First, Nally comments about a $15 million agency budget. Arizona’s licensing budget is under $3 million.

Second, Nally asks about giving up $45 million to the state. Arizona generates approximately $65 million to the state general fund annually in alcohol taxes; all while regulating the industry at a cost of 5 times less than Idaho. (Current alcohol taxes of $3 per gallon on spirits, 84 cents a gallon on wine and 16 cents a gallon on beer)

I understand that the 21st amendment gives states the right to regulate alcohol. What I don’t understand is the thinking at control states whereby there must be some devilish thought that alcohol is evil and cannot be adequately “controlled” in a privatization manner. It is that very thought, I believe, that hampers a true and open conversation regarding alcohol in America.

Yes, it’s true that alcohol can have detrimental effects when self-restraint has gone into hibernation. But the number of times that occurs compared to the number of times the lawful imbibing occurs is so remote as to hardly register.

Nally says, “Our mission is to promote temperance…”, temperance is vitally important but is something that should be taught as a matter of personal responsibility and each individual must be held responsible for their own actions. The state should not have that burden. It would be the states responsibility to REGULATE only, not to PROMOTE temperance. If some licensee were to be irresponsible in the selling of alcohol then the state would revoke their license etc; that is to say regulate the industry only. That’s what the state’s should be doing not moralizing to the public about temperance or limiting the public about what alcohol they can buy.

That being said, I do want to comment on the Marin Institute. I think they do a fine job for a much needed purpose. I may not always agree with some of things they do, but that is hardly worth mentioning. Fine organization. And thanks for their efforts and mission.