In the twenty-first century, the world is experiencing war, poverty, and public corruption. However, theocons and others who call themselves social conservatives are still fighting a lost cause to keep up the ban on alcohol sales in their local areas. Despite the fact alcohol prohibition has proven to be a failure.

According to a 2003 Accident Analysis & Prevention study, dry counties foster more alcohol-related accidents than wet counties. The study concludes that drivers from dry counties are incentivized to drive out of their county for their alcohol, resulting in consumption on the road or before going home.

The study can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The study does fail to argue how high beer taxes and zero-tolerance laws help deter drunk-driving. Especially when states with high beer taxes and harsh laws have more drunk-driving accidents per capita than states with low beer taxes and lax laws. New Hampshire, for example, has the lowest beer taxes and only state to not tax other alcohol but also has the least alcohol-related accidents per capita.

When it comes to history, 1920s in the U.S. show that banning certain activities will have consequences. Alcohol prohibition during that time drastically surged crime, and literally created organized crime (Arnold Rothstein, via bootlegging, would result in the rise of Charles "Lucky" Luciano and his syndicate, which was the first organized crime family, which led to mob wars in the '30s and '40s), not to mention the politicians that got paid off in both blood and money for such legislation.

Prohibition in most cases breeds more crime. This is true even today, in regards to bootleggers. These black-market vendors do not follow the law, and, in fact, are helped by prohibition. In these alcohol sales votes, bootleggers are almost always on the no-vote side. Legal sales cut into their business.

This helps children, since they will be carded in a store, but the risk that they will be catered to by bootleggers will still exist. Under prohibition, alcohol is peddled in public schools. This is largely obsolete with legalized sales (since stores must card kids, there would be a black-market demand for bootleggers, but less so and with larger risk than under the ban).

Another point the no-vote side attempts to make is that it is sinful. The fact legislating morality never worked aside, doing so is immoral in and of itself. By voting to prohibit a personal choice, or the voluntary supply of it, a voter is, in fact, using force on members of the community. The Bible is rife with in-context verses opposing the initiating of force on others and supporting personal responsibility.

A list of alcohol-related verses here, read responsibly: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-...

Not to mention the fact the Bible has a few stories advocating the drinking of alcohol, and none condemning it. From the turning-water-into-wine wedding to the Last Supper, Jesus Christ himself partakes in alcohol. According to the Gospels, the first public miracle Jesus did was alcohol-related, as was one of his last lessons.

If taken as an allegory (a popular way Jewish authors wrote the Bible), alcohol is being used as symbolism of "the light at the end of the tunnel." It should be noted, Moses turned water into blood as his first public miracle, or allegory; which is a testament to the fact Jewish people used midrash writing to write the Bible.

In either case, there is no valid point in saying the Bible opposes the consumption of alcohol. However, as is the case for every material object, consuming to excess is a sin. In the case of alcohol, that would fall under gluttony. To put it in perspective, drinking a glass of wine at communion or during a nightcap are not excessive while eating a whole package of cookies in one setting or continue eating after being full are.

Economist Bruce Yandle, of Clemson University and George Mason University, told the true story of the Baptist and the bootlegger. According to the story, vice laws, such as alcohol sales, are supported by unlikely bedfellows, theocons and black-market vendors.

For more information on this economic theory, click here: http://www.cato.org/events/bootleggers-baptists-ho...

This coalition, usually unwittingly but sometimes unified, helps politicians not choose sides. By claiming to be on the side of the theocons, which make up the general public in rural areas, politicians can safely ally themselves with black-market vendors by preventing legal competition. Many economists also apply this theory to environmental regulations (corporatists and environmental activists lobby for the same regulations, which helps politicians manipulate people).

The ending result is a cultural battle with the rest of society and often ends up violent. The violence can manifest itself is a variety of common ways, directly and indirectly; including public corruption, as was the case under alcohol prohibition then and under dry counties today.

An argument both sides fight over is the question of jobs. The yes-vote side argues legalized alcohol sales would create jobs, while the no-vote side claims it would create little to no jobs.

Both sides are correct. In major cities, college towns, and tourist towns legalization creates anywhere from some to a lot of jobs. In the summer of 2012 when Somerset, the car cruise capital of Kentucky, finally did it about a dozen new businesses opened up and a dozen more expanded sales. In other towns, even if only one job is created, it is better than none.

As of any public policy, there are downsides to legalizing alcohol sales. Unless a state has low sin taxes on alcohol, a lot of additional revenue is collected by the state government. Most of that money usually goes to increasing the size and budget of the state. For big-government voters (like Democrats and Republicans) this is another perk; while limited-government voters (like constitutionalists and moderate Libertarians) cringe.

In the end, one thing matters: peace. People should be able to peacefully sell alcohol without force being used on them to stop. People should be able to peacefully buy alcohol without said force. Hiding behind God, the children, and economics are for misinformed voters, those arguments are moot against the facts.