Because I've spent most of the day disagreeing with others, I thought I'd continue the trend. Cedar Pundit agrees with this Press Citizen article which points out that while it's fine and dandy to ban alcohol at the Coralville Reservoir beaches, it makes little sense to do so when allowing alcohol on the boats. I agree that one without the other makes little sense, but question the beach ban altogether.



Specifically, I'm wondering about this: "Granted, during the past decade none of the seven drownings at Coralville Lake have been related to alcohol or drugs. But must we always wait until someone dies before taking action?"



Huh? I keep hearing this touted as a safety measure considering the recent drownings as in the Daily Iowan "Two drownings and a volume of complaints about rowdy behavior at the beaches last summer persuaded the corps to ban alcohol this year. . ." If none of the deaths were alcohol-related, wouldn't it be better to figure out how they could have been prevented? It just seems that alcohol is being banned as a catch-all solution, and I don't take well to banning anything without some real reason behind it. OWI laws were enacted after we showed drunk drivers caused accidents. Otherwise, I'd disagree with them as well. If there are underage kids out there, prosecute them for PAULA. If people get intoxicated and annoying, cite them for public intox or disorderly conduct. But absent a showing that a flat out ban would actually accomplish something, I don't like giving up yet another right simply because it sounds good.