License to Drink

Stopping in a bar for a cold one is something we don’t think twice about until we get home and face the wife. It is a simple pleasure that we just do after our workday. What never enters our minds is the fact that we need a license to drink. Merchants need one to sell and yes, we need one to consume. Prior to the introduction of the photo ID, the LCB issued cards that showed that you were of legal age. If you did not have one you did not drink. The state dropped them like an empty wine bottle after the DOT rolled out the new driver’s licenses with your mug shot on the front. That, along with a passport, non-driver ID or military ID is what allows you to sip, slurp or slide shots down the old pipe. Under the law, a bartender can deny you service, no matter your age, if you can’t produce an ID. So far it is not a problem but I see trouble coming to River City.

With advances to technology I see the day coming when you will have your ID swiped and information stored on it as to what you bought AND paid for. Should you get pulled over at a checkpoint your card can be read and you questioned about your bar bill. Years ago the State of Utah required all spirit bottles be hard-wired to a computer. When a shot is poured a signal goes out to the LCB and they know what their take is from a bar or restaurant. No freebies there. More on this here.

Other systems are in place that monitors the volume of booze coming out of bottles as shown by Ali Baba.

A story in the news illustrates just how microchips are being forced into our daily lives. Local governments are placing chips in recycle bins and read by local authorities. Should you not recycle the chip will squeal on you and you will be sent a fine. Along with this utilities are installing smart meters that read your power consumption by the minute and soon by the appliance.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but all of this is disconcerting. Back in my father’s day my mum monitored his drinking. Now I am looking for the day when government is going count my shots for me. We may not be able to stop it but at least they can buy a round, now and then.

Accused of Drinking - Don't do it

This story came out a few days ago and I can’t believe what I read. Some of the statements are so unbelievable that I have to comment. A woman, Cynthia Angel, on a Delta flight thought she smelled alcohol on the pilot when he talked to her and three other passengers. This concerned their delay in departure. After the pilot walked away the four passengers all thought he had an alcoholic odor. The woman told a flight attendant about this and as none of the other passengers spoke up or defended this woman all that she said was hearsay evidence. But the pilot was checked and found to be safe. Staff talked to the woman but not to the others. Why they were not approached is not surprising, as you can’t ask someone what they may have said to others. But none of then ever offered testimony. The woman was eventually asked to leave the plane and take another flight. Apparently the pilot, who was also the captain order her off the plane. She claims that she was told that Delta takes these accusations seriously.

Attorney Mark Silverman was interviewed by NBC for their report and he said: "She was just trying to be a good citizen. You'd think Delta would thank her for her concern," What he said seems like a common sense reply to what occurred.

What Mr. Ross Aimer, CEO of Aviation Experts said was bull-crap. "Making drinking accusations against pilots is a serious matter," Yes it is. "If you think someone is drunk, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones and other passengers to report it," (Yes you do) said Aimer, who is also a retired United Airlines captain. "However, in this case, because the captain had not been drinking, Delta made the right decision by asking her to leave the plane." Bull-Crap. Mr. Angel had good intentions. It is not like she pretended to have a bomb in her purse.

Let’s look at it this way. Who in his or her right mind would ever accuse anyone in an airline uniform of being drunk? If Ms. Angel did the right thing why was she reprimanded? The pilot being proven not to be drunk is not the issue. The issue is that someone saw something that could have led to a bad event and did something about it. I don’t think she out and out accused the pilot of being drunk. She thought something was suspicious. I know that I am mincing words here but the flight attendant could have said talked to the pilot and determined if there was an alcohol smell. I would like to say that if he made it on the plane he was ok. But I have seen in the news how drunken pilots have been taken off of planes. You don’t retaliate against someone based on the outcome of an investigation like this occurrence.

Let me just say this; if I ever see a drunk speeding through a school zone at 3 pm, don’t expect me to call the police. I wouldn’t want to get myself in trouble. After all, drinking and driving is a serious matter. I may have my license suspended if I am wrong.

South Side Drinking Problems

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran this story in the Sunday edition concerning the drinking problem on Pittsburgh’s South Side. This August 1, 2010 article looked at how some bar owners are trying to “solve” the problem. Owners are aware that patrons and non patrons alike are causing problems for residents who are at their whit’s end. Mr. Adam DeSimone, owner of Diesel Club Lounge was interviewed by Joe Smydo of the Post and was quoted several times for the story. I would like to add me 2 shots to the discussion.

The South Side

The South Side is a residential area that has a large business and commercial district that has co-existed for decades. In the 1980’s after the mills shut down the stores on Carson Street closed and we became a dust bowl community. Efforts were made to revitalize the area and it was successful, depending on your point of view. The old furniture stores, grocers and butchers never came back but bars and restaurants did. With them came people from outside the community who brought their cars. Parking became a problem and although there were some other problems this was the major concern in the 1980’s.

This has manifested into epic proportions as the older residents moved or died and their home sold to developers. As property values were inexpensive at the time homes became apartments. This attracted students who now make a major component of residents. With them came their cars and what was a big problem became even bigger. Still, the South Side has long-term families with children and an assortment of multi-legged pets.

The List of Problems

Mr. DeSimone acknowledged that there are problems, BUT (are you reading this Jim Quinn?) "I think there are fewer problems than what has been reported." Retort from Ed: Bull Shit. There are many problems that never make it to the papers. Parking not withstanding, there is the breaking of car windows and mirrors, Keying of cars, breaking of house windows, electric meters pulled from walls, trees and plants being up-rooted, blocking driveways, fire hydrants and stop signs crosswalks. Men and women doing No. 1 and No. 2 in the streets is probably equal the purging of stomach contents. I can see this in the gutter but why would you do this on somebody’s front steps? Steps are a favorite spot to place empty bottles and broken glass, by-the-way. The list can go one and I have not even touched the noise made at three in the morning. But my favorite social activity is watching girls change tampons in the street. Yes Mr. DeSimone, this is not reported because it is not supposed to be. Note to Post Gazette; why not publish the name and offence of those arrested in your “police blotter” that you have done in the past?

Many people, including some police officers have said it residents who obey the law (we) do not like what those who disobey the law (them) do in their (we = our) community then we should move. That is morally and intellectually empty. If a meth lab opens for business next to an elementary school, should (a) the neighbors move, (b) try and get rid of the lab or (c) not report it in the news and pretend it is not a big problem? Do I really need to give you the correct answer?

Bar Owners

I can’t say that I hold bar owners responsible for our problems. They don’t want problems in their bars and they can’t control people outside on public ways. I also think it is unfair to blame others for the actions of people actually doing something wrong. Who is responsible when people get drunk at sports events and do damage on their way home? Who is responsible when a fleeing bank robber crashes into parked cars? Actually the police did tell me it was my responsibility. People should be held accountable for their own actions. But getting back to bar owners. Despite the fact that they no longer live here they do have to contend with us and it is better to work on friendly terms. The story in the paper said that eleven bars and clubs are putting in $60,000 for added police presence and weekend clean-up duty. This is good. There are other bars currently cleaning beyond their front door and many other shop owners clean their property as well. The problem is that there is just too much litter and not all of it from the night crowd. I see people at all hours of the day simply toss trash on the street like yesterday’s news. Sorry about that Post; figure of speech. So no, not all of the problems are bar-generated. This brings us to the students.

The Students

Many of the people causing problems here are not students. Many of the students living here are respectful people and are trying to fit in to the community in which they live. As renters they do not have pride of ownership and that could be a problem but by and large I think students may be taking a bigger hit than they should. They have added to the population of the South Side and they brought a lot more cars than we had in the past BUT (forgive me Mr. Quinn) they have that right. Some young people do indeed cause problems but just like everyone they need to be held accountable.

Safety

Mr. DeSimone said in the Post article that if the neighborhood isn't safe, no one's going to come. What does this have to do with the story about cleanup? It is still perceived that the South Side is safe. To some degree it is but late at night the crime rate has changed since I was a young lad. It was the low crime rate and the ease of walking Carson Street that made bar hopping popular in the first place. People could park and walk for blocks with little to fear. It is still this way for small groups of people but single people do make an easy target. As the popularity of the nightlife brings in more people with spending money so follows the rouges with raccoon masks.

Solution?

For whatever reason it is a known fact that you cannot get a ticket for parking next to fire hydrants, stop signs, crosswalks, fire breaks or on sidewalks on a weekend or Monday thru Thursday night. One solution that may be illegal in Arizona is to just ticket cars until the city runs out of them. Then maybe people will begin to play nice and actually respect the law and others. They may also stay away, but I know that is heresy to a bar owner. I am glad that DeSimone and others like him are try to help. The problems are many and solutions are not easy to come by. Aggressively going after the problem people and the illegal activity is a good step to take. When people know that they can get away with funny business they lose fear of authority. The overall solution may require small steps but we need to enforce the rules more. They cleaned-up Times Square we should be able to do the same to Carson Street and the South Side.

Drinking & Smoking on Sunday

I am confused. For a bar to be open in Pittsburgh, or any place in Pa. for that matter, it needs to have a Sunday license. To get one the bar must do 30% or more in food sales. They don't have to sell food on Sunday they just need to sell a lot of food. Recently, the Commonwealth passed the Almost Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits smoking indoors. Well, almost. But the state prohibits bars from allowing smoking unless it gets an exemption. That requires that the bar does no more than 20% of their sales in food. Let's re-cap. Sell a lot of food and stay open on Sunday with no smoking permitted. Sell little food and let the patrons smoke all day without grub. So why do I see smoking permitted bars open on Sunday? I think the 10 to 20 percent gap is wide enough to do the intended job. Sell more than 20% in food but less that 30% and you can do neither smoking or Sunday sales. Am I confused? Did I miss something? Can somebody clear the smoke from my eyes?

Incidentally, if the bar has an exemption absolutely no one under 18 is allowed in the bar. Not your kids or the owner's kids. Bar have to post a sign no under 18's allowed, but many bars list 21 as the minimum age.