C-J
By Stephenie Steitzer
November 16, 2010

National Transportation Safety Board officials urged Kentucky lawmakers on Tuesday to strengthen efforts to curb drivers with high blood-alcohol levels and those who are repeat drinking-and-driving offenders.

Their remarks were made during a press conference streamed on the Internet from Washington. They asked lawmakers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to make highway safety improvements in the areas of seat belts, drunk driving, booster seats for young children and graduated licensing for young drivers.

In recent years, the Kentucky General Assembly has passed a primary seat belt law, required young children to be in booster seats and instituted a graduated licensing program for teenage drivers.

But NTSB officials said during the press conference that Kentucky should enact more of the agency’s 11 recommendations to curb hard-core drunk drivers.

NTSB member Mark Rosekind said in an interview afterward that Kentucky already has in place four of the 11 elements: statewide sobriety checkpoints; tougher penalties, assessment and treatment for offenders with a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher; and bans on plea-bargaining and diversion programs.

He said Kentucky should implement more of the board’s recommended reforms, including revoking licenses immediately upon arrest for DUI; implementing programs to identify individuals who drive on a suspended or revoked license; implementing vehicle sanctions such as vehicle impoundment and forfeiture; and requiring DUI offenders to maintain a zero blood-alcohol content level.

The legal limit for a driver’s blood-alcohol level in Kentucky is 0.08 percent.

NTSB member Mark Rosekind said there were 10,839 alcohol-related driving fatalities nationally in 2009.

“That is a staggering number, and it is completely unacceptable,” he said.

In Kentucky, 132 of the 656 highway fatalities between Jan. 1 and Nov. 14 involved the suspected use of alcohol, according to a recent press release from state police.

The NTSB estimates 70 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities are caused by hard-core drinking drivers.

During and after the press conference, Rosekind noted the nation’s deadliest alcohol-related highway accident in the country’s history occurred in Kentucky - the 1988 Carroll County bus crash that killed 27 people, caused by a drunk driver going the wrong way on Interstate 71.

He said that although Kentucky has made strides in other areas of highway safety, laws to punish hard-core drunk driving offenders are “probably one of the biggest, most critical areas, and they haven’t touched it in over 20 years.”

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet spokesman Chuck Wolfe said lawmakers decided a few years ago to let courts decide whether to revoke DUI offenders’ licenses.

He said Gov. Steve Beshear’s administration is still working on its legislative agenda for next year’s session, and could not say what highway safety laws it might pursue.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

ALCOHOL RESTRICTIONS CHALLENGED

By Lee Bowman, Scripps Howard News Service
Sunday, November 14, 2010

Alcohol is singular in American law. It’s the only consumer product subject to two constitutional amendments - one banning it in 1920, another unbanning it 13 years later.

The 21st Amendment’s approval by a majority of states in 1933 had one clause repealing Prohibition, and a second that prohibited “transportation or importation” of “intoxicating liquors” into any state “in violation of the laws thereof.”

Almost immediately afterward, Congress re-enacted a pre-Prohibition law that insisted those state laws could not discriminate to block interstate commerce. State laws had to regulate booze produced in and out-of-state on equal terms.

This didn’t cause much legal fuss for alcohol regulators until about 20 years ago, when the number of small wine, beer and liquor producers started to surge around the country while wholesalers continued to consolidate.

To support these new producers, many states set up special licenses and distribution systems for home-state products to be sold directly to consumers, but either denied or restricted in various ways the right of out-of-state producers to sell directly across state lines.

After bouncing around federal courts for several years and getting different results, two challenges to licensing schemes in Michigan and New York reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2005, it decided 5-4 that “discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by the 21st Amendment.”

The ruling in the case, known as Granholm after Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, had the effect of opening up direct shipping by wineries in most states - 37 plus the District of Columbia so far - under the same rules for all producers.

But in the five years since, the Granholm decision has been cited by other interests ranging from specialty wine retailers to big box stores to beer giant Anheuser InBev to challenge other state restrictions intended to keep alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in distinct roles.

And even though many of these suits have had little effect, they worry the wholesalers who are at the center of distribution in most states enough to seek changes in federal law making it harder to challenge liquor laws under the Commerce Clause.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

SECOND STATE BANS CAFFEINATED ALCOHOLIC DRINKS

By Abby Goodnough
November 10, 2010

Washington on Wednesday became the second state to ban energy drinks that combine alcohol and caffeine amid rising concern that the beverages are dangerous.

The ban, enacted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board, follows one imposed last week in Michigan. Several other states have moved to restrict sales of the drinks, which include Four Loko, a fruit-flavored malt beverage that has an alcohol content of 12 percent.

In New York, Senator Charles E. Schumer called on the State Liquor Authority on Wednesday to halt sales of caffeinated alcoholic drinks, describing them as “a toxic and dangerous brew” sickening young people around the country.

In recent months, a rash of cases involving students and others who ended up hospitals after drinking Four Loko and other beverages that blend caffeine with alcohol have alarmed college and health officials nationwide. The drinks are dangerous, doctors say, because the caffeine masks the effects of the alcohol, keeping those who consume them from realizing just how intoxicated they are.

At the urging of 18 attorneys general, the Food and Drug Administration, which has never approved adding caffeine to alcohol, is reviewing whether the drinks are safe. Its review began a year ago, and Mr. Schumer expressed frustration on Wednesday that the agency had yet to announce any findings.

“It’s about time they hurry up with their report,” he said, “before more tragedies occur.”

The bans are to go into effect in Washington on Nov. 18 and in Michigan on Dec. 4.

Four Loko came under particular scrutiny after students who drank it this fall at Ramapo College in New Jersey and Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., ended up in emergency rooms, some with high levels of alcohol poisoning. Both institutions banned the drink on their campuses, and many others have since warned students not to drink it.

In a statement released Wednesday, Phusion Projects, the five-year-old Chicago company that makes Four Loko, said it was “disappointed” by calls to ban the drink, adding that it was safe.

“We want to open a dialogue to discuss specific concerns and try to reach solutions,” the statement said. “When consumed responsibly, our products are just as safe as any other alcoholic beverage.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________

BINGEING LINKED TO ACCESS

Otago Daily Times
By John Gibb
Monday, November 1, 2010

As the Government prepares to introduce a major Alcohol Reform Bill, a new University of Otago study has highlighted an association between higher numbers of nearby liquor outlets and increased risk of binge drinking.

The Bill, which, at least partly, aims to increase community input into alcohol outlet-related licensing decisions, was to have been introduced to Parliament last month but is now expected within the next few weeks.

The Otago researchers found that people with more off-licences within a kilometre of their home were more likely to be binge drinkers and to be harmed by alcohol.

Off-licences are places, including supermarkets, liquor stores and convenience stores, where takeaway alcohol can be bought.

The study used a national survey to assess individual alcohol drinking patterns and self-reported harm from alcohol.

The types of alcohol-related harm included effects on performance at work, on relationships, and on physical health and finances.

There were 1925 respondents, 1770 of whom (92%) could be mapped according to their residential address.

These addresses were then compared with the location of alcohol outlets.

The researchers noted that in New Zealand over the past 20 years, there had been “a relaxation of central controls over supply and marketing of alcohol”.

Since the liberalisation of the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989, the number of licensed premises had more than doubled, from 6295 in 1990 to 14,183 in June last year.

The proportion of alcohol sold by off-licences had also risen, from 59% to 68% of the total.

With each extra off-licence alcohol outlet within 1km, the odds of binge drinking increased about 4%, the study lead author, Prof Jennie Connor, of the Otago University’s department of preventive and social medicine, said.

This did not sound like much, but the difference between five and 15 nearby off-licence outlets was a “48% difference in the odds of binge drinking and 26% more alcohol-related harm”.

She said this was an important finding, considering that national alcohol policies were under review.

“We need to rethink the ease of obtaining liquor licences and how many alcohol outlets are appropriate.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1 IN 4 U.S. TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS BINGE DRINK: CDC

Largely unrecognized problem raises risks of violence, car crashes
and chronic disease

HealthDay News / USA Today
By Steven Reinberg
October 5, 2010

More than one in four U.S. teens and young adults admit they are binge drinkers, health officials said Tuesday.

In the United States, binge drinking is defined as having four or more drinks for women, and five or more drinks for men, over a couple of hours — numbers that are different because men and women metabolize alcohol differently.

And it’s not just teens who are affected. According to the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 33 million adults have reported binge drinking in the past year.

“Binge drinking is a very large health and social problem” and one that has gone largely unnoticed, CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden said during a noon press conference Tuesday. “Most people who binge drink are not alcoholic. It may be because binge drinking has not been recognized as a problem [that] it has not decreased in the past 15 years.”

Nonetheless, the toll of binge drinking is enormous.

More than 79,000 deaths each year in the United States result from drinking too much, with about half of these attributable to binge drinking, according to Dr. Robert Brewer, alcohol program leader at CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Binge drinkers also put themselves and others at risk for alcohol-related car accidents, violence, HIV transmission and sexually transmitted diseases, and unplanned pregnancy, according to the CDC.

Moreover, drinking too much can lead to liver disease, certain cancers, heart disease, stroke and other chronic diseases. Pregnant women who binge drink can also harm their developing fetus, resulting in permanent mental retardation and other birth defects, the CDC says.

And among teenagers, damage from regular binge drinking may far outlast a hangover the next morning. An earlier study found that in MRI scans, the brains of teens who drank heavily showed damaged nerve tissue compared to those who did not.

These findings are particularly worrisome in light of the current CDC report, which reveals that high school students tend to binge drink whenever they consume alcohol.

“Ninety percent of the alcohol consumed by high school students is consumed in the course of binge drinking, and more than half of the alcohol consumed by adults is consumed in the course of binge drinking,” Frieden said.

Among drinkers, one-third of adults and two-thirds of high school kids binge drink, Frieden said.

“If excessive alcohol consumption every day is problem drinking, what is the occasional stint of up to five drinks at one sitting? The answer for many might be ‘a party,’ and that’s just what makes binge drinking so dangerous,” said Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine.

“While it resides in the realm of social acceptability, it is, in fact, a major cause of alcohol-related death, and the major cause of such deaths among adolescents and young adults. No party is worth the cost of a young life, full of promise,” Katz added.

“Avoiding that cost starts with awareness. Adults need to know, and show, that a drink or two is fine — five or six is not. They need to pass on that awareness to their children. The tragic problem with not knowing when to say ‘when’ . . . is that you may never get another chance,” according to Katz.

Men are more than twice as likely to binge drink as women (21 percent compared with 10 percent). In addition, binge drinking is more common among whites (16 percent) than among blacks (10 percent).

While the report indicates that binge drinking is common, it is probably even more widespread than this report found.

“There really is a substantial under-reporting of binge drinking and alcohol consumption,” said the CDC’s Brewer. “Even though we are reporting high rates of binge drinking among adults and youth, there is good reason to believe it is significantly under-reported,” he said.

Interestingly, binge drinking becomes more common as incomes rise. In fact, adults with incomes of $75,000 or more were more likely to be binge drinkers. About one in five reported binge drinking, Brewer said.

A possible reason that binge drinking increases with income is because it is not recognized as a risky health behavior, Frieden said. “Another possibility is simply with more money, people are able to afford more alcohol and do so,” he said.

For the report, the CDC used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey to collect data on self reports of binge drinking during the past month for 412,000 adults aged 18 and older and over 16,000 high school students.

Binge drinking also varies from state to state, ranging from 6.8 percent of adults in Tennessee to 23.9 percent in Wisconsin. Binge drinking is most common in the Midwest, North Central Plains, lower New England, Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, and the District of Columbia, according to the report.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

CALIFORNIA: BILL WOULD BAN ALCOHOL FROM SELF-CHECKOUT LINES

The Associated Press
August 23, 2010

Californians looking to purchase alcohol may soon be barred from supermarket self-checkout lines.

The state Senate voted 22-12 on Monday to send AB1060 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The bill would require retailers to process alcohol purchases through the traditional checkout system instead of self-service checkout.

Supporters say this will cut down on alcohol purchases by minors. Opponents, including the California Grocers Association, say self-checkout machines already alert store employees to check identification when a customer scans an alcoholic beverage. They say there is no evidence the technology has allowed minors to sneak through.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

WINE IN GROCERY STORES A NO-GO FOR LEGISLATURE

NY Daily News
By Ken Lovett
June 27, 2010

The Legislature late Saturday night introduced a bill to raise revenues for the cash-strapped state that rejects Gov. Paterson’s call to allow grocery stores to sell wine.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said there was only “limited” support for allowing grocery stores to sell wine, which is vehemently opposed by the state’s liquor store owners.

The rest of the revenue bill mirrors one announced Friday by Paterson, Silver said, including the temporary lifting of the exemption of the 4% sales tax on clothing and shoe purchases under $110.

The bill would also cut in half the allowable charitable deductions for those making more than $10 million, defer a host of business tax credits greater than $2 million per year, and add a sales tax for online hotel reservation sites.

“These were all agreed to by the governor,” Silver said. “Wine in grocery stores was never part of the deal.”

The Legislature stands ready to tomorrow pass its revenue bill as well as health and education bills it introduced late Friday in order to avoid a government shutdown, he said.

Paterson is pushing an emergency budget bill that contains far more cuts as well as the authorization to sell wine in grocery stores.

Silver said there is still time to negotiate a compromise package with the governor before then, though there were no talks overnight.

Gov. Paterson has called the Legislature back into session this evening.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

MOM-AND-POP LIQUOR STORE OWNERS PROTEST INCREASE OF WEGMANS THAT SELL ALCOHOL

NJ.com
June 19, 2010

An association of liquor stores is challenging an effort by Wegmans Food Markets to expand the number of locations where the chain’s customers can buy alcohol, calling it a predatory attempt to push their mom-and-pop establishments out of business.

The New Jersey Liquor Store Alliance is claiming members of the Wegman family own too many retail licenses, a violation of state laws governing alcohol sales. The group has filed objections to renewals in six municipalities, and is also fighting an effort by one related company to obtain a license in Ocean County.

But the Wegmans company doesn’t deny what the alliance is claiming: that several members of the Wegman family own licenses throughout New Jersey. Instead, the company is contending that the group is misinterpreting the law, and that Wegmans is within its rights under the law.

In the Garden State, liquor licenses can be hard to come by. Each municipality is allowed a certain number based on population and the type of license. The law allows one tavern or bar license for every 3,000 residents. The licenses are a commodity, and can be bought and sold with government approval.

One aspect of the law prevents any person, association of people or single company from owning more than two retails licenses - something that may change.

The fight between Wegmans and the liquor stores comes as lawmakers consider a slew of bills that would dramatically overhaul regulations on how beer, wine and liquor are sold in New Jersey, bringing about some of the most sweeping changes since the end of Prohibition. Among the proposed changes is one that would expand the number of supermarkets that can sell liquor.

But without that overhaul, which the alliance is fervently fighting, Wegmans is breaking the law, the group says. They allege the Wegman family has created several companies that appear to be separate but are really all related.

“They’re trying to pull the wool over somebody’s eyes at the municipal level,” said the group’s president, Paul Santelle, who owns Garden State Liquors in Perth Amboy.

Wine, beer and spirits are currently being sold at four of the grocery giant’s seven New Jersey locations.

Two of those stores - one near Princeton, and one in Bridgewater - are selling alcoholic beverages in the market, allowing customers to pay for their beer or wine with groceries. Those licenses are directly owned by Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

The other two stores - one in Mount Laurel, Burlington County, and one in Manalapan, Monthmouth County - lease space to liquor stores, which operate as separate entities within the market.

Those two licenses are owned by a member of the Wegman family, as are two additional licenses in Woodbridge and Cherry Hill. There is a pending application to open a store within the Woodbridge Wegmans.

The corporate offices for Wegmans defends its practices, and says the alliance is stretching the meaning of the law to their own purpose.

“It is well within the framework of the existing New Jersey law,” said Jo Natale, a spokeswoman for the company, who said selling alcohol in stores is a convenience to customers. “This trade group of liquor stores, they are competitors and the reason they have challenged these licenses is apparent, we think.”

The objections filed by the alliance will be heard at the local level, by municipal councils, but may be appealed to the director of the state Division of Alcohol and Beverage Control, according to Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

WAUKEGAN MAYOR SEEKS BAN ON LIQUOR SALES AT GAS STATION

Chicago Sun Times
By Dan Moran
May 15, 2010

Gas stations in Waukegan would be prohibited from selling liquor if the mayor of the north suburb has his way.

“It makes no sense to provide alcohol at the same location where people are fueling their vehicles,” Robert Sabonjian said. “I believe, as do many in Waukegan, that it sends the wrong message about driver responsibility and public safety.”

If approved by the suburb’s city council, the ban could be implemented over the course of a year.

Though the mayor also serves as the city’s liquor commissioner and can administer licenses, only the council can legislate the number of licenses available and in what categories. The city has six licenses assigned to businesses that sell gas and have a convenience store.

According to city attorney Newton Finn, liquor licenses are assigned on an annual basis, and the council can legislate a change in which businesses are eligible. “It’s a year-to-year thing,” he said.

Sabonjian said he feels selling liquor at gas station convenience stores “gives a small minority [of businesses] an economic advantage over all the other stations that rely on gas and non-liquor goods to make a living. It is a matter of both public safety and fundamental fairness to all service station owners.”

Caroline Cooper contributing editor
• 20 Jul 2009

Self-checkout machines have been a mainstay in America’s grocery stores and supermarkets for some time, but there is growing concern that some shoppers may take advantage of the technology to illegally purchase alcohol.
 
A study published in June by a UCLA Law School clinic and the advocacy group Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, or LAANE, has highlighted that very issue. The report, “Self-Checkout: Is it Reliable for Selling Alcohol,” presents data that has troubled some readers, particularly in the state of California.
 
In conducting the study, the groups encountered several factors that, either alone or in combination, might allow the illegal purchase of alcohol at a self-checkout machine more easily than at a traditional checkout lane, either by minors or customers who are already intoxicated.
 
According to the research, in two-thirds of their visits to specific grocery chains, participants saw only one employee working at the self-checkout area, and in five instances, they saw no self-checkout attendant at all. Additionally, though it is the industry standard for clerks to check the ID of anyone who appears under the age of 30, one-third of the participants reported that they were not asked for their ID, and only one participant was ever asked to give her date of birth.
 
“In combination,” the study said, “low numbers of employees supervising self-checkout machines, obstructed views and long wait times enhance the risk of error in monitoring alcohol purchases and may make it easier for customers to purchase alcohol illegally, either through deception or theft. These results suggest the absence of careful scrutiny that would allow employees to judge either age or level of inebriation.”
 
The study’s results also indicate that in eight instances, the self-checkout system didn’t lock when alcohol was scanned, and that in 11 cases, participants were able to “override” the system, either by scanning another item, swiping a credit card or both. In total, the study says participants were able to override a locked self-checkout machine or bypass the employee-override process 19 times out of 97, or in 20 percent of the visits.
 
According to the report, more than 2 million Americans under the age of 21 drink alcohol each year.
 
“The results of this study strongly suggest that the use of self-checkout machines can increase the ease with which minors and those who are inebriated are able to purchase alcohol,” it said.
 
Is the technology to blame?
 
The self-checkout/alcohol topic has become a high-stakes issue for some California retailers.
 
Last week, the state’s Senate heard testimony regarding a bill that would prohibit “off-sale licensees from selling alcoholic beverages using a point-of-sale system with limited or no assistance from an employee of the licensee.”
 
In other words, bill AB 1060, authored by Democratic Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, would require the sale of alcohol to be routed only through a traditional checkout lane.

But does self-checkout technology really facilitate the illegal purchase of alcohol, as the groups and the bill’s authors claim? While the study attributes a great deal of the problem to a lack of employee oversight, it also very clearly places blame on the technology itself, and some in the self-service industry aren’t sure that’s fair.
 
“We’re aware of no malfunction that would allow the system to operate as the study’s authors claim,” said Dusty Lutz, director of NCR Corp’s SelfServ Checkout efforts. “We believe that they had a misunderstanding of how the technology is performing the alcohol age-check.”
 
Lutz says NCR self-checkout machines, which are deployed by some of the chains surveyed, allow retailers a configuration option whereby the scanning of alcohol would not necessarily prevent the shopper from scanning more items before her age is verified. However, this configuration feature may be mistakenly referred to as a “computer failure” in the UCLA/LAANE study.
 
“In many cases, retailers have the system configured to allow the age check to be occurring in the background, so the shopper is not interrupted while they’re scanning other items,” he said. “Operationally, we rely on the retailers to make sure that the training is in place to watch over the lanes and to provide the appropriate regulatory oversight.”
 
Fresh & Easy, a Tesco chain with an all assisted-checkout business model that LAANE has criticized in the past, says it’s holding up its end of the bargain. The chain uses NCR’s SelfServ Checkout technology.
 
“We take our commitment to be a good neighbor and a responsible retailer of alcohol very seriously, and we’ve put a considerable investment in our training and systems to ensure that the responsible sale of alcohol occurs at our stores,” said Brendan Wonnacott, a spokesperson for Fresh & Easy. “The bottom line is, Fresh & Easy team members are always there monitoring what’s going on.”
 
And Wonnacott maintains that the store’s machines perform the age-verification process just fine.
 
“Alcohol purchases cannot be finalized without an intervention from an attendant,” he said. “So anytime an alcoholic beverage is scanned, the transaction freezes, and it requires assistance from a clerk. Our system is advanced, and we’re pleased with how the system operates.”
 
Assemblyman De La Torre’s office did not return a call for comments.
 
The future of self-checkout in California
 
Whether a real or perceived malfunction is to blame, one thing is clear to the authors of the UCLA/LAANE study and bill AB 1060: The retail and self-checkout industries need to do a better job preventing the illegal purchase of alcohol.
 
“At a minimum, you want to ensure that you’re dealing with the lack of supervision,” said Roxana Tynan, LAANE’s deputy director. “So if you have one person, they don’t have an unreasonable amount of self-checkout stalls that they’re supervising and that they’ve got a clear view of what’s happening at each of those stalls.”
 
But Tynan, along with De La Torre and bill AB 1060, ultimately suggest a more dramatic change.
 
“The safest option is, simply, you ban the sale of liquor at self-checkout,” she said. “And, certainly, we’re supportive of De La Torre’s legislation that’s been proposed on this.”
 
But the companies behind the technology see things differently.
 
“This is just my opinion, but I think that’s a shame,” said Kenneth Duffy, IBM’s kiosk offering marketing manager, when he learned of the proposed legislation. Like NCR’s Lutz, he is skeptical about the claim that “computer failures” allowed the study’s participants to purchase alcohol.
 
“To my knowledge, we’ve never had a retailer come back and say ‘We’re having issues with people getting products illegally by getting around the system,’” he said.
 
None of the chains in the survey use IBM’s self-checkout systems.
 
Duffy believes retailers and their employees may not be doing their part to prevent minors from purchasing alcohol.
 
“The store managers have to be aware and have to be monitoring the health of that system,” he said. “The employees that are specifically assigned to look after that need to be trained on it and need to be adequately educated on what their responsibilities are.”
 
But how much accountability rests with the makers of the self-checkout machines?
 
“I think the onus, the responsibility on the manufacturers and the suppliers, is to provide the highest quality hardware and software that complies with and conforms to all the necessary regulatory requirements,” Duffy said. “Beyond that, unfortunately, it really is out of our control how, then, the retailer or the customer employs all of the features.”
 
Regardless of who or what is at fault, the UCLA/LAANE study has put NCR on the defensive. The company recently issued a statement saying that human error was the more likely cause of the self-checkout breakdowns, not the machines themselves.

“NCR’s experience is that retailers should and do consistently monitor to ensure that the correct procedures are in place and that staff are applying them correctly and consistently,” the statement said. “However, it is also very important to understand that the LAANE study incorrectly describes how NCR self-checkout works and therefore its conclusions regarding self-checkout are likewise incorrect.”

In the statement, NCR also notes that the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has conducted its own field tests and found that self-checkout systems “successfully prevented sales of alcohol to minors” and that it has no evidence and has received no complaints indicating otherwise.

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control could not be reached for comment.
 
For now, the fate of bill AB 1060 is unclear. Fresh & Easy’s Wonnacott and LAANE’s Tynan confirmed that its review in the California Senate was stalled last week and that it may be back up for review in the future.
 
In the meantime, though, self-checkout manufacturers say they will continue to encourage grocers to step up their efforts to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors.
 
“I think, really, all it takes is a little bit of time and resources to train the employees to make sure that they recognize that this is a big deal,” Duffy said.
 
UPDATE: According to a news release from Assemblyman De La Torre’s office, bill AB 1060 was passed by the California Senate Government Organization Committee in a unanimous 8-0 vote. The bill will next be heard in the California Senate Appropriations Committee in August.

By Ewan Turney

April 4, 2009

Supermarkets are delivering alcohol ordered online to under-18s, a council has found.

Stockton Council carried out online test purchases to scrutinise the systems put in place by supermarkets through their home delivery scheme.

Test purchase volunteers, aged between 13 and 16, were delivered alcohol by supermarkets on two separate occasions.

A further test purchaser was able to buy alcohol at a self-service check-out at a supermarket.

Trading standards will now carry out further investigations into those retailers who sold the alcohol.

“Alcohol can contribute to anti social behaviour and it is very concerning some retailers are not being vigilant and always checking proof of age,” said Councillor Steve Nelson

“I would urge any retailer to refuse the sale if there is any doubt about the customer’s age.”

 **Control state means state owns wholesaler and/or retail establishment.  Generally do not carry wine in package store.

Nineteen of the 34 states that permit wine in grocery stores are “control states” where the state is the wholesaler and/or retailer.  Border states Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia are “control states”

Of the 34 states, at least 19 states have allowed wine in grocery stores since the end of prohibition - when initial rules for alcohol sales were established.  They are not changing the rules after families invested their life savings in a business when the competition was clear.

Several of these states only allow state wines or small farm wines to be sold in groceries.

Recent attempts in Massachusetts, Colorado, Minnesota, and Tennessee to allow wine in groceries have been defeated.  They have made multiple attempts in these states and each time was defeated.

Not a single state has passed a law like this in 23 years.

Other countries, like England and Ireland are currently reviewing their policies allowing wine in groceries because they believe it is the reason for out-of-control underage and binge drinking.  They have commended the states in the U.S. that require alcohol to be sold by package stores. 

Sixteen states is not exactly an insignificant number, as it represents one-third of the country.

More importantly, can a lone grocery store cashier standing ten to thirty feet away overseeing multiple U-Scan lanes tell which bottles have a high alcohol-content and which ones are harmless?

As this photo illustrates, many grocery store products are eerily similar to wine bottles in weight, shape, and labeling.

A cashier overseeing U-Scan or self-serve lanes is supposed to be alerted when a product containing alcohol is scanned. A non-alcoholic product does not send out a check ID alert. This is how and why the use of “Swipe and Swap Scams” came about.

Here’s how it works: use a same weight, similar-looking non-alcoholic product to swipe and then swap it with an alcoholic product that goes undetected in a grocery bag. We learned of this from reports of teenagers currently obtaining beer in groceries U-Scan lanes by using the “Swipe and Swap” scam: a 6 pack of soda is swiped over the self-scanner and a 6 pack of beer is swapped and placed into their grocery bag.

For teens: No alert, no ID check, no problem.
For our communities: This is a big problem and a potentially fatal flaw.

These systems currently in place are easily beat by teens illegally obtaining beer.

IF wines are allowed in to grocery stores, they can and will do the same with high alcohol content bottle of wines. All they have to do is “Swipe and Swap” out bottles like those pictured here.

We’ll ask it again: Can you tell which bottles contain wine and which do not?

Answers: Wine, Non-Wine, Non-Wine, Non-Wine, Wine, Wine, Wine

February 9, 2009

 A proposal in the State Budget to permit wine in grocery stores, designed to generate new revenue for the state, would in fact leave New York with much less revenue due to the loss of distilled spirits sales - according to a new economic analysis released by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

The Council sent the report to the governor and key legislators in both the State House and Senate so they could better understand the implications of the plan.

“Allowing grocery stores to sell wine will simply take foot traffic out of package stores - drastically reducing spirits tax revenues for the state,” said David Ozgo, chief economist for the Distilled Spirits Council and author of the analysis. “If consumers increasingly substitute wine for spirits, New York will end up actually losing more in tax revenues than it’s expected to gain,” he added, citing the considerably higher tax rate applied to spirits.

Further, Ozgo noted, each time a package store loses a distilled spirits sale, the state will lose 47% of its tax revenue because of the higher tax rate of spirits. The report also found that a massive reduction in spirits sales would force approximately 560 package store owners to close their doors.

“This report plainly shows that the proposal to allow wine in grocery stores doesn’t raise the revenue that was projected,” Ozgo added. “One has to ask, if it doesn’t raise the revenue and hurts small businesses by taking traffic out of package stores - what’s the point?”

An eight-year drive to liberalize the British Columbia liquor trade that’s seen wineries and wine stores in the province flourish is coming under fire from the province’s top doctor.

Tighter controls are needed to prevent a growing misuse of alcohol in B.C., according to a recent report by Dr. Perry Kendall, the British Columbia provincial health officer.

The report notes that instances of binge drinking, driving while impaired and alcohol-related hospital stays have increased since 2002. Chronic diseases linked to alcohol consumption such as liver disease and some cancers have also show an increase, the report states.

The health data comes six years after the provincial government opened the door to private liquor stores. The number of stores in B.C. selling wine and other forms of alcohol has grown to a current total of 1,294, up from just 786 in 2002. Based on sales data, consumption increased 8% province-wide and as much as 8.6%in the Interior Health Authority’s jurisdiction, an area that includes the province’s popular Okanagan wine region.