Conclusion

Over the years that I have lived in California, I have come to terms with the neo-prohibitionist tendencies displayed by rather a large number of people. Time was when it would irritate me: “Shit, you get on with your life, and I will get on with mine.” Now I smile and accept: We are each of us driven to declaring with various degrees of intensity our beliefs and understandings of what is true, what is important, what is just and right. I have come to realize, though, that we should each respect another’s truth (even dogma) but to fully expect that they should show consideration for ours. Beer is not for everyone, but please do not expect that it is something that I should forego for the simple reason that it does not sit comfortably with you.

The arguments against alcohol either center on a religious teaching or alternatively a thesis that alcohol in any amount or circumstance is antisocietal. The former is a stance to be respected and understood as the dogma of a given religion within which, hopefully, you have the free will to participate or not. The latter, however, eschews the very real benefits and positives that literally flow, for example, from a beer tap and seeks to stamp out the freedom that an individual should have to indulge in an element of this life that for the longest time has brought contentment, community, and (it is increasingly recognized) healthful comfort to those who indulge respectfully. As such, it would be as wrong to seek to ban beer, or make it prohibitively expensive, or marginalize it as it would be to forbid skiing because limbs can be broken, or driving because some people motor far too quickly, or candy because it leads to obesity and thereby all manner of physical crises. Equally it would be no less and no more justified than seeking to eradicate or diminish the religious belief of another.