Hey, there! Log in / Register
Homeless man with bloodshot eyes, unsteady gait and the stench of alcohol wasn't drunk, board concludes
By adamg on Fri, 06/12/2015 - 10:46am
The Boston Licensing Board ruled yesterday an Allston liquor store did nothing wrong selling a 40 and a pint of vodka to a homeless man after the store presented evidence that while he might be a chronic alcoholic, he wasn't drunk at that moment.
Sgt. Det. Robert Mulvey had issued Comm. Ave. Wine and Spirits, 1229 Commonwealth Ave., a citation for selling alcohol to an intoxicated patron on May 2 after he saw a clerk sell the beer and vodka to a man who appeared disheveled, smelled of alcohol, swayed side to side and had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
But the clerk who sold the beer and vodka to the man - and another customer who stood behind him in line - said he was absolutely not drunk, and did not appear particularly unsteady.
Yes, he is homeless, and yes, he is a chronic alcoholic the clerk and attorney Andrew Upton agreed. But the man, a regular at the shop, had spent an hour feeding bottles and cans into recycling machines at the store - something Upton said took considerable fine-motor skills of the sort somebody who was drunk could not handle.
And before that, he had probably spent several hours collecting the several hundred bottles and cans he returned to earn the $15 or so to buy the beer and vodka, Upton said, as an associate presented the board with a thumb drive of surveillance video showing the man feeding those hundreds of bottles and cans into the machines.
Upton continued that all that would also explain what the other customer acknowledged was the man's considerable stench - it came from liquids spilling on his clothes as he collected the containers, not because he was drunk at the time.
Upton continued that chronic alcoholics can develop permanent characteristics that are often hallmarks of drunkenness, even if they're perfectly sober, he said, also presenting the board with a journal article on the debilitating effects of long-term alcoholism.
Although state law prohibits the sale of alcohol to intoxicated people, it says nothing about selling to people who suffer from alcoholism but who are not drunk at the time.
Under questioning from Upton, Mulvey acknowledged he did not have the man perform any field sobriety tests.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What, science, medicine, and
What, science, medicine, and reason win the day at a Boston Licensing Board hearing? Color me amazed!
I mean, okay, yes
But doesn't this make you feel a little queasy?
Yes, he used science and reason to show that he wasn't in violation of the law, but there's something really gross about a liquor store owner citing the health effects of alcoholism as a legal justification to sell somebody vodka.
I understand what you are
stupid partially duplicated post. read actual post below.
I understand what you are
I understand what you are saying. But how many people would have the heart to turn him down, after redeeming all those empties? Alcohol sales to an alcoholic are legal, so long as he's sober.
We can improve access to detox and addiction treatment programs, but we can't force anyone into these programs, not if they're not harming anyone else.
Active alcoholic is never sober
Is an active alcoholic ever truly sober? If the addiction is active, in other words the addict periodically "feeds" the, then can sobriety ever be claimed? Just because a person is not drunk does not mean they are sober.
I'll be more specific. Mass
I'll be more specific. Mass law says that no one who is intoxicated can be sold or served alcohol.
The top ten percent of alcohol drinkers
average more than ten drinks a day and account for more than half of all alcohol consumed. The business of liquor stores is mostly to provide alcohol to alcoholics. That's not an opinion - I don't really have one about it - it's a fact borne out by the numbers.
What a colossal waste of time.
How many shootings and stabbings have there been in the last few weeks alone? And this is what the city is wasting time on to keep the rest of us "safe?"
'the city' handles many different things
The Boston Licensing Board handles violent crime? Think again.
The city's primary concern is
The city's primary concern is keeping city employees employed not providing services to residents. Therein lies the problem.
No shootings went unsolved because of this
Out of roughly 1,200 officers (I think it is), BPD has three detectives assigned to the licensing unit (one sergeant in each police district can also do inspections, although they typically only do that after a major incident). A key part of their job is unscheduled inspections of places that serve food and alcohol, for things such as safety hazards (bolted exit doors, overcrowding and the like), underage drinkers and, yes, quality of life issues (such as drunks wandering around, say, the area of Harvard Ave. and Comm. Ave. with fresh drinks). I'm not sure ending those inspections would increase the clearance rate on shootings significantly enough to warrant letting bars get away with whatever they want.
Fair enough
In this particular case, I still say it seems like a complete waste of time in general, considering the officer didn't even bother with a field test. It's like giving someone a speeding ticket because it looks like they were going too fast.
Overall, it just seems like I hear more about licensing board issues like this being "resolved" one way or another than actual crimes being solved (not a shot on the reporting, but the actual results). And while I used shootings as an example, it's really a bigger picture issue.
Also, shame on me for not even mentioning the getting help that a homeless person with a known substance issue should have been at the center of this.
You spend a lot of time on
You spend a lot of time on this site, right? Adam puts a lot of effort into keeping up with the happenings of the licensing board (and I'm glad someone does), but I doubt he reports on all the times a restaurant has its license suspended because kids who were actually underage were caught behind served alcohol.
I said above
That it wasn't a shot at the reporting, but the results compared to other issues in the city.
It's like giving someone a
As I understand it, such observation - without the use of radar or other equipment - is actually a legitimate means that police can use in enforcing speeding laws.
I understand the uneasiness,
I understand the uneasiness, but he could have easily have gone to a nearby corner store and bought some alcohol-containing mouthwash. Plus, if he was a chronic alcoholic he could have gone into withdrawal and seized in the store.
If we really want to address alcohol addiction we need to make it more expensive, and less readily available (including restaurants and bars). I'm not sure there is the will to do that.
Nope
We need treatment for all who ask. Supply side control is a complete fail. Does not work.
I knew some knucklehead would
I knew some knucklehead would bring that point up. I believe BPD is now well over 1,200 sworn. As of 2010 they were closer to about 2,000.
That guy is complaining about three of them, and those three that are doing their job are being wasted because they alone can solve the murders and shootings. Apparently.
I wonder if more shootings
I wonder if more shootings could be prevented if more officers were assigned to this enforcement. I can think of a handful of violent acts in recent memory that either happened at, or as a result of activities at such establishments.
At the very least, it would be incorrect to believe that solving murders is the only way to increase public safety, by enforcing liquor laws, and traffic laws, and hell, even parking laws, the public should be safer and have an increased quality of life. Or at least, that's why all those laws were created.
There are laws designed to protect the public.
Public order offenses and Alcohol laws (MGL Ch. 138 and Ch. 272.). There are people who are responsible for enforcing these laws, and there are people who are responsible for the administration of these laws.
Hell, why not complain about the RMV? Can you believe we are paying people to renew drivers licenses when most people already have one?
EDIT: (Adam summed it up better than I could above)
SMH
Imagine having to collect cans and bottles all day just to earn yourself $15 for a pint of cheap booze? Very sad circumstance all around... If the board is willing to stick up for the liquor store, how about they work on getting that man into a rehab facility or something while they're at it?
It was kind of a disturbing hearing
Yes, legally the store is in the right. But it was kind of disheartening to hear the store and its lawyer basically say, yeah, the guy comes in all the time, we know he's an alcoholic, but, meh, he wasn't drunk at that moment, so not our problem. I realize liquor-store clerks are not social workers, liquor stores are not rehab units and in 21st-century America, the bottom line is the bottom line, but still ...
Damned if you do; damned if you don't
If they had refused him service, then someone would be complaining that the were unduly hassling the homeless. I don't know the law, but if they are considered a place of public accommodation (which, for example, restaurants are), then they are under some obligations to pretty much serve everyone.
No
I'm not sure about liquor stores, but I know restaurants and bars have the right to refuse service to anyone, short of being obviously discriminatory against certain groups (racial and ethnic minorities, women, etc.).
In the 5+ years I've been covering the licensing board, I don't recall a single complaint or citation against a restaurant, bar or liquor store for refusing somebody service. In fact, the board repeatedly tells license holders cited for serving somebody they maybe shouldn't have that it's their right to refuse service.
yup
Many years ago I worked at a drug store that sold booze at cost as a way to get people into our store. (this was in NH so you could buy beer at Fay's)
We had every town drunk come in all day long and buy their booze at our store. Mostly boone's or Mad Dog, but still.. I was told to be very 'liberal' with refusing to sell to people by the store manager and I was.
I had one guy come thru my line that had pissed himself because he was so drunk. I refused to sell to him and he picked a fit. He wasn't the only one I refused to sell booze to at that store. Actually, it got so bad many drunks wouldn't come in when I was at the customer service register because they knew if they remotely smelled like booze, I wouldn't sell it to them.
But I think my point is.. I know. I can relate to both Adam's and the liquor stores right. It's not our place to police people, as long as we're following the law, it's OK.
Now I don't agree with that, but it isn't the place of the shop to stop selling people because you suspect they are a drunk. It's just not their job to do so.
anyhow babbling on lunch...
Saw, headline, thought:
Saw, headline, thought: Mcphee Again?
What about not contributing to a person's addiction?
Can the store legally decline to contribute to a person's addiction? If the store owner may, and the owner apparently stated he knows the individual is addicted to alcohol, but still chooses to sell alcohol to someone addicted to alcohol, doesn't that effectively make the person a drug pusher? Then it's a matter of morals rather than law. Is it okay to sell a substance to a person when you know that the substance is poisonous to the individual?
At least CVS finally accepted responsibility for this bit of moral behavior by pulling cigarettes from their shelves.
The argument can of course be twisted to address selling prepared foods that have peanuts to people with allergies to peanuts. But it would not apply because the choice of selling to a person who is known to be an addict is different from providing the food or beverage to a general public where the responsibility for making healthy decisions rests upon the members of the public. But in the case of a person addicted to alcohol it's not a transaction of selling to the public but a transaction of selling to a particular individual.
The law against selling to someone who is intoxicated seems absurd however. How does a store owner determine if the person is intoxicated? Apparently appearing intoxicated (even to the point of reeking of alcohol) does not equate to being drunk.
The more I read of the absurdities of the liquor board the more I wonder whether the liquor board is composed of functional alcoholics in denial.
yes, they can
Chocolate bars for impulse purchases in the checkout line, HFCS and excessive sodium in the packaged food at the grocery store, etc.
Are you suggesting that the
Are you suggesting that the fast food worker has a moral obligation to not sell a Big Mac and large fries to an obese person? Unhealthy food, liquor, cigarettes - these are all legal substances, and a store can certainly decide not to sell them, but it's not up to them to make decisions for another adult on what to purchase and put into their bodies, even if the adult is an addict.