Criticism, when offered thoughtfully, sharpens understanding. To those who have engaged earnestly with our case against alcohol sales in Lucedale, we extend gratitude. Below, let’s address common counterarguments with biblical fidelity and empirical clarity, guided by the conviction that truth flourishes in respectful dialogue.
1. “Jesus turned water into wine. Doesn’t that justify drinking?”
The references to Jesus turning water into wine as justification for contemporary alcohol consumption is a common misconception. It overlooks important contextual elements, sometimes incidentally and other times deliberately. Yes, Jesus did perform this miracle at the wedding in Cana (in John Chapter 2), but using this singular event to justify modern liquor regulations deliberately overlooks the multitude of verses on alcohol in the Bible.
Furthermore, if we’re using Jesus’s water-to-wine miracle as justification for drinking, it’s worth noting that wine is already legally available for purchase in Lucedale. The current debate concerns liquor, not wine. If one could find actual water-based wine like the miraculous kind from the Bible, that would indeed be remarkable. And should one find non-alcoholic wine made from water, I would fully support consumption of as much as desired.
2. “Some Baptists drink secretly. Why not legalize it for everyone?”
Human failing does not sanctify harmful choices. That some individuals privately sin (Romans 3:23) does not obligate communities to institutionalize that sin. By this logic, should we legalize theft because some shoplift? The Bible says: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). Legalizing liquor sales would normalize a behavior even its secret practitioners acknowledge as destructive. By the way, data corroborates this: Communities transitioning from dry to wet see 29% spikes in binge drinking [CDC, 2024]. The solution to hypocrisy is repentance, not complicity.
3. “Beer is allowed in the city, cannabis in the county. Why oppose liquor?”
Inconsistency in current policies is not a mandate for further error. A leaking roof does not justify arson. Mississippi’s 24% alcohol-involved traffic fatalities [Bankrate, 2025] and $2.27 billion annual alcohol-related costs [CDC, 2024] demonstrate the folly of compounding regulatory failures. Lucedale’s choice is not between perfection and pragmatism but between incremental harm and principled restraint.
4. “Tax revenue will help schools and services.”
As explained in the first article, this argument collapses under scrutiny. For every $1 gained from alcohol sales, communities lose $2.60 in healthcare, policing, and productivity costs [CDC, 2024]. Schools, far from benefiting, face cascading crises.
Just to name a few:
- Absenteeism: Children in alcohol-impacted homes miss 18% more school days.
- Behavioral Issues: Students with alcohol-dependent parents are 2.5x more likely to face disciplinary action [NIH, 2023].
- Resource Drain: Funds earmarked for education often redirect to addiction counseling and security.
The list of troubles for children and their relationship to school is extensive. The reality is, invoking tax revenue as justification for liquor sales deliberately ignores the existing data and the word of God. From a revenue perspective, it is harmful, not helpful.
5. “People will drink anyway. Why not focus on meth or bullying?”
This objection mistakes deterrence for futility. While no law eliminates sin, wise governance minimizes harm. Restricting liquor sales reduces accessibility, particularly to minors—a fact supported by 18% lower underage drinking rates in dry counties [SAMHSA, 2023].
Furthermore, alcohol’s normalization exacerbates other issues. Studies link alcohol availability to increased meth use (as both substances often coexist in polydrug abuse) and bullying (via eroded community cohesion). Addressing one toxin does not preclude combating others. An article about liquor should be expected to deal with the realities of liquor. Ideas exist in a context, and one would expect an article expressing those ideas to do the same.
6. To Those Who Disagree Respectfully
To the many who have voiced dissent without derision: Thank you. Civic discourse thrives when grounded in mutual respect. Our shared goal—a flourishing Lucedale—transcends policy disagreements. We can continue to weigh evidence, test assumptions, and seek common good without personal attacks. If you drink liquor, I disagree with you, but I do not hate you. When discussing that topic, I will be honest with you and rely on my biblical perspective. Disagreement should not equate to hatred, we can have spirited discussion, then shake hands.
Conclusion: The Cost of Convenience
Modern man often conflates license for liberty. Lucedale’s decision is not merely about alcohol but about what we value: fleeting convenience or enduring wholeness.
Scripture urges: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Data warns of alcohol’s 400% higher addiction risk for children in affected homes [CDC, 2024]. Together, they compel me to reject liquor sales—not out of religiosity, but informed by scripture and hard data. Personally, I prefer a Lucedale where families thrive, unburdened by preventable harm.
Pastor Thomas Irvin
George County Baptist Church
Lucedale, Mississippi
References
- CDC (2024): Alcohol-related economic costs and health impacts.
- Bankrate (2025): Mississippi traffic fatality statistics.
- NIH (2023): Studies on alcohol’s impact on education and behavior.
- SAMHSA (2023): Underage drinking rates in dry vs. wet counties.
