Mayor Can Shut Bars Serving Drunks

What amases me, and I have commented on earlier, is where was every one two years ago to discuss this event when someone died?  This hang wringing by the mayor and the chancellor is interesting... where were they last year?  and the other 3 years prior.   The Chancellor should begin to clean his own house  ie: tailgating at football games before he goes out and demands that the city do something.....after all, drinking in parking lots is illegal in the City of Champaign,.. there is no provision for U of I parking lots.....yet, folks drink there and then drive home intoxicated............no one is checking id's there..............................yet he doesnt call in ISP etc on those days to patrol the parking lots.................so until he ends drinking on his turf, he has little to say about drinking on the Citys turf.

Posturing, one down how many left?  A slight shift in the balance but no effect on the burden.  All though it would take some a bit of time to transition, a slight break in the action is all.  I would expect another, maybe not, maybe two.  OK one more, whats your guess, lets bet a beer at MOMs! an unofficial bet of course.

That's because the law they broke is a State Happy Hour Law... Being shut down by the State is a WHOLE LOT worse than by the Mayor.. They're gong to be in some serious s**t.

Such an absolutely stupid thing to do....

I mean the bar manager is stupid... not the state.. :-)

The second one... "All you can drink for a price"...

Somehow, I suspect that the Mayor brought the State to town.. not Herman.

Well-played none the less..

Like I said earlier, it seems the NG has a local, current-event story on it's website, last updated at 9p.

Only 7 hours after it was broken here, first ;-)

How does dyeing the river green violate state liquor laws?

I'm not sure drinking out of the Chicago River will get you drunk... probably some other mild-altered state however. :)

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

From today's NG:

"Jessica Hendricksen, a Western Illinois University student, planned to spend the whole weekend doing Unofficial-related activities..."I'm in a sorority, and we all ditch our classes," she said of how she can attend the party on a Friday."

Simply.  Stunning.

Does anyone else, besides me, want to send a copy of that article to her parents?  or am i just being a crotchety old bastard?

HG

Arvid says: "I mean, there's really only one other alternative to getting old..."

Carousel! Carousel!

Meanwhile, I must say I ADORE your icon.

I don't believe I've seen anyone on this forum advocating that college students should become teetotalers and confined to a monk-like sober existence for the duration of their college years. I certainly got out and enjoyed my beer when I was a college student, so I'm not under any illusion that things are (or should be) different for college students of today.

What offends many in the community is not the routine weekend drunkenness in Campustown, but the organized promotion of drunkenness on a massive scale that leads to slogans like "Drink till you're Irish", attracts students from other campuses, and results in puking on the streets before lunch time.

I am not naive enough to expect drinking on a college campus to cease, even with stricter bar entry ordinances and additional laws. University of Illinois students are resourceful, and one way or another, they'll find a way to enjoy the things young people enjoy, and it's a given that drinking is one of those things.

My annoyance about the "Unofficial" events is an issue of degree. It's not just that students are being invited to drink; it's that they are being encouraged to drink to excess and to get an early start. My offense is directed more at the bar owners who encourage and exploit this promotion than the young adults who partake in it.

I've heard people complain that the University doesn't do enough to stop "Unofficial". This is an absurd argument; other than its police powers to protect University property, the University has little power to do anything about drinking – excessive or otherwise – taking place in Campustown. I'm not sure what practical steps people are suggesting that the U of I take.

I'm not certain what additional action the two municipal governments can do other than continue to police it as they have in past years. Some have argued that the bar entry age of 19 is a charade and should be changed, but the counterargument that has been raised is that it would simply drive the drinking underground where it can't be seen or as easily policed. At the same time, I believe the 21-year-old drinking age is absurd and should be lowered to 19.

And to be frank, I'm not sure what level of government involvement should be considered appropriate. Protecting people from the consequences of battery perpetrated by drunks or protecting those who have poisoned themselves with alcohol seem to be areas where law enforcement must take place. Yet, taking draconian action against a 20-year old found with a beer in his hand seems unreasonable to me. At what point between these extremes does the community draw the line? There has been enough tongue-clucking here and in the letters section of the News-Gazette; let's hear some practical solutions to whatever problem we can agree is both reasonable and appropriate for the community to address.

What I find most appalling is that a greedy, irresponsible bar owner like Scott Cochrane can hold the whole community hostage – I wonder how much all the police presence cost – and yet there's not much that can be done about him or about his promotion by any level of government under Illinois' liquor laws.

To Anon 4:40:

Ah, yes, the naivete and arrogance of youth to think that they are so much better than those who came before them. I'm sure that, over time, your generation will prove just as capable at depleting resources (and otherwise being a**holes) as the generation that came before you.

For a young person to blame the elderly for all the ills of society is just as lame as for an old person to blame today's youth for being incorrigible. The old too often fall into selective amnesia about their youth, and the young too often fail to realize that they will wind up the same way over time. It's simple human nature.

And when you youth move a little farther down life's timeline, the next generation after you will blame you for the same things for which you blame the previous generation. And perhaps you will then realize that "what goes around, comes around."

Sidewalk flowers, man!  It's all good...

Here is some historical food for thought and also some considerations of cause and effect of the Local Governments in the campus drinking issues:

First let me make it very clear that underage drinking is not a good idea and I would prefer college students found another avenue of entertainment.

Next, underage drinking has been a part of campus life for decades and will continue to be a part of that life. Freshman 18 yrs., Sophmore 19 yrs. Junior 20 yrs. and Senior 21 yrs. So for probably 2-1/2 years or more, the students are going to be underage. And they are going to have a LOT of free time. No number of laws is going to prevent it.

Controlling underage drinking is beating a dead horse in a campus town, but previous administrations had a pretty good control over the issue. The students are going to drink underage, just make sure they do it on your terms.

There was a system in place during the 60's and 70's that worked very well.

Campus Bars were only allowed to serve beer, wine and malt liquor. No hard liquor was allowed unless it was a restaurant or outside a certain geographic limit. Bars like Kams (Now C.O. Daniels), Stan's (Now Kams), Whitts End (now gone), Murphys, Lando Place (now gone), Midway's (Now Illini Inn), Red Herring (now gone), White Horse Inn, Brown Jug (now gone) and the Wigwam (now Firehaus), to name a few only served beer, wine and malt liquor or some of a combination thereof.

Having managed Whitts End for a while, I can tell you the difference between students getting drunk on beer and those getting drunk on hard liquor is very significant. In general, beer or wine drunks are more docile and more apt to end up staggering home, or getting sick than getting very very nasty and violently ill.

Those who drank hard liquor simply were able to consume more alcohol in a short period of time and they lost control very quickly and not only became violent but were sometimes very very ill from near alcohol poisoning. I personally knew 5 students who drank hard liquor then came to the campus bars and everyone of them ended up with an alcohol dependency problem, with 2 dying from it. I was not aware of any who just drank beer or wine, having those problems, and I certainly knew a lot of people who drank, because of my involvement with the Bars.

In fact, in the mid 60's the local cities and State did exactly the same thing to the same local bar, they raided Kams (now C.O. Daniels) and really started to crack down on underage drinking on campus and it worked. The campus bars were pretty empty, but that did not stop the underage students from drinking. The students just piled into cars and went to Rantoul or Thomasboro or Charleston or even worse, Westiville that had 49 bars that stayed open until 4:30 AM. All these towns welcomed the students with open arms because of the revenue they were getting.

So for moral reasons similar to Prohibition the Cities were dying to control the underage drinking and the students were dying on their way back from these out of town bars. They were running head on into cars on Route 45 and kissing the bridge piers on I-74.

Fortunately, the City fathers recognized the error of their ways and changed the terms. Students were again allowed to drink on campus bars with just a student I.D. but if they strayed to the off campus bars like Rose Bowl, Tumble Inn, Del's Tap, Old Fashioned, Brass Rail, etc. they were immediately carded and denied service unless they were 21. Also, there was no problem getting kegs or beers with a Student I.D. .... 21, of course, but large quantities of hard liquor were not usually sold to one individual especially with a student I.D. The liquor stores said OK, to keeping the parties in the campus area on beer, but not hard liquor.

Students were walking into parking meters and falling down....and living. Were the Cities turning their back on underage drinking? Yep, it was going to happen anyway, but it was happening on their terms.

Then Greed reared its ugly head and political pressure from the bar owners caused some of the City Fathers to yield to pressure and vote to change the ordinances and allow hard liquor to be served in the Campus Bars. Hard liquor is much more profitable to serve and they can serve more of it. Takes less time to throw down a shot of booze than to drink a 12 oz beer, so the revenues AND taxes increase by allowing the sale of hard liquor on campus. They didn't give a tinkers damn about the students or what they were allowing them to do. It was all money.

Since the change of that ordinance, the problems with alcohol have dramatically increased, and why wouldn't they, it is HARD liquor!!!!! Before a student would only be able to drink 8 or 9 beers on a very drunk night of 3 to 4 hours of drinking, but after a student could pound down 6 or 7 shots or HARD liquor in less than a half an hour. An invitation to disaster and they accepted the City's invitation.

God knows in the 60's we tried damned near everything we could try, but at the University of Illinois, hard liquor was the least prevalent drug. It was almost non-existent at even the private parties. I truly don't remember many parties where hard liquor was the drink of choice. Occasionally, punch would be spiked with Everclear, but the word was out and that did not last long.

Again, as a result of a problem they created, the City is now trying BandAid solutions, like setting limits on drinking activities on a certain day. Why were they surprised when bar owners realized that they were going to lose revenue and created another "unofficial" day to try to recover those lost revenues? Remember one of the restrictions was "no shots", what a unique idea, I had heard that before Greed.

So now, the City is complaining that they have a campus drinking problem. Well no S__t, who caused it?

Some of the posts asked for a solution, and I say, going back to the old ordinance, may be a good start.

Here are a couple of questions for the City?

1. Why on earth did you allow hard liquor to be served on campus, when it was not allowed previously for obviously good reason?

2. Who are the Adults in the matter?

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Anonymous,

Perhaps you misunderstood. The liquor laws were the state laws, 21 was the drinking age. But enforcing it to the limit of the law, was killing people. Do you disagree, that college students will drink? I hope not, because as I said, the do and have always and will continue to do so.

Just as many above have pointed out, it happens, they did it, and even suggested that those who did not would probably not make good public servants.

I simply said, consider what the law was during the 60's, and what the policy of enforcing that law was at that time. It seemed to work, did not have the problems that are occuring now and did not encourage campus students to leave the campus area in an automobile.

To answer your question about grad students, yes it did, the enforcement was in the campus area, and the ordinance for the particular liquor license was beer, wine and malt liquor. Grad Students could go elsewere because of their age and did not have any trouble getting served. Katsinas was a very popular bar because of the close proximity to the campus.

I believe Timpone's was able to serve liquor because they were also a resturant. I think they were the Thunderbird at that time, unless I am confused.

Perkins is outside the area which was restricted at that time, and was not there then. I would be up to the administrations to consider what license to issue, but again they are a resturant.

No race and underage drinking are completely different. The enforcement was strictly in the Campus area, at those bars and a few others which I listed. That is why I listed them to give an idea of the area.

Primarily, the bars carded for Student I.D., so if soldiers were students, yes, voters, yes, mothers, yes and of course any of those that were 21 the Student ID was not necessary. The reason for the Student ID was to keep local and neighboring highschool kids off campus. When I managed Whitts, Jimmy would set the rules for carding, but usually they were Student I.D., ok, over 21 OK, drivers license ID, only over 21, service ID from Chanute, over 21. But again, no matter the age, only beer, wine and malt liquor in that area.

Just another thing, when I was in college, if you went to a class drunk, or smelling like booze, they would boot your butt out. St. Patricks day was on the date and it primarily involved drinking green beer, which looked like crap under a black light, but there was NONE of the things that go on now. It was a pretty fun and pleasant day, especially if you could sing.

And finally, yes, the state law at that time was 21, but enforcement just caused the students to go elsewhere and get killed on the way back home. Morality is very difficult to legislate and if enforcement of morality laws causes more problems than the issue, then responsible leadership makes proper adjustments, which they did in this case.

The two questions I asked have significant importance, because of the impact they have obviously had on the campus area.

The hard fact is, that method worked and what they are doing now, is sure in Hell not working.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

I agree, I always had a problem with understanding the law which was allowing patrons who were below the drinking age into drinking establishments, without chaperons. I never understood the reasoning.

As Anony above pointed out, certainly there was some inconsistencies about campus areas and other areas of the cities, but you have to understand, if the bar owners located a bar in an area that only had about 8 or 9 thousand of a 30,000 population which were old enough to drink. You understand they were catering to college students and also were allowing then students to learn about drinking and the responsibilities associated therewith, without having to expose themselves to some of the more dangerous consequences like traffic accidents and addiction to alcohol.

Again, not that it was legal or correct, but it sure worked and kept things from happening, like they are happening now. Remember we also had Halloween, which was also a fun time that degenerated into a pretty sad event after the hard liquor was allowed in the campus area.

I know, it seems that reverting back to the old way is an infringement on a business' ability to earn an income, but there is something that did work before and one would believe there is a compromise somewhere. Presently, the regulations they are attempting to enact on bars is also an infringement, and worse ............. not effective.

The system of fines was also different. If memory serves me correct, the Owner's of the bar had to appear before a judge for having underage patrons and the underage patrons posted a $25 bond (which was almost a weeks wages, after taxes). But what happened was neither the underage drinker or the police officer showed up at the hearing so the Judge dismissed the charges, but the bail was forfeited. I am not sure, but I think the parents were notified also.

That was a pretty good solution because $25 was a lot of money and the parental notification also made the point, but a student did not have a drinking felony on his/her permanent record.

These selective morality issues are dangerous territory. Singling out campus bars for these violations is not exactly consistent. I walked the 4th of July parade route and there were sure a lot of people drinking on public right of way, but none were ticketed. Go figure.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

One more thing, I know at some point in late 70's or early 80's the legal drinking age was raised from 18 or 19 to 21. So are you saying it was 21 in the 60's, then lowered at some point before it was raised in the late 70's or early 80's?

Yes. This happened across the country during the Vietnam War. The drinking age had been 21, then many states lowered it to 18/19 (varied by state, and some states had additional regulations regarding age and type of beverages). Then, in 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act effectively required all states to increase the age back to 21.

And my last comment on this site,

Although I am not sure exactly what is "Binge Drinking", I saw the legal definition and still am not quite sure, no one can deny pounding significant amounts of alcohol into your system in a short time is not good for anyone. But the operative words are "in a short time"....

Drinks like watermelon shots, kamakazies, jello shots, etc. are an invitation not only a very bad couple of days but possibly alcohol poisoning (one of the first symptoms is loss of sight). The hard liquor is the demon, because you can get so much into your body, and eventually system is such a short time. With little effort a young person could consume a shot a minute for 10 minutes.

But that kind of activity was not unique to this era, it also existed in the 60's, but amazingly enough, there was some restraint in the action and it actually was an event.

Every Spring, Kams (the old one) would hold the annual Chug Contest, which was a sort of drinking Olympics with relay races on how fast teams of 4 could drink 8 beers or how fast individuals could drink two beers. The teams were formed by all kinds of groups, Sororities, Frats, Independents and just off the street individuals. It was such a popular event that spectators stacked tables to the ceiling and formed a sort of arena to watch.

While they were close to the ceiling, they always wrote their name and date and it remained there forever.

But the competition had some interesting rules like a contestant could only compete in three races and the races were timed so the winner was the lowest time, but the drinking was only 6 beers by each individual contestant, or possibly 2 pitchers. Additionally, pledges from all the Sororities and Frats were required to help the older sisters and brothers home after the contest. Dorm floors had the same rule, except it was Freshmen who helped.

Everyone seemed to have a good time and of course the bar owner made a killing by selling beer to the spectators (in addition to the beer in the contest, you had to buy it). What made it unique when compared to todays "Binge Drinking" with hard liquor is that even though it certainly had all the earmarks of "Binge Drinking", it was actually more of a Springtime release of energy than a contest to get drunk.

Sure sometimes the contestants did not feel so good afterwards, but that was because they simply could not drink that fast, not the alcohol. And even though 100's watched, even the spectators had trouble consuming a lot of beer because it was so hard to get served because of the crowd.

Of course there were bragging rights for both individuals and teams, but again, it was in good fun and the intent was not to get drunk, but to be fast.

So even in the worst of conditions, namely being encouraged to drink fast, the no hard liquor license issued to the Campus Bars, even tempered such youthful indiscretions, buy limiting the amount of alcohol being consumed, by putting that alcohol in 8-1/2 oz of water. (Usually the glasses were 10 oz glasses)

I make this last post because I fear that just because this official unofficial day is over, the City fathers will turn their back on the real issue, namely students having hard liquor available to them rather than just beer. I hope the City fathers will consider means to turn back the hands of time and again make the campus bars have only beer, wine and malt liquor available at those bars. If the City Fathers actually consider the health and general welfare of the students and their youthful indiscretions, instead of wanting the tax revenues on the backs and minds of those students, we will all benefit.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

When I arrived in Champaign-Urbana in 1979, the drinking age in Champaign was 21 for hard liquor, and the bar entry age and drinking age for beer and wine was 19.

Over on the other side of Wright Street, by virtue of Urbana's home rule status, the drinking age and bar entry age was 18. I believe this included all types of alcoholic beverages, but I'm fuzzy on that point.

I believe the 21-year-old drinking age became law in Illinois in 1980 – just before I attained the ability to drink legally on the Champaign side of Wright Street. The state legislation nullified the home rule provision used by Urbana prior to that date.

Bettycat

Geeze, good thing the Lotto was not around then you would have probably played it and lost too. What an unbelievable run of bad luck to get to that moment. Thanks for sharing

JRR

Yep, there was a difference in the drinking ages between Urbana and Champaign for a while. But also, the Bars used to be closed on Sunday and one of the Cities changed it before the other (I can't remember which, I think Urbana changed first) and talk about an economic inbalance....oh my....

and to all,

What do you think about making every effort to try change back to beer and wine on campus??? Find a way to not distress the bar owners financially, and make it gradual or what does everyone suggest?

No one who was around then has said it did not work to keep the lid on things. So why not learn from History?

Please give any and all responses, something might be of interest that we can take to the Cities in a meeting.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Hard liquor is to beer, as crack is to cocaine.  Yes, it should be controlled better in the proximity of underage drinkers.  There in lies the problem.  Legal is legal, illegal is illegal. 

Remove the youngsters or the hard liquor, seems like a reasonable choice.

Having seen the ugly side of alcoholism I conquer that the fun side often makes way to a very ugly reality.  My guess is most everyone over forty can attest to this.  Is much emphasis on alcohol education a part of the college scene at the UI?  How so?

For what its worth, I was in Carbondale when the drinking age went down (SIU was Playboy's #1 party school about then) then became a police officer shortly before it went back up. The first "real" fight I got into on the job was with a kid who could drink one day, then couldn’t the next. He was in the bar refusing to leave (he showed up drunk) with cue balls in each hand....

I also recall that much of the impetus to raise the age back up was due to a drastic increase in DUI deaths-far out of proportion to the population numbers for those who had recently gained the right to drink. Maybe one of you talented stat-gatherers can find out the specifics.