text: Va. Senate To State: Put A Cork In It, Folks - tribunedigital-dailypress
  January 21, 2001|By TONY GABRIELE Daily Press
  Sad to say, but some people are in the habit of drinking while they drive. They go cruising around in the pickup with beer bottle in hand and another at the ready, and I'm sure you know what kind of awful situation that can lead to.
  That's right, sometimes the jerks toss the empties out the window onto the street in front of my house, dang it. Among other situations.
  So I read with interest the news from Richmond, where the state Senate has approved a bill that would make it illegal to have an open container of alcoholic beverage in your vehicle. It makes no never-mind if it's the driver drinking, or a passenger, or nobody; if the law pulls you over and your top's been popped or your screw-cap unscrewed, it would cost you $25.
  Debate was lively over this bill, according to what I read. One opponent protested that this law would make it illegal for the ladies of his Episcopal church to carry an already-opened bottle of wine to or from church for the communion service, as is the custom.
  I don't know if this is a grave objection, though. Episcopalian altar guild ladies probably never get to experience the forbidden thrill of being a lawbreaker, so this could add a little excitement to their Sundays. ("Jump in the Buick and lay low, Florence! We got to dodge The Man on the way to church!")
  The bill, which still has to be approved by the state House, does say that the hootch would be legal if it's stashed away in the trunk or locked in the glove compartment. It seems, though, that this provides an out for the resourceful tippler, if he's able to take advantage of it:
  DRIVER: "We got a blue flasher behind us! Quick, toss that Jim Beam in the glove box and lock it!"
  PASSENGER: "Dang, I can't close it up! It's already too full of empties!"
  But the most intriguing argument against the bill was made by one state senator, who said it would prevent him and his wife from sharing a bottle of wine while they were parked on the side of a deserted road.
  This scenario needs to be explored further. For that purpose, let us imagine a hypothetical state senator out for a drive in the country with his hypothetical wife.
  Our hypothetical senator has brought along a nice bottle of Beaujolais, cooling in the ice bucket on the passenger-side floor between his wife's feet. Over to the side of the road he spies a shady spot, and they park.
  The cork is popped, and soon the couple is having a pleasant time. Maybe singing a chorus of "Drinkin' wine, spodee-odee, drinkin' wine," maybe commenting on how the wine's piquant bouquet marries well with the aroma of slowly cooling engine block.
  And now, even if you are not a hypothetical senator, if you go parking on a deserted road and plying your wife with vino, it just may be that you have some additional recreation in mind, you rascal you.
  So then you will try to persuade your wife to get in the back seat with you, like you hadn't done since you were newlyweds. If you are successful, it is likely you will remain parked for a goodly amount of time, and hopefully any effects of the alcohol will wear off.
  On the other hand, a wine-plied woman might just as likely announce that now, as a result of the wine, she has to visit the powder room. These are few and far between on deserted country roads. You might helpfully point out that there are some thick, concealing shrubs about, but some women just don't want to do that. So you have to get back in the front seat and drive to the nearest service station, and so much for your romantic tryst.
  Still, I suppose we have to discourage people from drinking and driving. Even if it means the law might occasionally thwart some tender scene of wedded senatorial side-of-the-road bliss.
  Also, there are probably some people who, while driving around with a beer can in hand, will decide at some point that they have to use the other hand to hold their cell phone. Now, that's scary.
  It was surprising, though, that I didn't read of any opponent raising what might be the strongest argument against this bill. How many guys, driving along and contemplating the half-empty bottle in the paper sack on the seat next to them, might think: I'll get fined if they catch me with a half-emptied bottle. So why don't I just finish off the whole thing?