Aloha Stadium alcohol ban nixed, but...

[LikaNui]

Breaking news:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/26/br/br04p.html

"The Aloha Stadium Authority today voted down a plan that would have banned beer and alcohol consumption in the stadium's 8,000-stall parking lot before, during and after regular-season collegiate sporting events." (Full story at the link above.)

I agree with not banning booze before and during, but... allowing drinking in the parking lot after? Just before they get in their cars and get on the road?!??
:eek: :eek: :eek:

[lurkah]

I agree with not banning booze before and during, but... allowing drinking in the parking lot after? Just before they get in their cars and get on the road?!??
I was wondering if it might be possible or even legal for HPD to set up "random" DUI checkpoints on public roadways with their blue lights flashing in plain view of the parking lot near the stadium exits, but then I remembered that there's at least one exit that leads directly on to the H-1 freeway heading Koko Head bound. :( Just gotta pray that no fatalities result directly from the Aloha Stadium Authority's decision.

[Miulang]

Wow...the Stadium Authority went against Duke Aiona? I wonder why? Does the Stadium Authority get a percentage of the concession receipts from each event held there? Maybe they decided that the money was worth more than the public safety of their guests? Wait till someone gets hurt in an accident caused by a tipsy sports fan and sues the Stadium Authority. Maybe then they'll reconsider. At least Aiona was smart enough not to say the ban extended to other sporting events (non school) that might be held at Honolulu Stadium. Imagine..."tradition" outtrumps "safety".

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

They were probably convinced that the monies they get from the concessions outweigh the potential increase in their insurance premiums, on the rare chance someone successfully sues them.

[helen]

The proposed ban that got nix only covered consuming alcohol in the parking lot, meaning the people are bringing their own alcohol to the event. If I remember right you can not bring in coolers into the stadium. This has nothing to do with the vendors selling alcohol inside the stadium.

[Leo Lakio]

The proposed ban that got nix only covered consuming alcohol in the parking lot, meaning the people are bringing their own alcohol to the event. If I remember right you can not bring in coolers into the stadium. This has nothing to do with the vendors selling alcohol inside the stadium.
But you can buy inside and take out to the parking lot, yes?

[helen]

I am not sure but I suspect the answer is no.

[Leo Lakio]

OK - mahalo.

[manoasurfer123]

But you can buy inside and take out to the parking lot, yes?
no can do...

Kind of like leaving a bar with a drink in your hand... it just doesn't happen.
(and for that matter... you can't bring alcohol in either)

[helen]

And I think that's the reason why they can't enforce a ban on drinking in the parking lot because they got guards at the enterance/exits to prevent alcohol from coming in or going out. It will take a lot more people to go into the parking lots to enforce such a ban and that will take more money to pay for those positions.

I suspect it might be easier to ban alcohol sales within the stadium, sure the Stadium Authority will take a hit in the coffers, but it would be doable. The other thing to worry about is whatever contracts there are existing between the vendors and the Stadium Authority that might prevent this from happening soon, but I suppose when the time comes to renew the contracts the Stadium Authority don't renew it or change it so that there are no alcohol sales within the stadium.

Imagine..."tradition" outtrumps "safety".Not the first time that has happen. Remember fireworks!

[Moto]

I believe the Authority stated it well when they said that they needed to focus on the actual problem, people who are out of control at the games.

For every idiot that is out of control, there are probably 100 (if not more) individuals that drink responsibly and are in total control. They did not want to punish the 90 for the action of the one individual.

It would be like saying people are racing on the roadways and endangering pedestrian's lives (and that is happening right now), so we should ban driving on the streets. Does that make sense or should we just try to be aggressive and try to get the people speeding off of the roads and enforce the law?