Posts Tagged ‘Alcohol Vendor Protection’

Youth Violence and Alcohol

Modifying drinking settings can also impact alcohol-related
youth violence. For example, improving management and staff
practice through training programmes (67), implementing codes
of good practice, and strictly enforcing licensing legislation (68)
creates environments less conducive to violence. In wider nighttime
environments, the presence of large numbers of intoxicated
individuals at the end of the night increases potential for violent
confrontations (69). Here interventions such as provision of safe
late-night transport (68), improvements to street lighting (70)
and use of closed circuit television (7) have been shown to help
reduce alcohol-related violence around licenced premises.
Full article here:  Youth Violence and Alcohol

Wisconsin State Fair Requires Responsible Alcohol Seller-Server Training

Alcohol Service Training for Employees

Mission Statement: To actively promote the responsible sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at Wisconsin State Fair Park while maintaining a safe and friendly family atmosphere at the Park.

In an effort to keep consistent with our Mission Statement, Wisconsin State Fair Park has adopted the following criteria for approved employee alcohol service training. All Vendors with an alcohol service privilege and their employees who perform any type of alcohol service must posses a valid Wisconsin Bartenders License or complete and pass an alcohol service training program that has been approved by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and fully complies with Wisconsin State Statutes 125.04 and 125.17.

Click here to take our approved Alcohol Service Training Program

Alcohol Service training courses can be taken online or in a classroom setting. Some online courses that are currently available are;

o Servingalcohol.com

Alcohol service training is currently valid for a three year period.

It is the responsibility of the Vendor to document and track the employee alcohol service training and results along with the number of employees that posses a valid bartenders license to ensure the proper level of staff has met the aforementioned criteria. The Vendor will have available and provide this list to WSFP upon request. Employees are required to have on display or carry their valid bartender‟s license or the official alcohol service training certificate while performing alcohol service duties on the ground.

.

.

dreamhost promotional codes

‘Super drunk’ drivers face tougher punishment with new Michigan law

Source: mlive.com
Published: Sunday, October 17, 2010, 6:59 AM

Starting on Oct. 31, there will be two kinds of drunken drivers in Michigan: standard and “super.”

Standard are those with blood alcohol content of 0.08 to 0.16 percent. The super drunk, a new category under state law, are first-time offenders who test at 0.17 or above.

The designation confers no special powers, just super-high penalties and super-stiff fees.

Fines and other costs could top $8,000, some defense attorneys predict. Alcohol treatment is mandatory, possible jail time is doubled, and driving is forbidden for 45 days.

The penalties include another first for Michigan: a requirement to install an in-car breathalyzer.

To resume driving after 45 days, first-time super-drunk offenders must buy an ignition interlock, which works by testing a driver’s breath and allows the car to run only if the driver is sober.

The change is part of an effort to toughen drunken driving penalties, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Michigan joined more than 40 states when the Legislature passed the standards with virtually no opposition at the end of 2008.

The technical term is “high blood alcohol content enhanced penalty law.” ”We don’t really like calling it the super drunk law,” said Anne Readett, spokeswoman for the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.

Critics of the law, including defense lawyers, question its effectiveness.
Advocates call the measure positive but not enough – “a disappointing step in the right direction,” said Michigan MADD’s executive director, Homer Smith.
For example, state lawmakers set the blood-alcohol standard at 0.17 percent, bucking a trend toward tougher 0.15 thresholds preferred by MADD. And at least a dozen states require interlock devices for all convicted drunken drivers.
“The Legislature had an opportunity to do something that would significantly deter drunk driving,” Smith said. “Unfortunately, they chose to do less than the optimum.”

Michigan still considers 0.08 percent to be legally drunk, and the new law does not affect repeat offenders or people who face a felony for causing death, injury or damage.

About one-third of Michigan drivers whom police suspect of driving drunk test at the enhanced penalty levels.

Interlocks have gained in effectiveness and acceptance since 2007, when federal traffic safety officials began a campaign urging judges to require the devices.

A device costs the driver about $100 a month to maintain. Other costs to violators come from state driver responsibility fees and attorney fees.
First-time offenders who meet the super-drunk standard are looking at $8,000 to $10,000, according to defense attorney Gerald Lykins.

He is unconvinced the law will be effective.
“I’m not sure that penalizing someone who blows a 0.17 rather than 0.14 will prevent people from drunk driving,” he said. “The driver responsibility fee was supposed to reduce bad driving, but that hasn’t worked.”
MADD counters that enhanced penalties are working in other states. New Mexico, for instance, has had a 20 percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes since its law was passed in 2005.

Kalamazoo County Assistant Prosecutor Aubrey Sharp said the new penalties treat offenses in proportion to one another.
“You have a person with a 0.09 blood alcohol level who is punished the same as someone with a 0.32,” Sharp said.

Others take a wait-and-see approach. Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth said penalties already are harsh.

“It’s still drunk driving and I don’t see how it’s really going to change,” he said.
Grand Rapids Assistant City Attorney Mike Tomich calls the law “a useful tool for public safety.” But he said he is not certain the provisions will change behavior overall.

Grand Rapids District Court Judge Jeanine LaVille, who oversees sobriety court, said the added mandatory penalties take more discretion from judges, who have crafted sentences based on individual needs and offenses.

“We’re already doing what the Legislature suggests,” LaVille said.

Attorney Lykins said if the state wants to prevent drunken driving, lawmakers could consider taking the law to its logical conclusion.

“We could demand that car manufactures have interlock devices as standard equipment,” Lykins said, “just like seatbelts.”

Michigan: Maintain alcohol regulations

Source: Detroit Free Press

BY LOYCE LESTER AND CURTIS WILLIAMS

Jun 30th

“Don’t let the sparkle and smooth taste of wine deceive you. For in the end it bites like a poisonous serpent; it stings like a viper.”

That’s a saying from Proverbs. Yet Jesus turned water into wine when it ran out at a wedding. Wine is taken as a remembrance of our savior’s blood, yet too much wine is the downfall of kings.

Mountains of biblical scholarship, debating the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words, have been devoted to parsing the good book’s stance on alcohol. However, Americans have generally agreed that moderation is the key to healthy, moral living.

Our local regulations on alcohol reflect that view. Beer, wine and spirits may be only sold in licensed locations at appropriate hours, and drinking too much will land you in jail, particularly if you decide to get behind the wheel. These laws are the embodiment of our local values and serve to protect innocent citizens from the poor judgment caused by drunkenness.

These laws and our values are now under attack, besieged by corporate greed. Unfortunately, Michigan is on the front lines.

Major brewers and wineries as well as big-box retailers have filed a barrage of lawsuits against state and local governments that threaten to unravel the very alcohol regulations that keep our streets safe, keep our children healthy and protect our values. Without federal legislation clarifying the states’ legal authority to regulate alcohol sales (known as the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act, or CARE), profit-hungry corporate interests will inevitably overturn these laws and invite a new epidemic of alcoholism in America.

Michigan has been at the epicenter of this showdown between community values and the foreign-owned alcohol producers and giant retailers. A Supreme Court ruling, Granholm v. Heald, has been intentionally mischaracterized by producers and retailers as calling into question the states’ 21st Amendment right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in favor of businesses’ right to engage in unrestricted interstate commerce.

Citing the Granholm decision, retailers, brewers and wineries have gone on the legal offensive, filing 26 separate lawsuits in an effort to overturn state and local laws regulating alcohol. As recently as 2008, a Florida-based retailer successfully sued the Michigan government and overturned more regulations regarding the distribution of alcohol. The judge in this case cited the Granholm decision.

The result of repealing these regulations is clear. Retailers and brewers will sell more alcohol at often cut-rate prices to more people, including minors.

The current laws establish a strict regime in which the state can effectively monitor alcohol sales, ensure that alcohol is safe, distributed to responsible retailers, restaurants and bars, and not sold to minors. These laws also establish an independent third party

- wholesalers – that block incentives from retailers and brewers to encourage binge drinking through deep discounts or even loss-leading practices.

Without these laws, alcohol will be sold just like bottled water.

Why wouldn’t we desire such an outcome? Retailers and brewers would make larger profits without being bothered by regulations. However, studies have shown that increasing the availability of alcohol encourages more irresponsible drinking, including underage drinking. Studies have also shown that the more outlets selling alcohol, the greater the number of alcohol-related violence and automobile accidents.

England provides the most frightening case study. After virtually eliminating alcohol regulations in 2005, alcohol became widely available at heavily discounted prices. Often, beer was priced below water in grocery stores. As a result, police have reported higher rates of alcohol-related violent behavior, underage drinking and binge drinking.

Our ministries put us in daily contact with the least fortunate in our communities, many of whom battle serious alcohol-related problems. We work tirelessly to provide a loving, caring, safe haven for people struggling with alcohol and drug addiction, helping them to understand that they are loved, that God forgives them, and that they can rebuild their lives. It is difficult to imagine that our court system would allow the profit motives of large corporations to grow the rolls of those afflicted by the terrible disease of alcoholism.

State governments are no match for the well-funded legal assault that is bent on alcohol deregulation. Federal legislation is essential. By clarifying the states’ 21st Amendment right to regulate alcohol, the CARE Act of 2010 would stop the legal onslaught that threatens to plunge many more Americans into alcoholism.

Our health, future and community values are dependent on this legislation.

The Rev. Dr. Loyce Lester is pastor of Original New Grace Baptist Church in Detroit. The Rev. Curtis Williams is pastor of Aijalon Baptist Church in Detroit.

Source: Detroit Free PressBY LOYCE LESTER AND CURTIS WILLIAMSJun 30th”Don’t let the sparkle and smooth taste of wine deceive you. For in the end it bites like a poisonous serpent; it stings like a viper.”That’s a saying from Proverbs. Yet Jesus turned water into wine when it ran out at a wedding. Wine is taken as a remembrance of our savior’s blood, yet too much wine is the downfall of kings.Mountains of biblical scholarship, debating the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words, have been devoted to parsing the good book’s stance on alcohol. However, Americans have generally agreed that moderation is the key to healthy, moral living.Our local regulations on alcohol reflect that view. Beer, wine and spirits may be only sold in licensed locations at appropriate hours, and drinking too much will land you in jail, particularly if you decide to get behind the wheel. These laws are the embodiment of our local values and serve to protect innocent citizens from the poor judgment caused by drunkenness.These laws and our values are now under attack, besieged by corporate greed. Unfortunately, Michigan is on the front lines.Major brewers and wineries as well as big-box retailers have filed a barrage of lawsuits against state and local governments that threaten to unravel the very alcohol regulations that keep our streets safe, keep our children healthy and protect our values. Without federal legislation clarifying the states’ legal authority to regulate alcohol sales (known as the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act, or CARE), profit-hungry corporate interests will inevitably overturn these laws and invite a new epidemic of alcoholism in America.Michigan has been at the epicenter of this showdown between community values and the foreign-owned alcohol producers and giant retailers. A Supreme Court ruling, Granholm v. Heald, has been intentionally mischaracterized by producers and retailers as calling into question the states’ 21st Amendment right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in favor of businesses’ right to engage in unrestricted interstate commerce.Citing the Granholm decision, retailers, brewers and wineries have gone on the legal offensive, filing 26 separate lawsuits in an effort to overturn state and local laws regulating alcohol. As recently as 2008, a Florida-based retailer successfully sued the Michigan government and overturned more regulations regarding the distribution of alcohol. The judge in this case cited the Granholm decision.The result of repealing these regulations is clear. Retailers and brewers will sell more alcohol at often cut-rate prices to more people, including minors.The current laws establish a strict regime in which the state can effectively monitor alcohol sales, ensure that alcohol is safe, distributed to responsible retailers, restaurants and bars, and not sold to minors. These laws also establish an independent third party- wholesalers – that block incentives from retailers and brewers to encourage binge drinking through deep discounts or even loss-leading practices.Without these laws, alcohol will be sold just like bottled water.Why wouldn’t we desire such an outcome? Retailers and brewers would make larger profits without being bothered by regulations. However, studies have shown that increasing the availability of alcohol encourages more irresponsible drinking, including underage drinking. Studies have also shown that the more outlets selling alcohol, the greater the number of alcohol-related violence and automobile accidents.England provides the most frightening case study. After virtually eliminating alcohol regulations in 2005, alcohol became widely available at heavily discounted prices. Often, beer was priced below water in grocery stores. As a result, police have reported higher rates of alcohol-related violent behavior, underage drinking and binge drinking.Our ministries put us in daily contact with the least fortunate in our communities, many of whom battle serious alcohol-related problems. We work tirelessly to provide a loving, caring, safe haven for people struggling with alcohol and drug addiction, helping them to understand that they are loved, that God forgives them, and that they can rebuild their lives. It is difficult to imagine that our court system would allow the profit motives of large corporations to grow the rolls of those afflicted by the terrible disease of alcoholism.State governments are no match for the well-funded legal assault that is bent on alcohol deregulation. Federal legislation is essential. By clarifying the states’ 21st Amendment right to regulate alcohol, the CARE Act of 2010 would stop the legal onslaught that threatens to plunge many more Americans into alcoholism.Our health, future and community values are dependent on this legislation.The Rev. Dr. Loyce Lester is pastor of Original New Grace Baptist Church in Detroit. The Rev. Curtis Williams is pastor of Aijalon Baptist Church in Detroit.

Stay current, enroll in our frequently updated Responsible Alcohol Manager course


College student dies of apparent alcohol poisoning

Source: AP

Jul 13th

Police say a University of Idaho senior died of respiratory arrest, apparently due to alcohol poisoning after a night of drinking to celebrate his 21st birthday.

Emergency personnel responded to a report of an unconscious man at Sigma Nu fraternity at 2:42 a.m. Tuesday. They located Benjamin Harris of Burley on the third floor and began CPR. He was pronounced dead on arrival at Gritman Medical Center.

Assistant Police Chief David Duke says Harris may have had as many as 15 shots in two-and-a-half hours as he celebrated his birthday Monday night.

A preliminary investigation indicated Harris died of respiratory arrest caused by alcohol poisoning. The cause of death will be determined by the medical examiner after review of the toxicology reports.

Get serious about responsible alcohol service and related facts at servingalcohol.com

| More