Issue date: 8/2/07 Section: Opinion

My first swig of malt liquor followed a moment of trepidation, my eyes scanning the Olde English label then shifting to the golden brew. This was a new drink for me - suspiciously cheap - and I now wish I had honored the old adage: You get what you pay for.

But those were also new times: a new city, new school, new friends. And some of those new friends were veterans of the 40; a few were even whole-hearted advocates.

Thus began a year of devouring that vile beverage, navigating campus under its influence, bonding with hallmates through mutual intoxication and learning first-hand that it tastes as bad coming up as it does going down.

Those days have passed, and I haven't touched malt liquor since freshman year. Yet I now find myself in the odd position of defending it.

This week, U.S. Congressman Bob Brady - known most recently for his failed attempt to capture the 2007 Democratic mayoral nomination in Philadelphia - lashed out against Colt 45 advertisements on two SEPTA busses.

Brady claims that, "given our rising epidemic of violence, [SEPTA's] promotion of especially dangerous malt liquor is extraordinarily counterproductive. Through these ads, SEPTA is effectively condoning malt liquor sales and consumption throughout Philadelphia."

Taken on its face, this statement is somewhat baffling. Does Brady posses evidence of Colt 45's "especially dangerous" qualities?

Is he seriously chastising cash-strapped SEPTA for advertising a legal product, for which a market exists, in an effort to generate revenue?

Still, his arguments must have been somewhat convincing, since SEPTA announced yesterday it would discontinue the ads.

Which means that people are buying into Brady's notion that there is a relationship between "our rising epidemic of violence" and "malt liquor sales and consumption throughout Philadelphia."

This suggestion echoes a battle that's been raging for quite a while.

A battle between what's known as a "stop-'n'-go" - a store that is permitted to sell take-out alcohol, usually located in areas of the city with the highest crime rates - and individuals who want the city to revoke stop-'n'-go licenses to sell alcohol.

These individuals say that, because the establishments sell malt liquor and beer, they inevitably attract unsavory and often violent patrons.

Surprisingly, not all sales of alcoholic beverages have gotten Brady's blood boiling.

The Congressman has yet to speak up about the plastering of SEPTA bus ads for Center City Sips, a weekly happy hour special that attracts a very different clientele than the stop-'n'-gos of Philly's rougher neighborhoods.

There must be something special about malt liquor, something "especially dangerous" that you cannot find in the whiskies and gins of Center City.

One thing is certain: It's not the alcohol content.

It's clear that it's not just the substance that matters to Brady - it's the consumer. It's the assumption that malt liquor intake is more prevalent among the poorer, more violent and predominantly African-American stratum of the Philadelphia citizenry.

It's the assumption that malt liquor plays a role in violent acts. And it's the assumption that many Philadelphians are incapable of regulating their own intake of a legal substance.

The implication, of course, is that Brady and the government are somehow wiser when it comes to matters of individual consumption. I think more highly of the citizenry and find Brady's position both condescending and baseless.

But let's assume his assumptions hold weight. If alcohol consumption, malt liquor specifically, is correlated with violence in Philadelphia, and if individuals are irresponsible and act criminally while under the influence, how does removing a couple of ads address the problem?

If laws are being broken by individuals under the influence of any substance, why distribute the punishment to the corporations, stop-'n'-go owners (often immigrants depending on their small businesses) and SEPTA patrons?

This is clearly a law enforcement issue: If an irresponsible drinker breaks the law, the government should and must enforce that law.

Until an individual breaks the law, the government and Brady should recognize an individual's position as a citizen capable of making sound decisions.

And if Brady feels so certain that malt liquor consumption is a major cause of Philadelphia's crime problem, why not bring prohibition to the city?

The 21st Amendment opens up that option - and if Brady were able to make his case, would citizens be willing to give up their drinks to solve the city's crime problem?

I doubt it.

Brady said he would find alternative advertisers for SEPTA if they ended their contract with Colt 45.

If only he were so eager to help SEPTA raise money without the absurd insistence on a rhetorical spectacle that undermines the dignity of the city's malt liquor lovers.

Now that's something I'd drink to.

---

Josh Stanfield is a College junior from Poquoson, Va. His e-mail address is stanfiel@sas.upenn.edu.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools