12.30.07
Is It Time To Ban Alcohol Too?
We made the mistake of trying to impose a national prohibition against alcoholic beverage once already in our history. However, we seem to be doomed to continually repeat our mistakes over and over since our lawmakers seem to be cursed with a curious inability to learn from history, so maybe it’s time to try this failed policy again. Who knows, maybe it could work this time around. Heck, spread enough disinformation and I bet we could push for a prohibition on drinking tap water too.
So why on earth would I propose such a silly thing as banning alcohol? Well, to be honest it’s not any more silly than smoking bans. In fact, if you want to look at the facts, banning alcohol would actually make more sense than smoking… But since when do facts mean anything these days? Popular opinion is clearly much more powerful than reality.
I have been looking through all of the various rationales for smoking bans and have recently started a one-man campaign against Wisconsin challenging them on their premise for trying to push a smoking ban on us. Why? Because the facts just don’t add up. It would seem that the prevailing underlying argument is simply dislike of smokers; however those personal feelings are masked behind all sorts of “public health” and economic claims. Along with challenging these claims, I decided to do some research of my own - not on smoke, but instead on alcohol.
And truth be told… By applying the same “public health” threat and economic arguments against alcohol, I can’t quite figure out why people would push so diligently for smoking bans while allowing the public menace of alcohol to plague our society.
I decided that objectivity was better than actually looking at data from possibly skewed sources, so I looked at the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR’s) as they provide some very useful insight that advocacy groups tend to ignore.
So, according to the CDC’s report on smoking-related deaths, there were 438,000 annual deaths attributable to smoking. What is much more interesting, however, is the years of potential life lost (YPLL) which came out to be 5.5 million years. That comes out to roughly 12.6 years lost per death.
Looking over to the report on alcohol-related deaths, there were 75,766 annual deaths attributed to alcohol. There were also 2.3 million YPLL, which comes out to 30.4 years lost per death.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that, on average, alcohol kills more young people. Even more interesting was the fact that the number of deaths resulting from - let’s call it passive drinking - is at least equal to, if not greater than - the deaths attributed to passive smoking. So, in other words, there were more “innocent” people killed in accidents and violent acts related to alcohol than people who supposedly died as a result of secondhand smoke.
But wait! It’s doesn’t stop there. This just covers alcohol-related deaths. What if we factor in other crimes?
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the roughly 1 million violent crimes (murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault) committed in 2002, 30% (300,000) involved an offender who had been drinking. If we take out of that the 5,963 homicides as reported by the CDC, that still leaves 294,037 violent crimes that didn’t result in a death. This isn’t even taking into account property crimes.
According to the California ADP, nationally there were over 300,000 injuries from alcohol-related collisions and there were more than 1.5 million DUI arrests.
And cost? According to an outstanding comprehensive report from “Streetdrugs University” (a group of educators specializing in drug and alcohol training):
- Lost earnings: $69.2 billion, of which 30%-35% ($20.76-$24.22 billion) is passed along to the government.
- Social Welfare: $693 million, or 3%-4% of total government welfare administration.
- Motor Vehicle Crashes: $13.6 billion including:
- $3.8 billion in roadway damage shouldered by state a local government
- $3.1 billion in insurance administration
- $3.8 billion in automobile damages
- $2.9 billion in legal and court costs, of which $580 million was shouldered by state and local government
- Crime Losses: $1 billion including $427 million in property crime
- Incarceration Costs: $2.8 billion (140,000 incarcerations * $20,000/year incarceration cost) plus an assumed loss of $1.68 billion in lost tax revenue (140,000 incarcerations * estimated potential $12,000 tax loss)
And according to the Marin Institute, annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems total $22.5 billion. According to Wikipedia, 27% of the population is on public health care and 15.8% is uninsured. By those numbers, we can estimate that the public absorbs approximately $9.63 billion of alcohol-related health costs.
To bring this all into perspective, going back to the Marin Institute and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the estimated aggregate annual cost of alcohol is $175.9 billion compared to $137 billion for smokers. I’ll spare you the math and tell you that it’s a difference of $38.9 billion.
So with all of this information in mind, why not ban alcohol? The economic cost is significant, the non-drinking deaths associated with alcohol is significant, the amount of crime associated with alcohol is massive…
If we were to take the same standards applied to smoking and apply them to alcohol, we should have banned alcohol without a second thought. Not only is the public burden significant, but the burden of evidence is much stronger when it comes to alcohol as opposed to smoking.
As a public menace, alcohol far and away outweighs smoking - yet smoking is under siege while alcohol is still acceptable. Why is this? What is it about smoking that drives people into such a fury and drives them to force excessive government control upon us (prohibition come to mind?) without giving it a second thought? After all, the same people pushing for the abolition of tobacco are more likely to be killed in an alcohol-related incident than by secondhand smoke.
Just some food for thought. And I hope people think about this.
Full disclosure: I do not advocate for a ban on alcohol nor a ban on smoking. I am also a non-smoker who believes in rights and freedom. I understand that smoking and drinking are not healthy activities, but I honor a person’s right to choice and a private business owner’s right to allow drinking or smoking on their property.
ChenZhen said,
December 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Great post. Thanks for putting things in perspective like this.
BTW- I think this was a typo?
arclightzero said,
December 30, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Thanks Chen, it is a typo and I got it fixed. Trying to research smoking and alcohol data at the same time fries the brain a little bit
No Compromises said,
December 30, 2007 at 3:21 pm
They have banned smoking in my state, everywhere except the Indian lands and their casinos, of course. The business owners are pissed to say the least because some have more rights than others! Oh, and if you have kids you can’t smoke in your vehicle while kids are in the car. You can’t smoke within 25 feet of any door. Business owners took to painting the buffer zone around their front door so you know for sure where to stand which is usually out in the heat, rain and snow.
The next thing our legislature banned was Trans Fat from all foods cooked in restaurants. We have seat belt laws, we have 500$ fines for not using chains in the snow. We are number one state for businesses failing the first year. We have the highest gas taxes, and our kids are as stupid as, let’s say, ummm, I’m trying to think of an animal, but the animals are all smarter than these publically educating loons.
Now the voters voted for a simple majority for school levies so ever freakin’ election we will have a school levy on it and it will pass no problem. So when the police, fire and EMTs see how well this money genertator works they will demand a simple majority for their levies too! There is not end in sight as to how high our property taxes will go up. Oh, by the way, a neighbor of mine thought the government paid for all of these school levies. This stupid woman did’nt know that it was her property taxes that paid for the school levies!
Commies depend on idiots like this! That’s why they train them in school what to think not how to think! Time to take our kids out of public school!
Now private industry has gotten into the act. The voters passed, last election, to fine insurance companies triple law suit damages for not paying claims. We never had a problem of great magnitude of insurance companies not paying their claims. The stats stated it was in the low single digits. Lawyers who get 40% of the kitty are jumping for joy over this one. Anyone who has any kind of insurance will see rate increases of over 200 bucks for each kind of insurance they possess. It’s all ready being reported in the news. Isn’t that special?
It wasn’t bad enough that this state drove out most of the insurance companies now the ones remaining have a good reason to run for the nearest exit! Wouldn’t you? I sure as hell would! It wasn’t enough that Californicate already tried this one for nine years and the voters finally wised up and got rid of it via initiative because the commie legislators, who by the way, are mostly lawyers!
I could go on an on about my state, but instead I choose to have a nice day instead of feeling rage at these idiots. We will eventually be forced to move out of our state that we grew up in and that we love very much. There isn’t a place in this beautiful state in which we haven’t been to and done something in and now we have to start all over again elsewhere and we are furious about it.
There are 40 other states better than this commie state!
I get so enraged at hearing that those who are voted into office use their office to perpetuate a jobs security program for those hired into government. Oh, I forget, my government is the biggest employer of the state. Their wages are better, and the bennies are outstanding! What does that tell ya? It tells me that the idiots running the show don’t understand that when the government is making more than those who are paying for it will eventually collapse into a economic tail spin which is after they have raised your taxes up and up and up again!
What a bunch of idiots.
Government is the expert of guilt tripping you to death until you have nothing left! Thanks for allowing me to vent again! Augh! I hate em! and now I’m pissed. I’m gonna go have a drink!
No Compromises said,
December 30, 2007 at 3:29 pm
After reading my comment I see I made several typos. That’s what happens when I start ranting about the commies. Sorry. I wanted to say that the Legislature refused to get rid of the triple damages so the voters had to get rid of it via initiative! Thanks for letting me vent!
wickle said,
December 30, 2007 at 7:21 pm
In concept, I agree with you … I have to admit, though, that my personal dislike for the tobacco industry prevents me from really working up any passion for an anti-anti-smoking sentiment.
My maternal grandfather was always citing the claims from tobacco execs in the 80’s and early 90’s — when they were still claiming that no credible evidence existed that tobacco was harmful. He died of throat cancer three days after my younger son was born.
So, I’ll admit that in principle, I agree with you … but it just doesn’t hit my radar as an issue about which to care for me. Not because I hate smokers … but because I do, genuinely and truly (and to a point that I really need to repent of this) hate the tobacco industry.
On the other hand … if you decide to pick up the anti-drinking crusade, I believe that Gene Amondson is running for President for the Prohibition Party!
I’ll bet that he’d love and endorsement.
mpinkeyes said,
December 30, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Cheers, as I raise my glass up to you.
I am also a non-smoker who believes in the right of individual choice, the choice that is being slowly but surely taken away from the American people, that is why I do take up the anti-anti-smoking crusade even though I don’t smoke. Without having done the research I would bet that alcohol is much more dangerous than pot smoking, yet pot is illegal and alcohol is legal.
Now it is time for my disclaimer, I am not an anti-alcohol guy by any means, I enjoy having a few beers, and am having one as I type this right now.
If you are a non-smoker who is glad to see all these restrictions passed on smoking just remember the next thing they come after could be something that you enjoy. You won’t be so happy then, will you?
alaskanspawn said,
December 30, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I think if they were to ban alcohol in public places it would kill the rest of the bar industry that didn’t make it through the smoking ban. It would make it cheaper to go out to eat though, shave probably $10-$20 off the bill.
I could still drink at home though so I don’t think I’d suffer too much. You are absolutely right though that alcohol kills and is responsible for many crimes. In Alaska many small villages are “dry” because of the issues it causes. There was a show a few years back of one of those villages that decided to reverse that decision. The first night there was a huge increase in alcohol related crimes. They really did not know how to handle the rush of alcohol.
Alcohol bans do exist just not to the extent that smoking bans seem to be catching on.
micky2 said,
December 31, 2007 at 12:13 am
Lets say a pack of smokes cost 5 bucks and you smoke two packs a day. Thats about one cigarette every 20 minutes in a day, assuming you sleep about 7 or 8 hours a day.
You can get a cheap bottle of vodka for about 10 bucks and do a shot every 20 minutes a day assuming you sleep about 7 to 8 hours a day.
Which do you think would kill you first ?
If you start the vodka when you’re 15, you’ll be dead by 35, just from the booze. Thats if you dont die of collateral effects like walking in front of a train.
And you’re a hell of alot more likely to kill someone else by getting behind the wheel or operating in a capacity such as a surgeon, heavy machines, pilot or dropping your kid on his head.
Liver scars, hardning of the arteries and brain damage from alcohol are permanent.
Lungs if not cancerous can heal.
Newsletter 1.7 - 12/31/2007 « The Zero Report said,
December 31, 2007 at 9:32 am
[...] But don’t worry, because others are starting to get agitated by the anti’s, as people are speaking out against the anti-smoking nanny state from everywhere from Utah to Germany regarding the anti’s going too far. This war is just beginning… You can only piss off the people so much before they strike back… And smokers have been getting screwed for a long, long time now.From the blogs: Pro Patria [...]
No Compromises said,
December 31, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Let me add that my spouse and I are not smokers and can’t stand the smell. The issue is about the gov’t treating taxpaying adults as if we can’t make our own choices. It’s about taxpayer adults who put up all the capital to start a business and the gubment comes in and tells them what to do to ruin their business!
Do I want to sit in a restaurant next to a person who smokes? No, but can free markets work on that? Absolutely. I’m sick of gov’t telling everything I can and can’t do from cradle to grave!
alaskanspawn said,
December 31, 2007 at 3:01 pm
So, speaking of the problem in AK with alcohol bans, do you think it was the right decision to remove the ban in this particular dry village? It just happens it was a few white people that lived there that wanted to have some wine with dinner that lobbied for the change. Alcohol was banned for a reason and it took away the liberties of all the people that lived there. So, knowing that the people around you have no idea how to control alcohol (insert your favortite drug here) or what the consequences are do you think it was fair to make the village dry? They are certainly adults and can make their own decisions. They certainly know the consequences of their actions and how it affects other around them. Yet they continue to kill each other and get in trouble with the law due to the reversal of the dry law.
Don’t read to much into what the problems were but was it right to take away their rights for the betterment of the majority? Or should the minority be allowed to change the law to suit their liberties? Keep in mind that this particular ban was worse, it was completely dry. You could not drink in your home nor could you even ship it to yourself from outside. We all know how prohibition went. In this case, I do believe that this village should have remained dry to protect the majority of people there whether they liked it or not. Tough decision but was it right? Yes.
Every incident needs to be looked at seperately. This town needed to remain dry despite the “we can make our own decisions, we don’t need nannies” argument. Perhaps the next town handeled it fine…perhaps not. Perhaps Wisconsin will beat the anti movement, there are certainly enough smokers there…but perhaps not.
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Pinkeyes brings up a good point. The success of the pleasure police in attacking smoking is just going to open the doors. In way, it already has. Just look at the bizarre trans fat bans and now the localized extensions of the anti-smoking push into homes and automobiles. New Jersey considered a ban on smoking while driving period. many big rig truckers can no longer smoke in their own cabs…
What happens if and when the government targets alcohol again? Or any of the various other “pleasures?” out there?
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm
A town going dry… I’m not sure what I think about that. On one hand, it makes more sense than a smoking ban because (as my research found) alcohol causes more problems, costs the public more money and kills more people not directly involved in drinking than smoking. But to ban it completely? I don’t know. During my travels I have been through “dry counties” but that just meant alcohol sales or in some cases just no on sale alcohol. I can’t say i agree with banning alcohol consumption in private homes though, and as many studies have found, dry counties/cities often times have more alcohol-related traffic incidents due to people driving greater distances to drink.
A better answer, in my opinion anyway, is better regulation and enforcement. Stiffer penalties for illegal activities etc. I lived in VA Beach for a while and they have VERY strict public intoxication laws, and on weekends cops would sit outside the bars and clubs at night and nail people walking out who were too tipsy. It really did a good job of keeping people in check and forced people to keep their excessive drinking restricted to private homes. I don’t know if that could work in the town in AK, but I agree much more so with extremely strict laws than bans any day,
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Ya the thing is there is not enough law enforcement in a lot of small towns to enforce strict laws that you mention. The troopers have to actually fly in to these towns to watch over the court proceedings.
alaskancamel said,
January 2, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Again I have to disagree with you Spawn (that should be my user name). The liberties or “rights” of the many do not out way the “rights” of the few. Those villages should never have banned alcohol in the forst place. That was where the error was. If the villagers want to ban things, they should do it without the help or interference of the rest of the state. The village elders have the power to make things better for there people and chose not to. That is on them, not on the rest of us. If they do not like this, they should get the hell out of the village.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Well being native I have a small understanding of what happens in these villages…I thank my Grandma for opening my eyes to the problems of the villagers. It’s not something that too many people understand or care to, hence the few that lobbied to reverse the law. It actually was the elders that chose to make it dry for lack of any other option…you’ll have to ask them what their reasons were. The law just helps enforce it when they can. That wasn’t really the point anyway.
There are some decisions that need to be made and are not the most popular. It takes a lot of thought and considerations but in the end I think they made the right decisions based on the needs of the village. To say “get the hell out” is really short sighted, I’m slightly disappointed in you Camel :-(. You know the suicide rate of native villagers in AK as well as I do and it’s all due to the fact that they CAN’T get the hell out.
Btw, I still remember the day you chose your “handle”, I had already chosen mine so IT’S MINE lol.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 11:21 pm
So I just wanted to add that I think all this conversation is great and could be of great use when going to the government to argue either side. Keep it up, lots of fun!
alaskancamel said,
January 3, 2008 at 12:11 am
I wasn’t saying my user name should be spawn, I was saying it should be “Again I have to disagree with you Spawn”.
I understand the issues in the villages (admittedly, probably not as well as you) but I think that the villages should be autonomous from the whims and desires of the main populace of Alaska. I think the problems from the villages stem from the interference from “well meaning” politicians. If the elders wanted to ban alcohol, that should have been all that was necessary. The remote villages need to make a decision. They either need to follow the rules of the elders and keep there heritage intact, or they need to get in step with the rest of the world and do away with the non working system they have in place.
As for the dry villages not having any alcohol, the fact is that in most of these villages the majority of the arrests are because of bootlegging. The alcohol is still there, but it is illegal.
As for not being able to get the hell out, I disagree. The villages that are dry, for the most part, are some of the larger villages. I have spent time in most of the major villages and have never met anyone there who had not visited Anchorage or Fairbanks.
The final point, and in my opinion the most important, was your statement “Yet they continue to kill each other and get in trouble with the law due to the reversal of the dry law.” The reversal of the law did not make those people do anything.
Their lack of character and personal decisions resulted in death and run ins with the law. Outside influences need to stop being blamed for people who screw up. Life is full of personal choices and consequences for poor ones.
All alcohol bans do is take away more freedoms from honest people. All the arguments are the same for each issue….tobacco, alcohol, gun ownership, trans fat, etc. You can take the side that we need to protect everyone from themselves because these things make people do things or people cant control or take responsibility for themselves. On the other hand, you can take the side that the government has no right (real or implied) to micromanage our lives and tell us what to do. There job is to provide us with police and be arbitrators in disputes. Beyond that, there influence is out of control, even (or especialy) in the villages.
alaskancamel said,
January 3, 2008 at 12:14 am
oh yeah, and the suicide rate is not because they cant get out. There is nothing saying that the rate wouldnt be just as high if they got out. Not trying to be cruel, but again peoples choices are not the fault of others.
alaskanspawn said,
January 3, 2008 at 9:11 am
Actually, I completely disagree with you this time. It’s not surprising that your arguments are black and white knowing how you feel about a lot of things. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for you. The suicide rate is exactly because they can’t get out. I’ve seen it first hand. There is absolutely nothing to do in the winter time, that coupled with the depression of dark and the lack of companionship (in many cases) leads to the high suicide rate. Just because they’ve visited “the big city” does nothing to help their situation. Anywho, I digress.
Either keep your heritage or get in step with the rest of us is really not how it works. Hell, I would love to get out of my own house but I can’t. Many forces working against me…read the gang terrorism for more on that. Dammit, I digress again.
Btw, I don’t agree with alcohol bans, I just think that in the particular cases it’s warranted. The whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument you made is a huge philosophical discussion in itself. Damn damn, this is not the debate I wanted to start with all this native crap.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 11:28 am
My father was a raging alcoholic for many years. (he hasnt touched a drop in 20 though) He blames his problem on his alcoholism and said that it made him do many terrible things. I love my father and think he is a great man, but he CHOSE to pick up a bottle and drink it. It wasnt the alcohols fault, it was his.
We all have a choice in what we do. Those who want to blame society and turn everyone to socialism make up excuses how people are made to do things because of outside influences. I say man up and take pride in who you are. Take both credit and responsibility for your own actions.
I guess I only have one question for you. Do you think that people have personal choices?
(society will make you answer this question…..)
arclightzero said,
January 4, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The ability to choose our own path - whether harmful or not - is one freedom that should never be taken away from people. While I see some advantages to things like village alcohol bans, is that really the appropriate route to take?
True strength of character is being able to take responsibility for your actions. If you drink and/or smoke knowing that it may harm you some day, then suck it up if it does happen.
However, one big difference between smoke and alcohol is that (for the most part) secondary victims of alcohol are usually truly innocent while people exposed to ETS have the choice of being exposed to it or not. Again, it’s a matter of choice, and if that choice brings harm would you blame yourself or the smoker?
alaskanspawn said,
January 6, 2008 at 12:57 am
Of course everyone has personal choices and should own up to them. Remember you’re not asking someone that can be easily labeled. That is, if you are trying to label me…again.
Perhaps I’m not the best one to argue this with since I’m not easily labeled. I make decisions for everything and every decision is different. I follow no party lines, I have no need for religion, and I despise the current state of politics. I make decisions based on experience. I bend and sway to each battle and choose them carefully. I choose to not offend people if it can be helped but have no problem doing so if need be.
I’ve taken “tests” that do label me a liberal, apparently in the same vicinity of Gandhi. Most likely because I care for my fellow man. I used to be a medic…go figure. As you both, and others, have pointed out alcohol and smoking both are dangerous. As an ex-medic, I’ve seen the damages of both. Camel, my Dad was also a “raging” alcoholic and quit for at least 20 years. He picked it up again after my sister and I were out of the house but is, I think, in full control of it. I understand Arc’s argument and agree that stricter laws are a good way to handle the alcohol issues (i.e. drunk driving)…but you can’t watch every bar door.
Are there things that we, as a society, should worry about? If we should and do, should we also try to fix them as a society? If not…well I know there is because you all are arguing about a society/government issue.
As a side note, I always refrained from going to bars that allowed smoking. I would refuse invitations to happy hour on the basis of where my co-workers were going. I made every effort to keep my son away from smoke. I stopped drinking for 3 months because I thought it was getting out of control. I needed to know if I was in control or if it was. I was and will always be this way.
Choice, choice, choice. I’ll say it again, it’s not ALWAYS a choice in small town America where you work. It’s more important, in many cases, THAT you work. Very little choice is less and less about choice and more about weighing your options. Do I make a living or not…hell of a choice.
arclightzero said,
January 6, 2008 at 9:04 am
Well, choices shouldn’t be that hard, and admittedly more control is sometimes necessary to ensure a bit of “fairness” (I shudder to use that word though). For instance, requiring that proper ventilation be used or some sort of physical segregation be in place makes some sense. As I have said before, my favorite smoke shop in the Twin Cities (The Perfect Ash) has such a good air handling system that even when the place is packed you can still hardly see or smell the smoke in the air. You can’t tell me that a situation like that is any more harmful than breathing car exhaust while walking outside…
As for segregation, my employer allows smoking but they have a separate and filtered smoke room for the smokers. The room may be packed during lunch hour or whatever (as more than 50% of my coworkers smoke), I still never even catch so much as a whiff of smoke during my work day.
Both of these options are, in my opinion, much more viable options than bans.
What really makes sense, though, is the anti movement’s inability to make any compromise on things. I mean, the smoking bans would eliminate the smoke room at my work place. Why? It isn’t affecting anybody who doesn’t smoke and it certainly makes life easier for the employees as they don’t have to huddle outside in the middle of winter to smoke. It probably reduces sick time too, as it keeps people from standing around outside in the cold or damp. So why should a smoking ban remove that option? It simply makes zero sense.
I live and work in a small town, and sure work is limited, but admittedly there is still choice. Not everyplace allows smoking, and there are certainly enough smokers around to fill the positions in places that do. In fact, there are usually more smokers around here than places for them to work where they don’t have to go out and sit under an umbrella to smoke.
AlaskanAmber said,
January 9, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that there should never be a ban of smoking or alcohol. The way I figure it, smokers and drinkers do society a huge favor. They pay big-time taxes so I don’t have to. And since they’re self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool Darwin-style, the gene pool will only get stronger! And really, who needs to live past 50 anyway? Do you really want to be an old fart with a walker? The thought of that would make anyone drink! I say raise a tall, cool one to the puffers and drinkers! And smoke ‘em if you got ‘em!
alaskancamel said,
January 10, 2008 at 12:44 pm
another Alaskan? holy crap, were everywhere!
arclightzero said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Amen! It’s all about the freedom to choose. If people choose to snoke and drink despite the increased risks, that’s their choice and who are we to stand in their way and tell them no?
And I agree. Where are all of you Alaskans coming from? Is this an invasion?
alaskanspawn said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm
No no, Alaskans don’t invade…we secede hehe.
arclightzero said,
January 11, 2008 at 6:50 am
So… Wait, does that mean that you seceded from Alaska by moving here?? I’m confused.
I assume Camel and Amber are still in Alaska though. So did you flee from them?
alaskanspawn said,
January 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm
LOL, Alaska has wanted to secede a number of times…we’re better than you lower 48 peeps
Since moving from AK and being in MN for 10 years now, I see things differently. While I still call AK my home it becomes more apparent how cut off it is from the rest of the…well everything.
Yes those 2 are still there and everytime I go back we get together and have these very discussions. Kind of like a mini live blog session.
alaskancamel said,
January 11, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Spawn needs to move back to Alaska so he can warm up. Minn is damn cold!
Is there an alternative? « The United States of Jamerica said,
January 11, 2008 at 10:02 pm
[...] an aside, if you’re interested, this blogger had a post up on smoking bans. Summary: he doesn’t like [...]