University Daily Kansan
Taylor undaunted by liquor legislation
Bv JOHN FISCHER
Staff Reporter
He travels across the state "preaching" to people in an attempt to convert them to his "religion." His "followers" have grown in numbers during the past seven years, but there is still a large number of "non-believers."
In his all-time "followers," he is known as the Rev. Rick Santorum and his "religion" is the Invictus United Dry Forest.
in reality, however, Taylor is a Methodist minister. He also is president of the Kansas United Dry Forces, a social organization that opposes the sale of liquor by the drink in
Taylor has worked hard since 1971 to keep liquor by the drink from being a reality in Kansas. But his efforts may have been vain, if the voting public has its way next
On Nov. 7, voters in 45 Kansas counties will decide whether to legalize the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants where 50 percent of the revenue is from food sales. But the issue must be ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court before liquor can be sold.
BUT TAYLOR isn't ready to throw in the towel to end his long fight. He has been campaigning hard in those counties where petition drives place the issue on the ballot.
Lieber by the drink has been an emotional issue for Taylor. And although he is at times extreme, he nonetheless makes his points against the issue.
"We are not fighting against liquor by the drunken driving," he says, "we are fighting for drug suffering in Kansas."
Quoting a 1971 CBS News drug special, Taylor said, "One drug causes more human trouble than all other drugs combined. That drug is alcohol.
"AND NOBODY can dispute that, that it is a fact. Any doctor will tell you."
He said that was the main reason he opposed liquor by the drink. He said laws were not passed because they weren't lawful.
"The liquor laws are control laws, and those laws cut consumption by half."
According to statistics from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and other alcohol-related organizations, the combined annual national caseload is half the national average, Taylor said.
The prevention of alcoholism is a func-
to the law.
"EVERY TIME YOU relax the liquor laws, you increase total consumption."
of the law. When law can cut consumption in half, alcoholism is cut in half.
When asked how much consumption would increase if liquor by the drink in restaurants was legalized, Taylor said he was not sure, but added, "It will increase. Whether it will be a big step or a little step, it's a step in the wrong direction.
"Those who argue that law doesn't make a difference in consumption are wrong. The laws do make a difference."
"Alcohol consumption is the largest single controllable cause of human suffering."
concern that he said, however, that he was not necessarily in favor of prohibiting alcohol, but rather keeping it out.
"My plea is if you drink alcohol, please stop with one or two drinks when you drink, and if you can't stop with two, then don't start."
sure
TAYLOR SAID he would probably support liquor in restaurants if private clubs were abolished and if current liquor pools were arranged to be used in restaurants where 50 percent of the revenue was from food sales.
names.
He said he probably would support this because it would cut down the consumption of alcohol.
or atcause.
However, the issue is liquor by the drink in restaurants, and Taylor has been campaiming across the state in opposition to it.
Besides some advertising, he also has organized some church groups to inform residents in their area of the arguments against the liquor-in-restaurants issue. These groups are passing out bumper stickers and pamphlets that describe the possible problems that may result if it is legalized.
"The ORDINARY drinker who says 'I would like to have a glass of wine with my meat' probably does not realize the impact of that desire," Taylor said. "Liquor by the drink will put more alcohol-impaired drivers on our streets, and abuse, and will lead to more alcoholism in our state. Is having a drink with your meal worth it?"
Facts in support of these statements were hard to obtain, he said, but he added that according to research done in Canada and Great Britain, the more alcohol a society uses, the more alcohol-related problems there were.
Taylor did say, however, that according to reports from Single State Alcoholism Authorities in 1977, there were three alcohics per 100 people in the total population age 15 and older in Kansas, compared to the national average of seven.
THE ECONOMIC LOSS resulting from alcohol consumption amounted to $42.7 billion in 1975 according to HEW figures, he said, and added that for that year the sales in the same year, four dollars were taken from the public to solve alcohol-related problems.
Although other arguments for liquor by the drink in restaurants have been that it will bring more conventions to the state and a reduction of taxes, Taylor said people have stopped using these reasons because they realized that they were not necessarily
He said the most common argument for liqueur at the drum now was that a person had been knocked down by someone else.
But Taylor strongly disagrees. "You don't have the power to drive a car, you don't have the power to drive a car, it's a private property."
THE REASON IS because anything that causes social damage, society has a right to change.
"You don't have a constitutional right to drink alcohol. The states permit it."
The liquor-in-restaurants bill was passed by legislators last spring. Taylor said he was disappointed, that it was passed because the governor said that alcohol pushers have been victorious."
"When lawmakers are constantly wined and dined by 21 registered liquor lobbyists, you can understand why they pass legislation favoring the liquor industry." Taylor said.
He said that those who have lobbied for liquor in restaurants over the past years have represented motel owners, liquor distributors and restaurants, and not the public at large.
THE REASON for this is simple for Taylor; money. He said these groups would benefit most by liquor in restaurants because it will mean more income for them.
he also said that many of the businessmen with these groups were more concerned with the issue's potential economic benefits than with the fact that might result from increased consumption.
Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality:
The Court may review the case later this month.
Although he was not sure how the Court would rule, he did say that the justices would have to reverse a decision made in a 1965 case.
Taylor still has one more hope left if counties pass the issue Nov. 7. The Kansas
IN THAT CASE, Ti-State Motel v. L.
滨 holmore, the Court ruled against the open
saloon. Taylor said the courts usually followed precedent, and added, "It is a question of law, and the judges will have to decide the basis of the law, and not how they
"We are going to do our best to keep
atchol consumption as low as possible," he said.
If we defeat liquor by the drink, we don't gain anything, but we are back to where we were.
"I would rather be defeated working for
a company than victorious working
for more problems."
QUALITY CAR STEREO COMES TO LAWRENCE
No matter what the outcome, Taylor has been working hard to inform the public of any changes.
AUTOMATIC RADIO
Clarion
Corporation of America
843-9030
BRIGHTER ROADS INC. CAR ENTERTAINMENT CENTER IS THE INTELLIGENT WAY TO SHOP FOR QUALITY CAR STEREO.
Brighter Roads
1420 W. 23rd next to Taco Bell
The Rev. Richard Taylor
County vote may end liquor controversy
By JOHN FISCHER Staff Reporter
Whether or not to serve liquor by the drink in restaurants has become a social, economic and political issue in Kansas this year. A study by the University of Kansas found
Posing with a wine list, you are invited to inquire in the 45 of 100 Kansas county will vote on whether to allow iniquor by the drink in restaurants that obtain at least 25% of the revenue.
least 50 percent of their revenue from local sales.
However, although the issue may be passed, a final ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court on whether the law is constitutional remains to be made.
masters to set the stage.
The question of whether restaurants should be permitted to serve ice cream in the drink, and all of its related controversies, began last spring when it was passed by the Kansas Legislature in the House and Senate.
and Senate.
The liquor bill faced little opposition in passing through the Legislature, mainly because it was done late at night and many politicians were off the floor of the House.
The controversy concerning the issue increased when the question was asked whether the bill was constitutional. According to Kansas constitution, open saloons are prohibited in the state.
a institution, open to students in an attempt to make it constitutional when legislators reconvened during a three day period in April to complete unfinished business.
April to complete his job. The amended bill was that residents of each county in the state would have the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted liquor by the drink in their restaurants. But for the public to vote, the question first had to be placed on a ballot.
For this to be done, those supporting liquer in restaurants in the various counties had to obtain the signatures of 5 percent of the county's registered voters. The issue would then be placed on a ballot to be voted on by the people in those counties.
to be voted on by the people
Another problem rose in the wording of the original bill.
A problem rose in the wording of the bill. The bill said that restaurants would have been allowed to serve liquor by the drink where more than 50 percent of their revenue was from food sales.
Many legislators and politicians were upset because this could mean that a person didn't have to buy a meal to have a few drinks. Many thought this would be considered an open saloon.
Many thought this wound be considered an appropriate
However, the bill was changed by legislators so that it provides
for the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants, but only with the
purchase of a meal.
Gov. Robert F. Bennett allowed the bill to become law in May without his signature because of the claims that the bill was still unconstitutional. He said it was a question for the courts to answer, and not the legislative branch of government.
Despite the changes made by legislators, there is still the question of whether the law is constitutional. Last spring, Curt
Earlier this fall, the Court agreed to take the case, and they have set a tentative date of Oct. 27 for the review.
Schneider, attorney general, requested that the Kansas Supreme Court review the law.
set a tentative deadline. While some citizens are optimistic that the Court will rule in favor of new law, others have their doubts because the justices will have to reverse a precedent set in 1965 when the Court ruled against open saloons.
Although the Court may review the case starting on Oct. 27, Jess Santulauria, owner of the Eldridge House Dining Room and Club, and head of the drive to put the liquor by the drink issue on the balloon bridge, a judge who would wait in the field of November before releasing his decision.
If an opinion is not reached until after the Nov. 7 election, Attorney General Schneider may ask the justices to grant an injunction to prohibit the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants until the Court makes a decision.
The reason for this, he has said, is so that licenses issued to restaurants before the ruling would not have to be returned if the restaurant was found to be unlicensed.
But there are still problems with the law besides whether it is constitutional. Among those are: what constitutes a meal; does the person have to eat the meal to drink; how will restaurants be licensed; and what will be the regulations.
Tom Kenney, director of the Alcohol Board of Control, said that many of these problems would be taken care of when guidelines are made.
Kennedy said there were some plan for what would be the regulations, but he said there has been nothing permanent. He said some temporary rules would be made around Nov. 7 in case restaurants are allowed to serve liquor by the drink.
To aid in enforcing the regulations, he said the ABC would probably expand its workforce to about 14 more people. He said this would not cause any major problems in the budget for the department.
The Rev. Richard Taylor, president of the Kansas Dry Forces, is leading groups and organizations in opposition to liquor by the
He said he is opposed to the issue because he said it will mean more consumption, and consequently, more alcohol related problems, such as an increase in highway deaths due to drunken drivers, an increase in alcoholism, and more cases of child abuse.
The liquor-in-restaurants question will be on the ballot in Douglas County on Nov. 7.
Santanularia, head of the drive to put the issue on the county bailiffs, told the county council will sit since the age was lowered to 18 years old.
It is not sure how the question will turn out in the other counties.
1