The Fourth StrikeJoin now to read essay The Fourth StrikeThe Fourth StrikeIn Joe Rodriguez’s article “Kids and Alcohol Don’t Mix,” Rodriguez states that the new proposed legislation introduced by Senator Dede Alpert will make it “extremely difficult to close down retailers who consistently sell booze to minors.” I completely agree with Rodriguez’s point of view because it will make it easier for retailers to continue illegally selling their products to minors by allowing a “fourth strike.”
In California, the law allows the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to take any retailers license after “three strikes” of selling alcohol to minors in three years. The new proposed law would allow one of the strikes to be taken away if the retailers train their employees to “check IDs and install electronic scanners” to read IDs and spot fakes. I feel that this new proposed law is too forgiving since it gives this unofficial “fourth strike” for retailers to continue selling alcohol to minors. According to testimony given to the California Council, Alpert claimed this bill was a “prevention bill, however, I feel this is not even close to a prevention bill at all, but an undermining of local prevention efforts to alcohol enforcement groups.
But does California have laws that would help regulate the sales of alcoholic beverages in Los Angeles?
The Los Angeles Liquor Control Commission (LLC) is responsible for enforcing regulations that regulate the sale and importation of alcoholic beverages in the state. In order to avoid being affected, LALC’s regulations would ensure that not only licensed retailers cannot own alcohol, but it would forbid a retailer from selling alcoholic beverages in an area covered by LLC’s rules. In addition, LALC would have to obtain permission from the LTC to operate liquor shops and alcohol stores.
In April, the LTC issued a report on how the LLC regulates liquor sales in California. The report notes that LALC has issued some guidelines for certain beverage-related areas, but it cannot create regulations that apply to non-licensees and non-licensees cannot distribute alcoholic beverages. These guidelines do not address any question as to whether or not LLC regulations apply to wine or spirits when one of these beverages is purchased from an illegal source.
LLC’s decision not to issue regulations to operate liquor shops in Los Angeles is especially concerning because it would be inappropriate for anyone to take a stand on the very next question. But it would raise a series of other moral questions that should be asked. Why wouldn’t LALC have some of these guidelines when it is supposed to regulate all the drinks sold in Los Angeles—or at least take a lot of action against sales of drinks from illegal sources in its district that aren’t allowed in LALC’s own stores?
The LCC’s position that California does not have laws that can prevent licensed retailers from carrying alcoholic beverages within its own store district has been consistent and compelling. Under a 2007 statute, a “district manager” must obtain approval from the Liquor Control Board for a liquor store in a city in which the liquor permit for liquor is being applied. This authority allows the Liquor Control Board to “obtain and install the person in charge the responsibility of dealing with” this person within 12 months thereafter. However, if a liquor store requires approval, the LC determines that the person has violated LLC’s authority to operate as a wholesaler after obtaining approval. Although LLC cannot revoke its authority after 12 months, it appears that no such authorization has been issued. If some of LLC’s requirements are upheld, state and federal courts should follow suit.
The LCC’s statement on this point is quite different from the statement issued by a federal appellate legal aid organization, the U.S. D.C. Covington Fund, which has argued that California law does not address the validity of LLC’s requirements. In a legal aid petition seeking to have the LCC’s regulations in place, Covington has argued that California’s Liquor Control Board must have no statutory authority that would prevent an individual from being convicted of possession of a substance that is more than five ounces. In fact, the LCC says that it
The legislature is also attempting to make some more specific points regarding the law. They stated the provisions “shall not apply to a local law enforcement person (or group of individuals) who uses a motor vehicle only to do enforcement of motor vehicle code.” However, “the California law only prohibits violations of the provisions of this subsection (1). All of the drivers and passengers of any driver’s or passenger’s identification plate will not be subject to that provision.” The legislation does also not include any requirement for a learner’s permit. In fact, there are also laws stating that “there is no need for an alcoholic beverage to be used in the vehicle while carrying a vehicle.” While I doubt this law is going to stay in place, most states already have a law that is essentially a ban on carrying a bottle of beer, but is specifically not prohibited by the California law.
The California Legislative Calendar
Senate Bill 952
“A law passed on Feb. 27, 2002, providing for a three strikes procedure, which will be employed after the violation has been reported, as defined in Section 6 of CCC § 4.13 or 6.04 of the Code, and, upon completion, will be used for the enforcement of motor vehicle code. The law shall prescribe guidelines for the licensing of alcohol retailers, licensure and supervision of minors and other laws that may be relevant or necessary, and shall include a list of applicable laws which are appropriate to the needs of the organization seeking to use and supervise minors.
House Bill 818
“This bill and the bill introduced on the floor of the Assembly and House of Representatives, to make it known on the Record and on both chambers of the General Assembly that the licensing of alcohol retailers under this law will not be limited to minors. This bill is being considered by the Committee on Rules of Procedure on May 26, 2006.
House Bill 778
“A law being enacted by the General Assembly on May 29, 2006 making it to a vote of the Legislative Council on May 3, 2006, requires that an alcoholic beverage salesperson be licensed when consuming alcoholic beverages while intoxicated.
House Bill 813
“This bill was reported to the Legislative Council on May 28, 2006 by the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
House Bill 1412
“This bill is being debated in the Legislative Council on May 30, 2006 by the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
House Bill 3244
“This bill was introduced in the House by Senator Charles R. Brooks of El Monte, California, on November 1, 2005, when the Legislative Council was notified of its proposal to expand the definition of intoxication and for which no action was taken until the proposed amendments to the California Prohibition of Misuse provisions were implemented. Under this bill the Legislature would have the power to make any recommendation on the implementation of any amendment by the Legislative Council with respect to alcohol for purposes of this chapter,
The legislature is also attempting to make some more specific points regarding the law. They stated the provisions “shall not apply to a local law enforcement person (or group of individuals) who uses a motor vehicle only to do enforcement of motor vehicle code.” However, “the California law only prohibits violations of the provisions of this subsection (1). All of the drivers and passengers of any driver’s or passenger’s identification plate will not be subject to that provision.” The legislation does also not include any requirement for a learner’s permit. In fact, there are also laws stating that “there is no need for an alcoholic beverage to be used in the vehicle while carrying a vehicle.” While I doubt this law is going to stay in place, most states already have a law that is essentially a ban on carrying a bottle of beer, but is specifically not prohibited by the California law.
The California Legislative Calendar
Senate Bill 952
“A law passed on Feb. 27, 2002, providing for a three strikes procedure, which will be employed after the violation has been reported, as defined in Section 6 of CCC § 4.13 or 6.04 of the Code, and, upon completion, will be used for the enforcement of motor vehicle code. The law shall prescribe guidelines for the licensing of alcohol retailers, licensure and supervision of minors and other laws that may be relevant or necessary, and shall include a list of applicable laws which are appropriate to the needs of the organization seeking to use and supervise minors.
House Bill 818
“This bill and the bill introduced on the floor of the Assembly and House of Representatives, to make it known on the Record and on both chambers of the General Assembly that the licensing of alcohol retailers under this law will not be limited to minors. This bill is being considered by the Committee on Rules of Procedure on May 26, 2006.
House Bill 778
“A law being enacted by the General Assembly on May 29, 2006 making it to a vote of the Legislative Council on May 3, 2006, requires that an alcoholic beverage salesperson be licensed when consuming alcoholic beverages while intoxicated.
House Bill 813
“This bill was reported to the Legislative Council on May 28, 2006 by the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
House Bill 1412
“This bill is being debated in the Legislative Council on May 30, 2006 by the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
House Bill 3244
“This bill was introduced in the House by Senator Charles R. Brooks of El Monte, California, on November 1, 2005, when the Legislative Council was notified of its proposal to expand the definition of intoxication and for which no action was taken until the proposed amendments to the California Prohibition of Misuse provisions were implemented. Under this bill the Legislature would have the power to make any recommendation on the implementation of any amendment by the Legislative Council with respect to alcohol for purposes of this chapter,
One of the enforcement groups that will be undermined by the new bill would be the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Prior to the proposed law, the ABC’s system consisted of under cover minors who “go into stores and try to buy booze.” Once they catch a retailer who sells them alcohol, they immediately report them to the ABC. I agree with this approach because it puts the majority of the blame on the clerks of the retailers who sell to minors. The retailers serve as the ones most responsible because they are selling to minors and in a way; they have the role of the adult to minors when it comes to selling alcohol to adolescents. During my junior year, I attended a birthday get together with a couple of my buddies. What started was a very jubilant party, then turned into a night run to the liquor store. I remember being embarrassed after my friends pulled off the alcohol run after the clerk let my friends go off with the
The ABC is not supposed to say who they are, it is said to be a group of people who are trying to improve underage drinking. That was not true. Instead, a group of people with conflicting ideologies of education and social responsibility brought all this together to create a “family” that was just like any one group of alcohol drinkers.
It was all about getting kids “allowed” to gamble, drinking until they are 14, spending 20+ hours a week in the water, and drinking until they “get drunk too.” My group would be much more conservative by getting kids out of the alcohol habit as it was not a family that was trying to have their child’s behavior change. It was a group that only “got” young ones out of it.
This was in the 1990s, when it was only known for the activities that it held for adults. This was only the first time we had made the distinction. We had been the one to change the policy and the people involved had been the one who had done it, so we were going to change it. Our organization, to be precise, was all about kids getting into the system and going on vacation. We had all the power and the authority at our command to make sure they behaved, to have no drinking habits while they were gone. It was about getting kids out of it. Even if it wasn’t exactly the goal, we still tried.
Let’s start off by recognizing that this has no one behind it. Most of the laws that they passed weren’t passed in this nation and people around the country weren’t going to enforce them all, and even if you wanted to do that, it would be an uphill battle. It’s not like they didn’t know what was coming. When the laws were passed, they could enforce their laws and we could enforce our laws.
What is going on now is a system of laws designed to punish. They are not going to put people in jail if we fail to do our job. To take the example of enforcing the liquor license law, this is actually a law that has been passed to ensure that even an underage person will be able to purchase a beer on their own, as it is. We haven’t been able to do that, and that means we need to keep enforcing it.
Instead of moving to an age-based system where everyone is at their own risk that if they don’t drink or do something wrong, it’s your fault that those who do drink will be punished and that means enforcing the laws in every way possible. I believe that the only way that we can make our laws and regulations work is for all to work together together to ensure that everyone in the age of 21 has a right to be treated with respect before they spend years of their lives with these laws.
As a society we need to work together to see how to keep this country together after it’s too late. We need to understand that the law should be enforced as it is and not as some sort of “punishment” for certain behaviors. This is something we all know that needs to change, even if we don’t know that much about the legislation. What we need to agree on is not a system that targets minors because it’s easier to enforce, but what it does target the people who make its hard to enforce. We need to work together to make sure that underage people have the same rights that everyone else is, the same rights we have, and not only with people who drink but with people who do nothing wrong.
There are two points that I think we could all agree on. 1) What we know now is