States of Intoxication
Email This Post
Print This Post
Monthly, Men’s Health magazine tallies cites by a certain attribute, ranking the 100 largest bergs in America.
This month, it is booze and Men’s Health statisticians have obviously been drinking themselves.
Foremost is the fact that Boston somehow bottomed the list, allegedly less alcoholic than Colorado Springs. A city littered with Irish who long suffered under Teddy Kennedy cannot possibly be more sober than Seattle, where the cold and rain keep people far from bars. I have had the experience of visiting Boston more than once, and I’m unsure I met anyone unblitzed. Not even the nuns.
If we assume that the rest of Men’s Staggering List is anywhere near accurate, one oddity emerges from the failed city side of the roster. The ten most intoxicated towns have three entries each from Texas and California (and strangely, my San Francisco is not on the list, which clearly means I need to work harder). Granted, California and Texas are big places with even bigger egos, so they each have statically better chances for bad behavior. Yet for 2/50ths of the states to claim 6/10ths of the Drunks Hall of Fame not only bends the curve, it ties it into a neat little knot.
Of course we need to judge each city by its individual ethos.
Getting drunk in Fresno needs no explanation – it is the only alternative to experiencing Fresno. Riverside, on the other hand, is so boring that imbibing might be the only way to feel anything, if regurgitation is a feeling. California’s last detox destination is Bakersfield, which at least has the advantage of being further away from Hollywood than Riverside. One would think the sobriety quotient would thus kick Bakersfield off the rummy roster. But it has been said that Bakersfield combines the worst elements of So Cal, the desert and Sierra hillbillies, so perhaps Bakersfield has a corrupt city-wide gene pool.
Texas, never to be out done, shoved Lubbock, Austin and San Antonio onto the chart. San Antonio simply makes no sense, aside from being pouty because Houston blocks their view of New Orleans. The town is simply too tidy to tipple totally. Lubbock, being a cheaper version of Bakersfield, gives reason to suckle bottles, but not much more. Austin is infinitely more understandable. The town is the live music capital of America, and has more open bars than anyplace outside of New Orleans, and with equally good music. It is also a left-of-center city in a right-of-Reagan state, so it suffers from isolation syndrome and needs a good belt … hourly. Worse still, Austin is the state capital, and as Ray Wylie Hubbard sang in his tune Screw You, We’re From Texas, their “politicians are swindlers and loco.” Such a high concentration of elected sleaze will drive any populace to partake.
The other three non-Texas and Non-California cities make and don’t make much sense. There’s nothing wrong with Tucson, Arizona that moving it to Phoenix wouldn’t fix. Reno, Nevada is perpetually drunk, but then again is was designed precisely for that purpose. That leaves Billings, Montana. Having 34 square miles and a mere 104,000 people means you have drive somewhere just to see other humans aside from those that live with you. Given what winter in Montana is like, you may be stuck with your family all season long, which now that I think about it is a swell reason to swill.
Comments