[nickkthequick]

I find that more of a negative interpretation.

The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together. Here he managed to outline the positives and negatives of both cases. If his view of whiskey's positives and negatives line up with yours, perhaps he understands and feels about the issue the same way you do and might make the decision that you would make in the same position. If not, you actually don't like his stance on the issue.

I think it's more interesting to consider the concept he isolates, though, and it's bothersome that we can so cleanly map the concept he considers to issues we have today.

[jonnathanson]

"The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together."

Yes, but often politicians and public figures aren't given that choice. In this case, the man in question was either a judge or a lawyer at the time, and it seems likely that he was being asked or compelled to weigh in on the issue. His speech was a way of satisfying the weigh-in requirement without taking a controversial stance.