rogers counters that several have already come here.

“Often our proponents state that we need alcohol sales for economic development,” he said. “I recall the statement that Steve Schmidly made in his presentation before the Asheboro City Council when he presented his request for a referendum. He said, ‘The simple truth is without beer, wine and mixed drinks sales we’re not going to have the kind of development we need. We haven’t in the 14 years since we’ve had the last election. That’s proof in and of its self.’”

Rogers pointed to what has come to Asheboro since 1994 – a number of new restaurants, many of which have located off U.S. 64.

“During the last referendum proponents for the sale of alcohol charged we didn’t have enough motels,” said Rogers. “But since 1994 we have three new motels – Holiday Inn Express, Comfort Inn, Hampton Inn and another new one being built.

“Since 1994 we have seen the development of CVS, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart and Center Point Plaza, Staples, Office Depot, Dollar General, Fred’s, Advance Auto Stores and the Goodwill Store,” he added. “There has to be in the excess of $60 million of building and remodeling done on Dixie Drive alone. Either Mr. Schmidly’s memory is failing or what has developed since the last referendum is not the development he thinks we need.”

Rogers said proponents are using the same story now that was used in 1994 – that Asheboro can’t get new hotels and restaurants if we don’t have alcohol.

That, he said, has not proven to be true.

“The truth needs to be stated that our current economic problems have nothing to do with the sale of alcohol,” he said. “Instead they are due in a large part to the impact of a growing global economy. It is sad to see textiles diminish and furniture shrink. But alcohol had nothing to do with this.”

Proponents of alcohol say legal sales will encourage outside groups to hold meetings and conventions here.

To that, Rogers asks, “What about the 1,000 Shriners from South Carolina that came to Asheboro a few weeks ago?”

He said the Disney Company had chosen to remove alcohol from its Fantasy Island facility because it felt family values were more important that alcohol sales.

He likens Fantasy Island to the N.C. Zoo, which draws approximately 750,000 visitors each year.

“Alcohol is not what brings people to the Zoo,” he said. “The economy is changing but alcohol is not the answer. Alcohol doesn’t bring jobs. What kind of jobs can we attract without an educated workforce? It’s all about money, it seems. I don’t think this is the best way to make it.”



Prohibition did not fail

Rogers said proponents of alcohol call Prohibition a failure. He disagrees.

“During the Prohibition era, alcohol use dropped by 30 to 50 percent,” Rogers quoted. “Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.”

Rogers said that according to Mark Moore, a Harvard professor of criminal justice, Prohibition succeeded because it reduced by one third the consumption of a drug that had been widely used for thousands of years.

To statistics showing that driving while impaired (DWI) rates are higher in Randolph County than surrounding counties, Rogers says that Randolph County is one of the largest in the state in area and people have farther to drive.

He also noted that most of the DWIs are in the northern part of the county, closer to alcohol sales outlets.

Wondering what alcohol sales have done for Randleman, Rogers said the city to the north of Asheboro “has become dependent on alcohol revenues.”

Randleman’s alcohol revenues equal about 7 cents on the property tax rate.

“Be honest,” he said, “an economic boost in jobs is just not there. I haven’t seen any other city where it’s happened.

“The sad thing is the referendum divides people,” Rogers said. “We shouldn’t be that way. We can express our thoughts, voice our concerns and state why we stand the way we do without being divided. I pray the people will be civil. That’s democracy the way it was meant to be. Ultimately, the people will decide the issue.”

Saying he doesn’t believe it’s a sin to drink, Rogers quotes the Bible as saying the sin is in drunkenness and warns against the abuse of alcohol.

“There’s a 30 percent chance that alcohol will mess up your life,” he said. “Between 8 and 10 percent of drinkers become alcoholics.”



Police chief will be prepared

ASHEBORO – Asheboro Police Chief Gary Mason said he’s talked to officials in other cities about what to expect should the alcohol referendum pass. While not taking a stance either way, he said he felt it was his duty to be prepared for something Asheboro has no experience in.

Initially, he was told, there shouldn’t be increased problems with alcohol sales in stores or restaurants. But at some time in the future, problems could arise.

“At some point,” Mason said he was told, “topless bars, game rooms or pool halls” could come in with the increased likelihood of fights and weapons. “Places that are closed by midnight, no problem,” he said. “But places that sold alcohol and stayed open until 2 or 3 o’clock is where they had problems. From a law enforcement standpoint, that’s when we have to be prepared.”

He said his contact in Thomasville said the city is noticing that vacant buildings downtown are being converted to bars. Cities may be limited by zoning regulations in what they can do about such establishments.

Another issue Mason discovered is that the state ABC Commission requires city police forces to monitor establishments with alcohol permits.

While the state provides some funding, he said, most of the burden of salaries for monitoring officers falls to the city.

“We’re anticipating and preparing to deal with whatever comes up,” Mason said. “If it’s Applebee’s or Outback, that’s no problem. But game rooms or pool halls may be problems. Down the road we may have to deal with these types of establishments. Late-night with alcohol, there’s the potential for problems.”

Text Only