It's a debate as old as Texas, well at least as old as Prohibition and it now appears they're even wondering what in the heck we're doin' here over in California. The LA Times did a piece on the ethical conundrum that's been a topic of conversation since I've lived here and it's I'm just going to assume long before.

The LA Times wrote: "East Texas had stayed largely dry for decades, shielded from change by a curtain of pine forest and Southern Baptists who saw no need to repeal Prohibition. Caney City was among the first towns in Henderson County to go wet more than four decades ago. At the time, it was considered an oasis, among the few wet spots for miles around in what amounted to a drinker's desert."

As for me I vote wet. I see alcohol sales as a way to stimulate local economies and I certainly don't buy the argument alcohol sales lead to higher crime rates. I do however see it cutting down on drinking and driving, ya know to and from the liquor stores. But that's just what I think, what do you think East Texas?