Liquor Commission Under Investigation...again!

[1stwahine]

:( Once again. Guess who? It seem every so many years, the Liquor Commission goes under investigation, cleans up house then it starts all over agiain. Maybe having an all Women Commission will prevent the same problems from occurring...enticement of money,sex,food and the like from the Bar owners and waitresses...to have a blind eye to whats going on. Auwe! I would volunteer!

[Miulang]

:( Once again. Guess who? It seem every so many years, the Liquor Commission goes under investigation, cleans up house then it starts all over agiain. Maybe having an all Women Commission will prevent the same problems from occurring...enticement of money,sex,food and the like from the Bar owners and waitresses...to have a blind eye to whats going on. Auwe! I would volunteer!
Aunty: Did Benny's have a bar, and if it did, did those buggahs come in and try to shake you guys down, too?

Miulang

[1stwahine]

Aunty: Did Benny's have a bar, and if it did, did those buggahs come in and try to shake you guys down, too?

Miulang

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, we didn't. However, there was plenty BARS during the time we were open and if I was in there, they knew better to come and buddah! That time, I like suck-um up, no pilikia or else dey was in trouble! heheheheh

[scrivener]

Maybe having an all Women Commission will prevent the same problems from occurring...enticement of money,sex,food and the like from the Bar owners and waitresses...

Yeah. That'd work, because women hate money and food.
It seems to me that a good percentage of the high-profile cases involving liquor-commission scams involves clubs and bars owned and managed by women. If women business-owners are dirty enough to OFFER bribes, why wouldn't women commissioners also be as likely to ACCEPT bribes?

The truth is that the liquor commission is a meaningless regulatory agency, designed to protect American citizens from themselves. Why do we have laws regulating when, where, and how much people can drink alcoholic beverages? I understand that luxuries like alcohol are good candidates for higher taxes, and I actually don't have a problem with that, but that's about as far as regulation needs to go: the monitoring and collection of these taxes. I can't think of one constitutionally acceptable reason to deny people the right to purchase a beer at, say one o'clock in the morning from a 7-Eleven or past four o'clock in the morning at a corner bar.

I hear what people are thinking: It keeps people from getting ridiculously drunk and then endangering other citizens. That's bull, and we all know it. Driving drunk is already illegal, and so is reckless endangerment. Making illegal the behaviors that sometimes lead to it, when the behaviors themselves are inherently harmless to others, is a crock, and government agencies charged with enforcing these laws are a waste of everyone's time and money.

I worked at a small mom-and-pop store in Hilo for a while, where most of the weekend business was generated by beer and cigarettes. When I was hired, I was told I had to go to the state building downtown and pass the liquor-license test so I could sell alcohol. My manager gave me a book so that I could study the laws before taking the test.

"What if I fail the test?" I asked.

"Nobody fails the test," my manager said.

"But what if I do?"

"You won't. Nobody does."

He was right. The test was multiple-choice, and as I and the other test-takers worked on it, the proctor looked over our shoulders and said things like, "Are you sure about number twelve?" or "Take another look at sixteen."

I shielded my test from the proctor's eyes so as not to contaminate my results. When others turned their tests in, the proctor would explain why some of their answers were wrong and then give the test-takers the opportunity to re-think their answers. Until they got them right.

I don't have a problem with what the proctor did, because he was just trying to make sure people learned and understood the law. My problem is with that book of laws itself. If the laws aren't serious enough to understand thoroughly so that "nobody fails the test," why are they serious enough to have at all? A citizen is entitled to purchase a little drink whenever he or she wants it, and another citizen should be free to sell it to him whenever he or she wants it. If either citizen breaks a meaningful law because of the alcohol, he or she should be accountable. But making the drinking or the selling illegal is, at best, Orwellian. At worst, it is a denial of those inalienable rights the laws of this country are designed to protect.

[1stwahine]

Scivener.....WOW! EXACTO MUNDO! I know alot of others, particularly Korean Bar Owners and Waitresses (Oahu) who can't hardly speak and read Engish, who passed the test too! They memorized the circled numbers.

I'm off to walk. Have a great day everyone! :D

[kimo55]

Why do we have laws regulating when, where, and how much people can drink alcoholic beverages? If either citizen breaks a meaningful law because of the alcohol, he or she should be accountable..... But making the drinking or the selling illegal is, at best, Orwellian. At worst, it is a denial of those inalienable rights the laws of this country are designed to protect.
very good.

I would like to see the feds swoop in on the city manager's office and the harris people and harris, and bust em all for illegal use of taxpayer money.
and maybe leave the liquor commission on the back burner. (which borders on victimless crime stuff.)

Go after the real (and rampant) fraud.

[1stwahine]

I would like to see the feds swoop in on the city manager's office and the harris people and harris, and bust em all for illegal use of taxpayer money.
and maybe leave the liquor commission on the back burner. (which borders on victimless crime stuff.)
Go after the real (and rampant) fraud.

Aloha Bro Kimo! Are you referring to the new city manager's office? hmmm...I know Harris and cronies were bad but there seems to be a contiuance in Mufi's one too. uh, getting back to the thread. Liquor Commission, can't live with/without them! hahahahaha

[kimo55]

Aloha Bro Kimo! Are you referring to the new city manager's office?



well, i think the old one where just a couple weks ago, this dude justified the ridiculous expenditure of the vanity publication on harris' legacy, at 12 dollars a pop. When they coulda gotten da dang t'ing published at about 3 bux thru Hagadone or thru Hong Kong.
and then the almost $600,000. costs on the Nuuanu neighborhood signs fit only for a mausoleum. or the cost over-run traffic calming speed nubs or whatever before pali tunnel.
a hawaii kai neighborhood sign costing us more than $117,000. which quickly started to break, crumble and fall apart! Now we have a cheap broken goofy expensive unneccessary landmark in our neighborhood. More than a hundred grand?! Good refelection (example) on goverment waste. terrible sign is a bad reflection on our part of what was paradise.
City hall justified all these in a too offhand manner.


One thing being so far geographically removed from the other 49 states; Hawaii american government thinks they can get away stealing with from the populace and running these lands into the ground creating a state overly depended on, and catering to the tourist dollar, and the rest of us can live in a banana republic/third world country watching our corrupt "officials" run willy nilly.
and we have the liquor commission debacle as a good example of this.

[Miulang]

well, i think the old one where just a couple weks ago, this dude justified the ridiculous expenditure of the vanity publication on harris' legacy, at 12 dollars a pop. When they coulda gotten da dang t'ing published at about 3 bux thru Hagadone or thru Hong Kong.
and then the almost $600,000. costs on the Nuuanu neighborhood signs fit only for a mausoleum. or the cost over-run traffic calming speed nubs or whatever before pali tunnel. City hall justified all these in a too offhand manner.


One thing being so far geographically removed from the other 49 states; Hawaii american government thinks they can get away stealing with from the populace and running these lands into the ground creating a state overly depended on, and catering to the tourist dollar, and the rest of us can live in a banana republic/third world country watching our corrupt "officials" run willy nilly.
and we have the liquor commission debacle as a good example of this.

Aw, don't be so hard on your local government, Kimo. Da same kine ting happens up here, too, but on a much grander scale! ;)

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Driving drunk is already illegal, and so is reckless endangerment. Making illegal the behaviors that sometimes lead to it, when the behaviors themselves are inherently harmless to others, is a crock, and government agencies charged with enforcing these laws are a waste of everyone's time and money.
Yeah! For that matter, why have gun laws? Or limit who can drive? Why limit access to any drug? People should be able to do whatever the hell they want to themselves, and in their own homes. We should wait for them to do something stupid before we act. Punishment, not prevention! :p

Yeah, yeah, I know, a weak "slippery slope" argument. What can I say... I have a libertarian streak, too, believe it or not. My main point is, balance is key, not anarchy nor totalitarianism. Of course, that's what makes defining laws the minefield that it is.

At least here, you can get alcohol for most of the day, any day. Try living in the south, where you're cut off completely on Sunday. Hell, they even move trick-or-treating if Halloween falls on that all important day!

As far as regulating liquor sales, of course the system is a crock. Safety is the excuse. Tax revenues is the real motive.

[Miulang]

Up here, if a drunk driver gets in an accident, they have to go to jail (no free pass) and if they were drinking at a bar, the bar/restaurant gets hit with a very heavy fine. I don't know how they assign fault if the person was bar hopping...it may be the last bar that served him gets hit with the fine since they should have known the person was intoxicated and refused service to him.

Miulang

[kimo55]

Up here, if a drunk driver gets in an accident, they have to go to jail (no free pass) and if they were drinking at a bar, the bar/restaurant gets hit with a very heavy fine. I don't know how they assign fault if the person was bar hopping...it may be the last bar that served him gets hit with the fine since they should have known the person was intoxicated and refused service to him.

Miulang


how bout if they met some friends there who were sober, and a friend gave them the drink or three, unbeknownst to the manager, bartender or waitstaff?

[Miulang]

how bout if they met some friends there who were sober, and a friend gave them the drink or three, unbeknownst to the manager, bartender or waitstaff?
I think the last establishment that served him booze would still be liable. And I think if the guy was drinking at home, if he injured or killed someone, the courts would go after the people he was partying with.

Miulang

[kimo55]

I think the last establishment that served him booze would still be liable. And I think if the guy was drinking at home, if he injured or killed someone, the courts would go after the people he was partying with.

Miulang

jeez. wild.
that means;
I would be strung up if i happened upon that party, had one beer at that home and said hi to da bloke and left.

[Miulang]

jeez. wild.
that means;
I would be strung up if i happened upon that party, had one beer at that home and said hi to da bloke and left.
I think the implication is, if you drive drunk and you cause harm, then you and the people who might have helped you get to that condition will be liable too. Of course, we all know that the legal system needs to be straightened out bigtime. Why do you think they put all those warning labels on everything these days? On da side of a cigarette pack: "Warning: the Surgeon General of the US states that smoking can be hazardous to your health". Plastic bags that your dry cleaning is covered in: "Warning: Not a toy. Keep away from children."...we need those warnings because there have been enough people trying to defy Darwin, getting hurt and then trying to sue for damages.

Miulang

[kimo55]

Why do you think they put all those warning labels on everything these days?

Miulang


the over-proliferation of two things littering the american landscape:

lawyers

sue happy citizens looking to evade and/or avoid responisibility and / or get a free luch.

[kimo55]

"And I think if the guy was drinking at home, if he injured or killed someone, the courts would go after the people he was partying with.
"
I think the implication is, if you drive drunk and you cause harm, then you and the people who might have helped you get to that condition will be liable too. Miulang

The implication also is:
You are shot, screwed, powderburnt & snakebitten if you had any contact, to any degree, with someone who later that night was arrested for drunk driving and caused any harm.
a frightening scenario. Not one to be seen in a "free america"

[scrivener]

Yeah, yeah, I know, a weak "slippery slope" argument. What can I say... I have a libertarian streak, too, believe it or not. My main point is, balance is key, not anarchy nor totalitarianism. Of course, that's what makes defining laws the minefield that it is.

I'm not sure I agree. "Balance" is difficult to define, and of course it seems almost impossible to achieve. All I know is this: My parents and your parents told us (a) to make intelligent choices and (b) to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices, good or bad. We know each other well enough to know that we didn't always learn (a) well enough, but (b) is pretty strongly engraved upon our hearts, wouldn't you say?

It wasn't the law. It wasn't the elite. It was mom and dad. It was also society, for my own values differ from my parents' (in some ways more admirably; in others less so) where society has helped me to redefine them my own way.

In the long run, I think we'd all agree that influencing the people around us is a far more effective way to maintain safety in society than creating a government to do it for us. Where protecting us from the deviants and allowing us our freedomes collide, I say we need to err on the side of freedom if we're going to be true to who we are.

Your example of liquor purchases on Sunday in parts of the South is a great example. Look: I respect people's opinions that it's wrong to drink on Sunday, but if I disagree, it should be within my rights to purchase a drink on Sunday if I'm not going to do anything to interfere with anyone's right not to. We agree on this. The drinking laws in this state are only a small step away from that. You say we need to strive for balance, but I don't see how what we have resembles balance in any way.

The bar that sold Clyde Arakawa his last drink was deemed liable for the death of an innocent driver. Why is it the bar's LEGAL responsibility to deny a man the drink that makes him so drunk that he kills a girl? If Arakawa had had a heart-attack, would it have been Burger King's responsibility if BK had sold him his last Double Whopper?

One person was responsible for that poor young woman's death: Clyde Arakawa. If you want to put some kind of blame on anyone else, you don't start with the bar that sold him the drink; you start with the friends and family members who perhaps didn't instill strongly enough in him the value for human life he should have had. But even then, there's only so much anyone can do when it comes to a human being making a decision for himself.

Let's say that bar tells Clyde he can't have that last couple of drinks, then calls Clyde a cab and even pays for it. Does the woman who gets home safely that night owe the bar money for saving her life? Of course not.

As far as regulating liquor sales, of course the system is a crock. Safety is the excuse. Tax revenues is the real motive.

If this is true, it makes more sense for liquor sales to continue 'round the clock at bars and at stores. More tax-money for us all (which, as I said above, I am completely in favor of).

[Miulang]

If Arakawa had had a heart-attack, would it have been Burger King's responsibility if BK had sold him his last Double Whopper?
This ruse was already tried in court. A really obese guy with heart problems was trying to sue McD saying it's because of their food that he had the heart problems. The court told him that McD wasn't forcing to eat his food and it's his own damn fault that he is sick now. I don't know if this case is under appeal or not.

But this is what happens when people are conditioned not to take full responsibility for their own actions. If something goes wrong, it's "why me?" or "it's not my fault. So I'm going to sue the person I think is responsible for me being in this mess." That's why everything has a disclaimer on it, even really obvious things, like this one on a roll of Bounty towels: "Warning: to avoid danger of suffocation, keep this bag away from babies and children." And this right below it: "Any paper product can burn if used improperly in microwave or conventional ovens. .."

And I believe that's why drinking establishments post signs saying they have the right to refuse to serve customers.

I think Aunty Lynn is right, though. If the agents were women, there would probably be less temptation to offer bribes by the bars owned by women. They'd have to come up with "other incentives". Dancing men, maybe?? :D



Miulang

[kimo55]

This ruse was already tried in court. A really obese guy with heart problems was trying to sue McD saying it's because of their food that he had the heart problems. The court told him that McD wasn't forcing to eat his food and it's his own damn fault that he is sick now. I don't know if this case is under appeal or not.


well, here's some noose along those lines...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jan/26/bz/bz14p.html



And I believe that's why drinking establishments post signs saying they have the right to refuse to serve customers.

Miulang

or like da sign at a bar/restaurant I was at recently:

"We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone"

[Miulang]

ROFL! Wonder if the person who made the sign maybe had one too many, too. I LOVE catching those little errors; part of one of my previous lives as a copywriter.

Miulang

Or maybe the sign was telling the truth: Maybe all their drinks taste like garbage! :)

[kimo55]

ROFL! Wonder if the person who made the sign maybe had one too many, too. I LOVE catching those little errors; part of one of my previous lives as a copywriter.

Miulang




lost in translation:
here are a few more actual signs from bars and otherwise that i remember from my... uh... " international travels"..


On a menu in a Swiss restaurant:
Our wines leave you nothing to hope for.

On a menu of a Polish hotel:
Salad a firm's own make; limpid red beer soup with cheesy dumplings in the form of a finger; roasted duck let loose; beef rashers beaten up in the country people's fashion.

In a Tokyo hotel:
Please take advantage of the chambermaids.

In a Hong Kong supermarket:
For your convenience we recommend courteous, efficient self-service.


In a Vienna hotel:
In case of fire, do your utmost to alarm the porter.

In Germany's Black Forest:
It is strictly forbidden on our Black Forest camping site that people of different sex, for instance, men & women, live together in one tent unless they are married for that purpose.

An ad by a Hong Kong dentist:
Teeth extracted by the latest Methodists.

In the window of a Swedish furrier:
Fur coats made for the ladies from their own skin.

On a box of a clockwork toy in Hong Kong:
Guaranteed to work throughout its useful life.

Detour sign in Kyushu, Japan:
Stop---Drive sideways.

Swiss mountain inn:
Special today--no ice cream.

Copenhagen airline ticket office:
We take your bags and send them in all directions.

Moscow hotel room:
If this is your first visit to the USSR, you are welcome to it.

Norwegian lounge:
Ladies are requested not to have children in the bar.

Budapest zoo:
Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty.

A notice in a Japanese hotel:
Please not to steal towels. If you are not person to do such, please not to read notice.

Office of a Roman doctor:
Specialist in women and other diseases.

Acapulco hotel:
The manager has personally passed all the water served here.

Tokyo shop:
Our nylons cost more than common, but you'll find that they are best in the long run.

Japanese instructions on an air conditioner:
Cooles & Heates: If you want just condition of warm in your room, please control yourself.

Car rental brochure in Tokyo:
When passenger of foot heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet him melodiously at first, but if he still obstacles your passage then tootle him with vigor.

Two signs from a Majorcan shop entrance:
English well talking. Here speeching American.

A sign on the lion cage at a zoo in the Czech Republic:
No smoothen the lion

A Finnish hotel's instructions in case of fire:
If you are unable to leave your room, expose yourself in the window.

[1stwahine]

Wow! Ya Went All Dem Places? I'm Impressed! Das Why You Know Anykine Stuff. (clap,clap,clap)

[1stwahine]

Firing of the Liqour Commission? Start all brand new?...heheheh :p

Auntie Lynn

[craigwatanabe]

Oh the horror stories of the Liquor Commission...my neighbor (we shared the same lot and my house was behind his, was a former liquor deputy attorney and before that he was a staunch democratic senator for the State of Hawaii.

One night I arrived home and couldn't park my car in my stall because my neighbor had parked his car cockeyed and somewhat in my space. He was still in his car passed out with the driver's door open and the car chiming away.

I woke him up from a drunken stupor and when he awoke he couldn't remember how he got home from the bar.

Okay :eek: A former Democratic state senator now liquor commission deputy attorney drunk at the wheel of his parked car can't remember how he got home from THE BAR!!! I told him, "you're lucky we're neighbors and I like you because my boss would have a field day if I told him what happened tonight.

Ummm my boss was Rick Hamada at KHVH radio...yeah...but I couldn't do it to my friend and neighbor. He's really a nice guy despite being a democrat. :D

[Miulang]

Ya kinda know something's up when the former Head of the Liquor Commission requests that his agents be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves on the job (heh. I think training those guys not to accept bribes would be better, but I can see where a firearm might come in handy if the agents refused bribes from "certain" establishments. Right, Tita Lynn? :p )

Miulang

[1stwahine]

Ya kinda know something's up when the former Head of the Liquor Commission requests that his agents be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves on the job (heh. I think training those guys not to accept bribes would be better, but I can see where a firearm might come in handy if the agents refused bribes from "certain" establishments. Right, Tita Lynn? :p )

Miulang

Right, Tita Miulang!!! My friend and "sometimes" drinking partner wrote the book, "Buy me Drinkie:. A must read for any man in the islands. Fire arms is not needed...all they got to do is be trained by me! LOL

Auntie Lynn

I'll be back...got to go see Dr. Do! :eek:

[1stwahine]

Good Morning! heheheh

In the The StarBulletin http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/15/news/story03.html

"Liquor law extortion plot charged
Federal takeover of the liquor board is threatened with this latest indictment"

Aiya!

...they wen get da Feds MAD! First HPD. Now dis? :rolleyes: Ahanakokolele, betta watch out before we go unda Martial Law! :eek:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f358/1stwahine/w-13.gif
(Worried Kane @ Honolulu Hale?)

aUNTIE pUpule :p

btw: Read this Thread from the Start. :)

[kimo55]

Good Morning! sheshesheh