Allow me a selfish moment.
I’ve grown weary of advocating for causes that may be good for society as a whole, but don’t benefit me at all. When some issue I’ve supported in this column finally achieves its moment of victory, I’m often left with an empty feeling because I have no interest in taking advantage of whatever change I’ve helped effect.
For instance, marijuana. It was never my drug of choice back in the days when I was choosing among outlawed pharmaceuticals. Now that it’s on the verge of becoming legal – a move I strongly support – I still won’t be inhaling.
Likewise, same-sex marriage. I think everybody should be able to marry whomever they like. For me, that would be Meredith Vieira or Emmylou Harris. Or, possibly, Meredith Vieira and Emmylou Harris. Unfortunately, the new law has done nothing to facilitate my efforts.
I’m strongly in favor of the right of law-abiding citizens to buy and own guns. But I don’t possess any of my own. The same lifelong lack of eye-hand coordination that prevented me from hitting breaking balls renders me incapable of using a firearm to hit anything smaller than Godzilla.
When it comes to abortion, I’m firmly pro-choice. But for obvious reasons, I’ll never have to brave the gauntlet of rabid pro-lifers outside Planned Parenthood’s Portland office to get one. Nor will Meredith or Emmylou. Or my actual wife.
I’m resolute in my support of small farmers in their efforts to sell unpasteurized milk and other dairy products on their farms without unnecessary government regulation. But if they ever win this fight, it won’t affect me. It’s not that I’m lactose intolerant. It’s that I’m lactose indifferent. My annual consumption of moo juice wouldn’t keep one cow’s teat busy.
I’m happy that the courts are finally easing restrictions on political donations, because I think those rules stifle free speech. On the other hand, before I’d give any cash to a candidate, I’d sooner shred it to make litter boxes for wharf rats.
And I’ve already disparaged all three gubernatorial candidates, which means the best I can hope for after the November election is to be 33 percent disappointed.
So, just this once, I’d like to devote this space to a cause that, if successful, would have a positive impact on me. To that end, I’ve formed a group called the Freedom of Liquor Acquisition and Storage Koalition, also known as F.L.A.S.K. (yeah, I know: Worst. Acronym. Ever.).
You might not realize it, but while it’s legal to carry a gun in Maine (either openly or, with a permit, concealed), putting a flask containing an alcoholic beverage in your hip pocket is against the law. The cops consider it to be the same as walking around in public with an open bottle of booze. This ill-considered statute turns a sizable segment of the population into lawbreakers, even though there’s never been a study showing any correlation between flask ownership and criminal activity. There’s even some indication that the opposite may be true.
“Using a flask properly is about quiet sophistication and softening the edges of a tough world with stolen moments among friends and reminding yourself that you’re a man who drinks real booze,” wrote Michael A. Lubarsky on the website AskMen.com.
F.L.A.S.K. will advocate for returning this noble container to the legal status it has enjoyed throughout most of human history, when it was considered essential for both travel and leisure. Stone Age people cured animal skins with beeswax to carry wine and mead. Ceramic flasks showed up about 4,000 years ago. Wood, glass and metal versions soon followed, leading to modern vessels made of composites and stainless steel. For centuries, devices for carrying distilled spirits were necessary because the water supply was often befouled with waste products, rendering it undrinkable. Also, having a little hooch handy helped ease tensions in periods when newcomers were usually greeted with suspicion.
As Frank Kelly Rich put it in Modern Drunkard magazine (no, I’m not making that up), “[The flask] is a powerful talisman for repelling prudes you shouldn’t waste your time with, and attracting bon vivants you definitely want to know. It provides the grease, clandestinely applied, that lets you slide eel-like through tight, uncomfortable and tedious situations. It is a discrete source of strength when you’re under the yoke and a great yawp of joy when you’re running free.”
After all these years of supporting conservatives (gun rights, campaign donations), liberals (women’s rights, marriage equality), libertarians (pot, germ-laden milk) and other fanatics (whichever of the gubernatorial candidates you hate the most), I think it’s reasonable to ask these disparate factions to unite in helping F.L.A.S.K. Support my right to lawfully carry a little something to get me through legislative hearings, candidate news conferences and encounters with verbose nutters.
If you do, I might even share.
Toasts to my cause can be emailed to aldiamon@herniahill.net.
Here’s something even crazier:
I recently inquired at Hannaford’s supermarkets as to why they required proof of age when purchasing non-alcoholic beer. I sincerely thank the Dawn Cable at Hannafords for her polite, courteous reply.
This is the reply I received:
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:
I am writing you in response to your inquiry regarding the O’Douls products, and the policies surrounding non-alcoholic beverages. I sincerely apologize for the delay in responding. I have learned that under Section 705 of Title 28-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, a customer must be at least 21 to purchase any beverage with any percentage of alcohol (Including so-called “Imitation liquors” that contain less than .5% alcohol). Therefore, a cashier must card a customer that he or she believes falls under our carding requirements even when that customer is purchasing O’Douls or similar beverages. Additionally, under Section 1901 titled “Restrictions on Sale of Food Containing Liquor” it specifically states “This section does not apply to the sale of food flavorings, such as vanilla extract or lemon extract, or other similar articles commonly used for cooking or flavoring which contain alcohol, but are not intended to be consumed as beverages”. The Maine Liquor Statutes are silent regarding cough syrups. I truly hope this information is helpful. Thank you for contacting Hannaford. If we can further assist you, Mr. XXXXXX, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Sincerely,
Dawn Cable
Consumer Relations Research Specialist
In other words, if underage people wanted to drink responsibly, by consuming non-alcoholic beer, they can’t legally buy it. They CAN legally buy and drink vanilla extract or cough syrup.
Assuming that the non-alcoholic brews even had as much as the .5% alcohol, a person would have to drink 17 bottles of it to consume one ounce of alcohol. Over 4 six packs in order to drink the equivalent of one shot of straight alcohol. One little bottle of vanilla extract has nearly that much alcohol.
Does this make any sense?
correction, the math at the end is wrong, 17, 12 ounce bottles of course is closer to 3 six packs.
I must have drank too many O’Doul’s there towards the end of my calculations!
The rest of it is accurate.
The flask has now switched to the Red Solo Cup!!! You can find them at any place that starts or ends with the work party!!
We used to be able to stumble about the streets drinking from a paper bag. Now paper bags are an endagered species. Plastic bags just doesn’t provide the same amount of concealment. I say, “Save the paper bag!”
Thank God they haven’t outlawed Mouthwash, a little pricey but a good buzz nonetheless.
Whooooa. This all good phun. But Al, you’ll never be slapped with a gauntlet while accompanying your woman of choice (or man), You might still be required to “run the gantlet” (note the spelling of the word you meant), however. No hot coals or clubs involved in these gantlets, just lots of screaming. I do have several flasks, but I won’t comment on the weaponry.