Your Ad Here

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Liquor sales at new Gopher stadium

The Regents are scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether or not they are going to allow alcohol sales for the inaugural season of Not The Metrodome*. I don't see what the big issue is with allowing liquor sales in the entire stadium. Arbitrarily placing restrictions on something that is legal is absurd straight away, but the enormous amount of revenue that is lost also seems a bit shortsighted. Underage students will imbibe and people will overindulge, but there is security and police present - wouldn't it be easier to curtail unruly behavior inside the stadium confines rather than the pre- and post-game tailgate and house party expanse? And it's a college freaking football game, not a kindergarten dance recital. There's nothing more American than sitting on your ass eating and drinking body damaging substances while watching other people exert themselves.

However, if the Regents do want to shun 'logic' and 'making money' and do decide to ban sales, well then go ahead. I don't necessarily think that because the vast majority of other collegiate on-campus stadiums ban alcohol sales then the U should blindly follow suit. I understand trying to avoid the potential liability and problems that may arise because of in-stadium alcohol sales. But is the message a institution of higher learning wants to send students {Because undeniably that is who the restrictions are primarily aimed at. And of course they won't succeed in bringing in libations of their own, right? If all the brain power and effort that college students used engineering drinking supplies and games went to benefit humanity, we could wipe out hunger, disease, and be well on our way to living in a veritable utopia in two years. Alas.}: 'You aren't mature enough to handle this, so we're going to take it away from you.' I mean, the most famous drunken incident at the Metrodome last year had nothing to do with Minnesota students.

Why the State Legislature decided to make a new law because allowing liquor sales in premium seating areas "struck some lawmakers as elitist" is beyond me. Of course it is elitist. Any place of business that inflates prices to exclude a certain demographic is elitist. The elitism doesn't bother me; people with money have greater access to more places and services. The state government stepping in doesn't exactly bother me. The politicians are trying to come up with something tangible {beer sales at Gopher games} or the perceived effort of doing something for the greater good; they're politicians - hell, too many of them are worried about a college football playoff or steroids in baseball than more pressing issues facing the country. What bothers me the most is the University high-ups wringing their collective hands rather than making a decision.

Give the thumbs up or thumbs down and let's move on, shall we? {But you'd be a lot cooler if you went with the thumbs up.}

* I refuse to call it by its proper name because of a run-in with the omitted entity. I deposited a check, purchased about four/five things after the aforementioned transaction. After taking up issue with the overdraft fees, I was informed that it was company policy for all deposits to be processed the following business day and that there was no way they could reverse the charges incurred {about $150 for roughly $30 worth of purchases}. I know this to be blatantly untrue because a year or two earlier on a legitimate overdraft, I was prepared to pay the fee and was told by the teller that he would just erase the charge. He may have been gay and doing it to hit on me, but that's not really the point. I hate you unnamed bank.

No comments: