The OLCC's Latest Blunder
This summer we will see the 20th anniversary of the (almost legal) Oregon Brewers Festival, an event that has played a substantial role in turning Portland into Beervana. Unfortunately, one group won't be there to celebrate: kids.
After 19 years of promoting the Oregon Brewers Festival as a community event, we regret that we will not be allowed to have minors under the age of 21 on the festival premises in 2007. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission has stipulated no minors be on-site, citing OLCC Rule 845-006-0340 (7) (a) in which "eating predominates" and the premise must not have a "drinking enviroment". In order to view this rule, please go to here and click on "Laws and Rules". Click on OLCC Law Book. This will open up a PDF file for viewing.
Among the great travesties in Oregon public policy, this doesn't rate very high, but it's still a seriously bad call. When Oregon's microbreweries began to rise to prominence in the 1980s, drinking moved from the dark, windowless caves of the corner taverns into well-lit, homey brewpubs. Families started coming, and the focus turned from getting smashed to enjoying an artisinal product.
For kids, seeing their parents drink responsibly in a normal environment demystifies it and removes the allure of the forbidden. I don't doubt that there are parents in Oregon who think that taking their children to a beer festival exposes them to indecent behavior. But there are certainly others who think it's a healthy celebration of local culture--and fun, to boot. The OLCC has taken the choice away from parents, many of whom will now skip their Saturday afternoon trip to Waterfront Park.
I don't know if it will do any good, but Fest organizers encourage you to contact the OLCC and let them know how you feel:
If you disagree with the OLCC's decision, then please contact executive director StephenPharo and let him know: 503-872-5000,1800-452-6522,or steve.pharo@state.or.us
Let kids come to the Fest!
|
January 26, 2007 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (69 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: alan bluehole | Jan 26, 2007 12:07:33 PM
I disagree, Jeff. Many of us attend this event to taste beers seriously and we don't want kids around. Sorry, but it's true. If you can't get a sitter for an event that will have virtually no interest to kids, they will be bored. And they will be annoying. There are a bazillion family-friendly festivals during the rest of the summer. Take your kids to those, please! I am going to call the OLCC and thank them for their decision.
Posted by: b!X | Jan 26, 2007 12:07:36 PM
Wonder of wonders, the OLCC screwed kids and families again. Who would have imagined.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 26, 2007 12:15:02 PM
There's flexibility in the no-minors rule in bars; there should be some on events as well. I think it would be fair to ban minors after, say, 6 o'clock. Despite the mostly true claim that participants are there to taste good beer, the truth is that people do in fact get wasted, and it can be a boisterous, crowded environment.
The bottom line is that bluehole is right--I've taken my kids to the Winterfest a couple of times, and after a few minutes of root beer, they're bored stiff, and I'm anxious about pulling them through the crowds and whatnot. And from what I glean of the standing rules of OLCC, that minors have been allowed before was an oversight--it's tru e that there's little to no eating going on, and the focus is on drinking.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jan 26, 2007 12:18:19 PM
Alan,
Your desire is reasonable, and would be worth expressing to the festival organizers. But the OLCC is not there to offer them marketing advice.
Don't "thank" the OLCC, they don't even pretend to make their ruling on your behalf.
Posted by: b!X | Jan 26, 2007 12:24:46 PM
Your desire is reasonable, and would be worth expressing to the festival organizers.
Yeah, really. This should be a matter between festival organizers and attendees, not a government-sanctioned kids ban.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 26, 2007 12:37:04 PM
Torrid and Alan, that should be your choice. But particularly when you have infants or older kids, this may not be an issue. In any case, the OLCC shouldn't be making that decision--parents should.
I actually think kids are cool at events. It's not like the Beerfest is overrun with them, and it does set a nice tone for the event, which should highlight tasting beer, not slugging it down like it's a kegger.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 26, 2007 1:03:42 PM
Jeff--then you should have a beef with the entire system under which OLCC directs who can be in what part of what establishment, when. Not that I'd disagree with you if you did (or that I'm even sure I don't as well), but given that they do currently direct those things, it's fair IMO for them to apply the rules as they have them to the festival.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 26, 2007 1:15:26 PM
Torrid, that's a bizarre formulation. If I believe the OLCC should exist, I have to agree with every regulation they make?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 26, 2007 1:37:54 PM
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you agree with the concept of restricting minor access in any way to areas where alcohol is being served, then what happened to the Brewer's Festival is that the rules that previously existed are now being applied to them when they weren't before.
Which is why I prefaced my point by suggesting that maybe you don't think it's OK to restrict access at all. Which, if true, means your beef is not with the rules' application to the Brewfest, but with the rules themselves--and it's not so much a blunder as a broadly inappropriate policy to begin with.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 26, 2007 2:04:53 PM
Well, I don't buy it. When the brewfest made its initial appeal, the CCLC looked at their rules and made a judgment. The OBF is one of the most closely-watched events on the OLCC's calendar year, and there's no reason to think they haven't made the same judgment for 18 years following. I think this change reflects poor judgment by someone there now. But we can be shiny happy people and agree that the rule sucks to begin with.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jan 26, 2007 3:13:39 PM
Jeff, I think TJ's on to something. Your original post made a pretty broad assertion - that it's a good thing that
drinking moved from the dark, windowless caves of the corner taverns into well-lit, homey brewpubs.
I'm not saying I disagree with that, and I'm not sure TJ does either...but it's a perspective that clashes with the current regulatory structure. (A structure which might also be interpreted as "the will of the people," since I believe the OLCC was created as the result of a ballot measure. But of course that's off point.)
Kids and parents would be well served if there were some way for them to participate. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to have access to all areas, or at all times. I think a lot more people would agree with that, and if the OLCC isn't open to finding a solution along those lines, THAT would be a true outrage.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2007 3:39:53 PM
The OLCC has taken the choice away from parents, many of whom will now skip their Saturday afternoon trip to Waterfront Park.
The OLCC hasn't taken the choice away from anyone. People with kids are still free to attend and enjoy themselves as long as they make alternate arrangements for the kids, the same as they would at any alcohol-serving establishment where the law excluded minors.
Posted by: Preston | Jan 26, 2007 4:09:49 PM
Since when is drinking alcohol a kid-friendly activity? Do we have porno shops that are family friendly? Criminy. Some things are for grown-ups. Period. If your complaint is that you have to get a baby sitter, then maybe you can't afford the beer. Get some Pabst, stay home, ignore the kids in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to stop you.
OLCC screws kids? Does OLCC stand for Oregon Alcohol for Children Commission? I thought one of the Cs stood for control, as in keeping it away from minors.
Posted by: b!X | Jan 26, 2007 4:13:03 PM
The OLCC hasn't taken the choice away from anyone.
Uh, except for the fact that for 19 years families could go or not go, as they saw fit. And now they can't. That's called taking the choice away.
Posted by: Zak J. | Jan 26, 2007 4:15:33 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of a brewfest to drink beer? How do minors belong at such an event?
If parents show up to these things with kids in tow it means they drive home afterwards with kids in the car. I recognize that responsible people will take a taxi, complete with a carseat for the under-8 crowd, but I have to guess drunk driving is a common side-effect of these good times on the water front.
Leave the kids at home.
Posted by: b!X | Jan 26, 2007 4:16:02 PM
Since when is drinking alcohol a kid-friendly activity? Do we have porno shops that are family friendly? Criminy. Some things are for grown-ups. Period.
Just because you put "period" in there doesn't make it so. Are you saying we should ban children from all restaurants, too? They serve alcohol in restaurants. Ban family-friendly matinees at brewpub theaters? They serve alcohol there, too.
To conflate porn with drinking beer is over-simplifcation to the point of mental stupefaction.
Posted by: b!X | Jan 26, 2007 4:17:09 PM
...but I have to guess drunk driving is a common side-effect of these good times on the water front
Yes, let's make broad assumptions without checking any actual data. That will keep the discussion rational.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2007 4:42:42 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Isn't this the enforcement of a law that's been on the books for a long time, rather than something new?
If so, then they're just asking the Brewers Festival to play by the law. And if attendees and organizers don't like it, then they can try to get the law changed.
Posted by: Preston | Jan 26, 2007 4:46:05 PM
Obviously porn and alcohol and cigarettes are all different things. I think you miss the point. Since when did EVERYTHING have to be friendly-friendly if it's possible. Sure, kids can go to Applebees and color on the table while dad drinks a beer and mom a cocktail. Certainly. But the fact that this is true doesn't mean that all alcohol-related activities should be family-friendly. It's okay if there are things in this world that are exclusive to adults. I'm kind of puzzled as to why that very idea seems so strange.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 26, 2007 4:47:07 PM
b!X captures the main points I would have mentioned in reaction to the beer drinking = porn equation, but I would like to push it a little further. Preston surely believes beer drinking is as damaging to children as pornography, and I suspect that's what motivates this new change. And that's exactly where the discussion belongs.
For decades now kids have been watching their parents drink beer, and so far as I know, the moral turpitude of our children isn't on the rise. Instead of making a purely subjective judgment, let's have a discussion and find out if equating beer drinking with obscene images is an apt one. Do Oregonians agree with this? In ruling as it has, I think the OLCC has made a judgment that indeed decency demands that kids should be kept out of eyesight of the corrupting view of parents sipping the nation's best beer.
It's possible that that's where we are as a state, but it would surely be a shame.
Pete--I'd be happy to see kids limited to a time. But I still don't see where the law has actually been changed. What's happened, as far as I can tell, is the implementation of existing law has changed. Help me out if you see something different.
Posted by: Idler | Jan 26, 2007 4:47:20 PM
I took my toddler the last time I went. It gave me a chance to attend an event that I otherwise couldn't have, and I had a nice day out with the boy to boot.
What's the harm? It may be a good idea to restrict access to adults later in the evening, but that can be done without a blanket all-day-long prohibition against children.
One of the great things about Oregon is that there are places one can have a great beer while hanging with the family. My son turned just four and he's been my greatest drinking buddy at the local in the two years since I moved here. He has a root beer, I have one pint, two tops, we have something to eat and we have a very pleasant time together.
This measure smacks of some kind of overwrought, Puritanical reaction to all things alcohol-related. Very un-Portland, if you ask me.
Posted by: Idler | Jan 26, 2007 4:58:24 PM
I took my toddler the last time I went. It gave me a chance to attend an event that I otherwise couldn't have, and I had a nice day out with the boy to boot.
What's the harm? It may be a good idea to restrict access to adults later in the evening, but that can be done without a blanket all-day-long prohibition against children.
One of the great things about Oregon is that there are places one can have a great beer while hanging with the family. My son turned just four and he's been my greatest drinking buddy at the local in the two years since I moved here. He has a root beer, I have one pint, two tops, we have something to eat and we have a very pleasant time together.
This measure smacks of some kind of overwrought, Puritanical reaction to all things alcohol-related. It's un-Portland, if you ask me.
Posted by: Preston | Jan 26, 2007 5:00:24 PM
It's funny that the porn comment struck such a nerve. I was in no way equivocating exposing a kid to porn to exposing them to an adult drinking a beer. I was simply (once again) trying to make the point that it was okay if there were activites that were restricted to adults. I'm trying to figure out who this ruling is harming. I'm really struggling with this. Maybe you should all go lie in the street in protest. Set yourselves on fire like the monks during Vietnam. I mean, fighting the Iraq war is important, but restricting some events to adults only, that's an issue worth getting fired up over...
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jan 26, 2007 5:00:53 PM
Jeff-
No, I generally agree with you. I've spent a little time at the beer festival, and not seen anything kid-unfriendly.
Unfortunately, there's a lot that's left to the discretion of the OLCC. Since we have a new OLCC director this year (remember that unfortunate drunken-driving episode?) it's not surprising that the new one would interpret things in a different way, and change a long-standing interpretation.
A friend of mine who's recently become a bar owner - and a longtime supporter of regulation and general "lefty" - has been increasingly frustrated with regulatory agencies as he's tried to expand his bar.
His words were more or like this: "I understand that there are guidelines I have to follow. But at least communicate clearly what those guidelines are, and answer basic questions as I attempt to create a plan that complies with them."
The more discretion we leave to regulators, the more they can throw their weight around arbitrarily. This OLCC example illustrates it pretty clearly. I'd think a responsible agency would do due diligence in facilitating compliance that does not conflict with the organizers' vision of the event; but as I see it, there's no incentive for the OLCC to be responsible.
Argh.
Posted by: skyview satellite | Jan 26, 2007 5:25:27 PM
I feel bad for the people who are going to show up with their kids, unaware of the new rule. They are in for a pretty unpleasant encounter. In addition to becoming increasing regulated we are also becoming increasingly unforgiving of transgressors.
Posted by: Lisa | Jan 26, 2007 6:27:38 PM
I don't see a problem with the festival simply enforcing the law. Laws exist, in part, to protect our children in the first place. Why bend them, just because you feel inconvenienced? Doesn't that set a bad example?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 26, 2007 7:32:07 PM
I feel bad for the people who are going to show up with their kids, unaware of the new rule. They are in for a pretty unpleasant encounter.
Can we talk about the stupidest OLCC rule of all time?
I discovered it a few years ago when a friend of mine from New York City flew into town. He came here for the sole purpose of visiting the Oregon Brew Festival.
In New York City, he doesn't drive. So, he doesn't have a driver's license. Instead, he has a state ID issued by the New York DMV. It's the same as a driver's license, except it doesn't allow him to drive. Same photo, same hologram, everything.
He was turned away from the Brew Festival. Apparently, under Oregon law, you need an Oregon driver's license, an Oregon i.d., or an out-of-state driver's license. An out-of-state i.d. doesn't count.
As my pal said to the guy, "You mean, I have to have a driver's license in order to drink? How insane is that?"
Either other states' DMVs can be trusted, or they can't. Either we should accept their i.d.'s and driver's licenses, or we should accept neither.
The OLCC is clearly a bunch of morons.
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Jan 26, 2007 7:48:15 PM
Actually, Kari, whoever told you about the law was wrong.
I just took my OLCC server's permit class and test a year ago. From the booklet
:
Current Oregon law states that only these four types of
identification can be accepted alone as proof of age:
1. Valid state DRIVER LICENSE with a photo.
2. Valid DMV ID card with photo, name, date of birth and
physical description from any state.
3. A valid U.S. MILITARY ID
4. A valid PASSPORT
They don't mean just Oregon's DMV ID card, they mean any state's DMV ID card.
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Jan 26, 2007 7:58:35 PM
Here's another fun fact about the OLCC that I learned during my class:
When I'm working (using my OLCC server's permit), the OLCC has the right to search me, my purse, coat and other personal belongings, as well as my car - without a warrant or even probable cause. Ain't that grand?
Out of a class of about 15-20 people, I was the only one who was the least bit upset about having to give up my constitutional rights in exchange for the privelege of serving alcohol in Oregon for minimum wage! Yikes.
The OLCC has way too much power and is unnecessary in my opinion. I've never worked in a state with a state-run liquor control agency before and see no need for them.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 26, 2007 11:14:29 PM
I confess, when I worked the PDX Intl Beerfest 3 years ago, in a weak moment I slipped a beer ticket from the bucket of tickets, into my pocket.
Glad I wasn't searched!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 26, 2007 11:51:52 PM
Thanks, Madam Hatter... I'm not sure what the rules are, and - to be fair - the incident happened about five years ago (so maybe things have changed), but it was an "OLCC Alcohol Monitor" in a yellow jacket checking IDs at the front gate.
I'm under no illusions that it was actually an OLCC employee, so maybe there was some bad training.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 27, 2007 3:26:27 AM
Since when is drinking alcohol a kid-friendly activity?
In Frankfurt, Germany, close to Xmas, my wife and I walked around old town with cups of warm, spiced wine, sold at many, many stands...actually walked the streets, not exiled to a roped off area where children were verboten!
In Vancouver, Washington, this last weekend, we had lunch at the Salmon Creek Brewery & Pub, but because we had a fifteen yeat old with us, we couldn't sit in the "bar" where there were dozens of people, but were exiled to the separate "restaurant" building where we had to dine alone with our teen.
"No Minors Allowed" is a bizarre infringement on our rights to hang together, where we want, as a family. "Drinking alcohol" (oh my God!) isn't an illicit activity, it's a part of life and living. Instead of teaching responsible drinking, and an appreciation of the pleasures of wine with a good meal, we demonize demon rum, and tell our kids that with age 21 they earn the right to pound down Pabst with impunity. But until then, nary a drop shall pass their lips...
Which, of course, is baloney, since underage drinking is a serious, serious problem untouched by all the weirdness of spectacularly unsuccessful state regulation.
We tell adults that "if you drink and drive the least you will lose is your license," and then plaster this on a billboard by a bar, on the highway, out where everyone drives, and no one walks.
Who are we kidding besides ourselves?
What a dumb, dumb, ruling by the OLCC. But then the OLCC has a monopoly on booze hardly imaginable by Al Capone in his wildest flights of imagination. And let's not even get to "distribution" issues and the shakedown and corruption that's part and parcel of over-regulation...
Heavens (and Paul Romain) forbid.
Posted by: BOHICA | Jan 27, 2007 5:02:48 AM
Of course this means returning Iraq war vets under 21 won't be able to go also.
Lower the drinking age to 18. Equal rights!
Posted by: doretta | Jan 27, 2007 8:09:19 AM
On a scale from "tasting beer" to "getting slammed" you will always have people all along the continuum at events like the OBF. Peaceful coexistence is perfectly possible. The thing I don't like about barring kids from the OBF even early in the day is that it pushes the event more toward the "getting slammed" end. That makes it a less attractive event even for a lot of us who wouldn't be taking a kid along anyway. A few kids in the mix aren't a drag on "tasting beers seriously". They are a better drag on getting s***-faced and rowdy than anything the OLCC does. Some of us think the drag of civilization can be a good thing--a crowd of nothing but problem drinkers is not my idea of a good time.
The OLCC is also guilty of bizarre under-regulation. While they are busy keeping kids out of the OBF too much of their regulation of permanent establishments is a joke.
Over the years we've discovered by observation here in North Portland what it takes to get the liquor license pulled from a problem establishment. Two murders on the premises and the OLCC will swing right into action.
Anything short of that no matter how disruptive or illegal and they keep their license--up to and including an extensive history of violent incidents involving lethal weapons, one of them fatal.
The former head of the agency, the one subsequently bounced for DUI, came to talk to a neighborhood meeting a few years ago. We asked her about permits and the extensive and expensive bureaucracy that supports them. We asked, for example, how many liquor license applications they typically get in a year and how many of them they deny as well as how many existing licenses get pulled.
She "didn't know". Their "computer system doesn't give us that information."
As far as I can tell, the OLCC is exactly the sort of agency that gives all of government a bad name.
I personally might even be inclined to put up with some over-regulation of things like the OBF if I thought they were getting serious about the real problems they should be addressing. Having observed them in action in the past, however, my guess would be they are over-regulating the OBC instead of tackling those more serious issues.
Posted by: Jeff Frane | Jan 27, 2007 9:09:12 AM
The OLCC has no business prohibiting parents from taking their kids to an event like the OBF; they have no evidence that children are being damaged by their attendance (other than having to listen to the college boys and their stupid drunken chant). It's merely a reflection of long-term American puritanical attitudes toward alcohol.
On the other hand, as a parent I wouldn't consider taking any child over the age of 1 to the OBF, and any complaints by people like Art Larrance are disingenuous. If the people running the event really wanted to encourage families to attend, they would long ago have provided activities for kids. They could have taken a page from the Laurelwood's book and set off an area, toys, and events. It's not too surprising that the OLCC would determine that the sole purpose of the OBF is to drink beer. A lot of beer. I find it difficult to whip up much sympathy for a parent who couldn't find something better for their kids to do while they attended the event.
Posted by: TR | Jan 27, 2007 9:11:12 AM
The OLCC made a wise decision. Allowing minors in the festival sends the wrong message to minors – that message being “socializing with others requires drinking alcohol”. Some people have still not yet been educated that it does not! The question must be asked; how many teenagers drink and the drive because they see their parents and other adults drinking and having a good time?
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 27, 2007 10:25:21 AM
This sounds like a "class" argument. Because the Brewfest is a high class bar it should be exempt from the rules other bars have to follow?
Or is the argument that parents should be able to head off to the local bar for the evening of drinking with kids in tow? They can just set them over in the corner with some toys while they spend the evening slamming down beers with their buddies?
There seem to be a lot of "progressives" who have no problem with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission as long as it is controlling other people's behavior and not theirs. We have rules to protect kids from parents who don't have the sense to leave them home when they go out drinking. The fact that you are spending $5 for your beer instead of $2 doesn't change the nature of the activity.
Posted by: Jeff Frane | Jan 27, 2007 10:37:08 AM
Ross Williams: just exactly which progressives and which "other people's behavior"? Sounds like a big old straw man to me.
Generalize wildly much?
Posted by: Lisa | Jan 27, 2007 11:11:13 AM
Ross, I couldn't have said it better! I completely agree with you.
Posted by: Keith | Jan 27, 2007 11:49:27 AM
I also agree with Ross. It is a class argument. Kids are allowed in brewpubs where they serve food, show movies, etc., but they're forbidden from Oregon bars where the primary activity is drinking...in Jeff's words, the "dark, windowless caves of the corner taverns."
The OBCC seems to have determined that the primary function of the OBF is drinking, and they're not really making a distinction between microbrew and Rainier on tap.
The bottom line is that people do get hammered at the OBF. Not everyone is the responsible drinker that most of the people on this board seem to be. And should there be an incident where a child got hurt, people would be wondering why the OLCC wasn't doing their jobs.
Posted by: Al Berta | Jan 27, 2007 12:15:17 PM
One point to consider is that Portland -- and Oregon in general -- is home to many great breweries, and in addition to being great for beer-lovers, it's an important economic niche. I know the Brewers' Fest is more than just a trade show, but this seems to be a flawed rule just in light of the importance of this industry cluster to the area's economy. Now, I'm not saying that beer drives Portland's economy or anything, but if we're promoting good Oregon breweries, why instate this rule to keep families away?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 27, 2007 12:42:51 PM
This sounds like a "class" argument. Because the Brewfest is a high class bar it should be exempt from the rules other bars have to follow?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the bar's decision. I would definitely resist any law that mandated allowing kids. But why do you assume that bar owners want kids and are somehow not allowed to have them? I go to plenty of adults-only bars, and I'm glad they exist, too. A great many of them are high class joints serving nine dollar martinis. How does class relate to this again?
Posted by: Jeff Frane | Jan 27, 2007 1:08:15 PM
Jeff: It's entirely based on the bar/tavern's decision on which license to buy. The class issue is a non-starter.
Posted by: Absent Mindful | Jan 27, 2007 2:17:07 PM
The OLCC's decision to enforce this law came to my attention after the OBF's organizers posted on their site that this year would be minor-free. Whatever discussion occurred prior to that announcement is unknown, but the OBF site gave contact info probably because it wasn't a clean, tidy agreement. Since the entire Fest doesn't hinge on allowing minors, its understandable that the organizers would accept this decision at the cost of a minority of attendees. That doesn't mean it's a good decision.
To all of the commenters who either didn't care for children mixing with the drinking crowd, or find the need to dictate how beer-loving parents should line up babysitters every time they want to indulge in legal activities, I ask you why are you bitching now that policy is on your side? If it was so horrible to expose kids to alcohol-induced behavior in the past, why wasn't this enacted years ago? Because the OBF has made it work for YEARS! Kids were matched up with their adults when they entered the event, not unlike Chuck E. Cheese. At least at Chuck E.'s I can spend time with my kid AND drink beer.
I think this argument is based out of attitudes towards drinking. The less mystique we put on something, the less appeal it has to impressionable youth. There will always be people who abuse/misuse substances, but this decision seems to say that a system that works is a broken system if the powers that be don't like it.
Posted by: martin | Jan 27, 2007 5:19:45 PM
I'm just estimating here, but I figure it would take me three--maybe four--weekend nights to gather enough signatures to get an "abolish the olcc" measure on the ballot.
my first baby is due next month, and i believe he or she is going to be just fine if they see me drink a beer or two here and there.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 27, 2007 8:22:10 PM
We have rules to protect kids from parents who don't have the sense to leave them home when they go out drinking.
Yeah...those 20 year olds just home from a second tour of Iraq, let's get 'em babysitters already, fer christ sakes! What's the matter with these parents! Sheesh...
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 27, 2007 10:26:18 PM
Yes, I was pretty surprised when I moved here and found out minors were not allowed in certain areas, even with a parent. I'd been in a number of bars with my grandparents and parents growing up. We had a family member who owned one for some years, and I'd go in and have some peanuts and a shirley temple (virgin) while the adults danced. I even rode the bull a few times.
There's nothing like going into a restaurant with your toddler and being denied the ability to order off the happy hour menu because you're not in the bar. Does is matter that most of the people in the bar aren't ordering alcoholic drinks? Or that your husband did? Nope. All that matters is that you're not in the bar-- not by choice, but because you happen to have a child with you who is under 21.
Drinking alcohol is not always to get drunk. I've had alcohol dozens of times in my life and have only been drunk twice-- once when I was about four and my older sister convinced me to drink my papa's entire glass of "beer" (was actually whiskey and some other alcohol mixed) and once at a party with some friends where we rented a place, had a party, and then slept over. The rest of the times I've never had more than about two drinks, tops.
My daughter's seen both my husband and I drink. She knows it's something for adults and is to be had in moderation. Just as my husband I did as children, she is watching as we teach her how to drink responsibly.
Now I am someone who has maybe 2 or 3 drinks a year. My husband typically has a few more, as I'm the designated driver after big family events with wine. So it's not as if we're big drunks or heavy drinkers. It's only just recently that I've finally identified a wine I like (hubby still has to) so we can have a glass of wine with dinner occasionally. And neither of us see a problem with being able to take your children with you to the festival.
Besides, the trouble in finding a babysitter isn't always about money. Often times it's very difficult to find someone. I know I sure run into that problem a lot.
Posted by: Puritan Wondering | Jan 27, 2007 11:39:10 PM
Ross said, "We have rules to protect kids from parents who don't have the sense to leave them home when they go out drinking."
Erm, Ross, just how many assumptions are packed into that statement? In your mind I'm not sure that this is a class issue as much as a moral issue. I just don't agree with your morals or your assumptions.
Posted by: Lisa | Jan 28, 2007 9:47:12 AM
Yes Al, Portland is home to many great breweries, many of them already deemed "family friendly." That's why I am surprised so many parents are making a fuss over this. What's so wrong about having a few beer-drinking venues deemed "adult friendly?"
And BTW, "adult friendly" does not necessarily equal "getting hammered." Many of us like to enjoy a few friendly beers without the background music of crying babies.
Post a comment
Posted by: Joe12Pack | Jan 26, 2007 11:40:36 AM
Said it before and I'm sure I'll say it a hundred more times: ABOLISH OLCC!