Fairbanks ponders special 'zone' in war on chronic drunkenness
Published Friday, March 28, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A trip to the store for Mad Dog 20/20 or Mickey’s Malt Liquor could mean a longer drive or bike ride for some downtown residents under an option recently identified by city officials.
Fairbanks Mayor Terry Strle says the city will look at whether an alternative program aimed at fighting chronic public drunkenness by targeting the sale of high-octane alcohol products could work in Fairbanks.
The “alcohol impact zones” used by some communities prohibit the sale of cheap, strong alcohol products in a defined geographic space for a proactive approach toward fighting alcohol abuse and its social costs.
“It’s definitely something we’re going to look at,” Strle, a former chapter president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, told reporters Thursday. “I certainly recognize drug and alcohol abuse is a huge problem in this community.”
Talk of the programs, which are used in Washington state, emerged Monday night during a Fairbanks City Council meeting. The council formally protested a businessman’s request to transfer a liquor license to South Fairbanks, where neighbors say the community’s tangle with alcohol abuse is most visible.
The early discussion comes five days prior to the start of national Alcohol Awareness Month and occurs in the second-largest community in Alaska, a state routinely cited as having one of the worst alcohol records in the country. Strle said community leaders need to be aware of the problem and look for alternative methods of treatment.
City leaders in Tacoma, Wash., created a downtown alcohol-impact area about six years ago to supplement “traditional policing” policies that had failed to halt a revolving door of alcohol abuse and, to an extent, associated crime, Tacoma police Lt. Corey Darlington said.
The ordinance bans the sale of certain low-cost, high-alcohol content beer and wine identified on an approved list. Think oversized bottles of malt liquor or various types of “ice” beer.
Darlington said the city had first, unsuccessfully, urged store owners in problem neighborhoods to voluntarily pull “high-octane” booze from their shelves. When that failed, elected leaders voted to impose the impact zone, he said. Darlington said beyond the program’s measurable success — including a 36 percent drop in emergency-response calls in the first year and higher success rates at detox centers — were visible changes.
“Over a relatively short period of time, we saw a huge decrease in the presence of chronic inebriates in public rights of way, a decrease in criminal activity and a general increase in a feeling of public safety and quality of life,” said Darlington, who oversaw the neighborhoods in the impact area through his role as a district police commander.
Strle said she expects a committee will be formed to review the potential benefits and drawbacks such a program might bring to Fairbanks. She stopped short of offering a timeline for a review project but said she expects the group will include representatives from the public and private sectors and will generate “good discussion.”
Strle said she’s not sure exactly where, geographically, such a partial prohibition might cover, but said it could include liquor stores on North and South Cushman Street. She said she senses the city is poised for economic growth and said the City Council’s decision Monday to deny the liquor license transfer should not be viewed at as a blanket statement that restaurants or other outlets where alcohol is sold are unwelcome.
“We certainly want to encourage development,” Strle said. “But is that ‘package’ store the kind of development we really want to incur?”
Neighbors at Monday’s meeting also noted that along with a number of businesses that sell alcohol, South Fairbanks includes patches of land shielded by vegetation that give chronic drinkers a place to party out of the collective public eye.
“If (public works employees) can get over there and cut some of that down, they will,” Strle said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
damn. where am i gonna get my 40???
this wont make a difference. do i have a fix for it? no. but this isnt one of them..
Another worthless program being promotes. Look at all those impressive stats …. but what they failed to say was that the "overall" problem is on the increase .... just shifted.
49.63% of the population does drink beer and 86.9% of those that do only drink the higher priced brands, not the “high-Octane”.
Also, 81.6% of all emergency-response calls are cell phone related and of those, only 16.7% had been using alcohol. Interestingly, under this program there was a staggering 167% INCREASE in emergency-response calls at outlying facilities as a direct rresult of this alcohol octane “shifting” of which 22% were accident related due to travel. So, what good is this program … something to administer and enforce I guess.
I would love to hear the toilet flush and wave goodbye to the council and Stryle's self crusade to save the world from drinking ...lol.
http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/sesrcsite/recen...
Here is the Junk Science study conducted.
I call it junk science on the account of the fact that it is based on asking people questions and the way some questions can be worded to produce biased responses.
Having said that despite the graphs showing the results if you focus on the questions and the percentages I cannot see that any thing significantly changed by implementing this AIA program.
However those who put together the study seem to suggest that it was a success...
Anyway you decide don't just take accept the claim that it works before you read the junk science study produced.
There is supposed to be another report for 2008 but it is not available to evaulate.
http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/sesrcsite/recen...
Unbelievable!! And I thought the Polar Bear comments were the height of Californization, and lo and behold, here comes this article!! If I were living in the city, I would be campaigning to get a recall going on the mayor and her council. This is ridiculous!!
The studies above admit:
While the evaluation finds several indicators of positive change in the Tacoma AIA, it is not
possible to conclude that all the changes are due solely to the AIA itself.
Why is it every time a problem surfaces we go after part of the problem and try to limit it. You dont think they will get it somewhere else? What a joke. People are very smart when it comes to finding new ways to do old things. Take out a drug dealer, two more pop up. Take away hard alcohol, go to a different store. If they want to get drunk they will find the booze they want to do it with. Does not matter where you hide it.
"Alcohol impact zone"
"Approved list"
"Partial prohibition"
"Collective public eye"
Fairbanks is slowly falling asleep under the protective blanket of rampant socialism...
YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP QUICK
I agree, it's ridiculous. This term "chronic drunkenness" made me laugh. Another world for alcoholics perhaps? Does this mean people who are out causing problems, as in public intoxication, on a frequent basis? When I read the headline I was already shaking my head, I didn't even need to look at the article itself. It's good the community notices the problem, but focus on the people themselves, not how easy it is to get the alcohol because yes, they will find other ways to get it! How about implementing more programs like AA...promoting to those who are poor, having free seminars done through volunteers. Focusing on the people who fit the profile of "chronic drunkenness" may not be a quick fix to this problem, but I believe it will help in the long run and definitely be a better solution than just trying to remove or tax the alcohol itself.
>>She said she senses the city is poised for economic growth<<
This broad had better pull her head outa her rear-if the presidential election goes Dem, ya can kiss the majority of the military bucks good bye.
A teaspoon of Mad Dog makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down, the medicine go down (think Mary Poppins, not Terry Strle).
Great! Just what we need, more laws, more regulation! Wasn't I just saying something about repressing the people? About a group of goodie-twoshoes legislating their righteous morality?
A former chapter president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Well, I guess we can continue to kiss our liberties goodbye then folks.
Damnit, I guess I'm going to have to start voting in local elections.
James,
78% of statistics are made up.
Can you provide some support for your "facts"?
The fact that everyone is against this motion says to me that they are the people getting drunk off cheap, hard alcohol. If it doesn't apply to you then it can only bring good, right?! Every law or ban set in place will help in some sort of way, it keeps the honest people honest and makes it a little harder for the dis-honest troublemakers. I wouldn't get in an uproar about it. If you are not a street walking drunk, then jump in your car (sober) after work and drive a little further to the Fred Meyer and get whatever type of booze you want.
Good point, Krystal. These are people. Individuals. But the truth is, not all of them drink because they want to. Many of them are caught up in a vicious cycle of availability, peer pressure and impaired judgment. For many who are addicted, if it is readily available, they will drink it. But many of these people want to be free of their addiction, but just don't know how to get out. Not having it readily available might give them time to get the alcohol out of their system so they can start thinking straight.
If they're going to have a "list" for this proposed impact area, they should add whiskey to the list. Whiskey appears to be the alcohol of choice for a majority of Fairbanks' chronic inebriates.
The number of people we have lost this winter to alcohol-related death is tragic and disgraceful. Something must be done. I'm sure the mayor and city council would welcome any positive and constructive suggestions.
don't they realize "chronic drunkards" are nomadic people by nature? They will travel when "food" in their region runs out, and they won't stop until they find a new source of "food".
exactly akkid86. People go whereever they need to to get that fix. Can someone really not know that they could all move away from downtown, where the problem is to over by University Fred's? Or maybe down over by Cushman where the gas station is? Oh wait- they already live there! That means the "problem" is there too! The "problem" is not the stores. It is that these PEOPLE need help- and not in the form of taking things away- that teaches them nothing. They need to learn how to battle the spirit of the alcohol (why do you think alcohol is called spirits?). This, anyone who has battled alcohol is an insanely tough task. But we all know that he who takes the candy bars away from the children is setting those children up to gorge on them and become pukey sick to their stomaches- so we teach our children to enjoy healthy things, and eat candy in moderation. That was the thing not taught to alcoholics- is moderation. Unfortunately, now if they choose to quit drinking there will be no moderation- they will have to CHOOSE to stay away entirely, lest they fall off the wagon. But this CHOICE can't be made for them. So people need to stop making choices for others, because those choices effect everyone- and not neccesarliy for the good.
jl says:
"The fact that everyone is against this motion says to me that they are the people getting drunk off cheap, hard alcohol. If it doesn't apply to you then it can only bring good, right?! Every law or ban set in place will help in some sort of way..."
I don't drink the things they are talking about (cheap beer/wine).
However, I think that your assertion that if it doesn't apply to you then it can only bring good is absoultely ridiculous. What gives YOU the right to LEGISLATE what others are doing if it doesn't affect you? Why would you even feel you needed to LEGISLATE something that didn't apply to you?
Finally, stating that every law or ban will help in some way is not, in any way, the truth. Somethings are banned simply because others are offended by them, not because it will do any objective good - only because it makes them feel good about themselves.
For me, if this truly is perceived as such a community problem, then we should be focusing on helping through education, shelters, etc. We should not be punishing and banning.
Sometimes it seems to me that if certain people had their way, the only thing still legal will be going to church!
Chronic drunks are alcoholics addicted to a substance. Making the substance harder to access does not even begin to address the root of the problem which is addiction. Addicts will get their fix no matter what the barriers. Why not spend this time and money on education and recovery programs? You know - things that might actually fix the problem rather than just hide it.
jl - I don't drink the "high octane" drinks, but think this is a horrible idea anyway. It won't affect me in terms of what type of alcohol I buy, where I buy it, and how much I buy. However, it does affect me because I think my elected officials are wasting valuable time and limited resources on a program that is socialistic and interferes with the free market principles and individual choices that has made this country strong.
Ji:
I do not drink at all, so you’re wrong to say those apposed are the problem. I do not like to see people drunk or causing problems on the street, and as a father I do not tolerate having to share my roads with Drunk Drivers. When a person decides to drink and goes to find drink, they go to where the alcohol is sold; most times they drive in a vehicle. By spreading the locations of the sales the city will make it more likely that a person will drink and drive. Further, a person who is drinking at one location and decides to drink at another will have to walk/drive/bike on public streets even more to get to the location that is far away, this increases the likely hood that the person will freeze, commit crimes, DUI and be seen as a public nuisance. This is the same for the cities decisions to close all locations where young people gather (Raves). Although the young people at the rave may drink and do drugs, at least then kids who do not wish to drink and do drugs know to stay away from raves, and parents can keep their kids away from those locations. By closing the location the city forces young people to drink and or drug at multiple locations, thus there is no “Safe” location for kids that wish to stay out of that life. Further, by concentrating the location of these activities, the police force can easily enforce laws at that ONE location, instead of having to go and find out where there are many small problems and try to enforce law. In short, crime, drunkenness and such like are a part of any society, the city should accept that and try to Mitigate and guide those issues.
My first thought on this was similar to rjdew's. I think this will increase the likelihood of more DUIs....and we know we have WAY too many of those in this town. Moving the location of these alcohol products will not solve the problem.....if they want it, they will get it, somehow, someway.....or they will just turn to something else that is more readily available to them. Maybe the city should spend their money on education, treatment, enforcement, rehabilitation?
The highest octane beverage of choice for our chronic inebriants is sold everywhere. Half gallon jugs of mouthwash. Lets ban Wallyworld and all stores from selling bulk mouthwash. That would make the biggest impact. Or hey here is the best idea of all have a do not sell list of chronic inebriants. Detox could generate the list from their clients and I would happily distribute it to all the liquor stores. This would help only the people seeking treatment and who have the best chance at recovery. Yes people would give up the right to buy booze to stay clean. I am my own dry village kinda thing. It may be a longer wait in line as each customer is referenced but heck they check ID’s now anyway. Hey another brain flash 100% ID check to purchase. There are no simple solutions to this disease but as a community we all can help. I like some cheap beer on occasion it would be a shame for the few to dictate to the many.
And hey if your just going to bash the Mayor and the Council please stop. Its not constructive they are trying to help. If you dont agree with their methods e-mail them and get involved in the process. http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/
I think SeanWhite has a point; don't bash the mayor and council when they are trying to figure out new ways to solve problems. I laugh at the people that say we need more ways to "rehibilitate, educate...etc"; many cronic drinkers will not go to these programs even if they are free/available. They only go when they are made to by law and even then sometimes will not. We need to figure out new ways to get the alcohol not readily available; I don't have the answer on how to do this; but we need not bash the people that are trying to think of new ideas.
jl - If these poor people do not want to be rehabilitated, then what right do you have to make them by taking away their (immediate) access to alcohol?
What is the real problem here? Is it that we are trying to save people from themselves? Or is it (more likely) that we are passing judgment and being embarrassed by their actions?
Personally, I'm far more embarrassed by the picketers in front of Planned Parenthood.
It seems to me that this is about sweeping these people under the rug so that the "good upstanding citizens" of Fairbanks don't have to look at them anymore. Would any of you allow your children to clean their room in a similar manner? I know that I would not. So, why would it be OK for us to do this on a community level?
OK people. Some of you think this idea is just so wrong that it isn't going to solve anything, and that the drunks will get just get the liquor anyway. Some of you think that drinking isn't hurting anyone but the drunks and we should make it easier on them or try to help them by reeducation.
This is what I think. I think the idea is a possibility. Take away the cheap liquor and the easy availability of it. Sure, they will get it anyway, but maybe it won't be so cheap or just a hop and a skip down the street.
Now, those who think that the drunks aren't hurting anyone but themselves. How about all those tax dollars and programs that take drunks to the ER for evaluation so they can be transported to jail or detox. Who do you think pays for the ER visit or the night in jail or detox? That is right--WE DO!! Guess who takes care of the drunks in the ER? Those nurses and doctors do. Guess who is waiting in the lobby while the ER staff is taking care of those drunks. Right again. WE ARE. Guess who gets the free nights sleep. The drunks do.
Now for those who are for reeducation. This is a joke. These people do not want reeducation. Most go to the detox to sleep it off. Most families of these people try to get them help, and yes, they may cry and say help me only to be on the street again drunk the next night where the city cops find them and bring take them to the ER etc. etc. Maybe if it weren't so readily and cheaply available, they might actually have a chance. Doubt it, but hey, it is a try.
Hope I hit a few nerves. You know what they say. The truth hurts. I say deal with it and start trying to help the people who are trying to help the community.
Very few of us were bashing the Mayor or the City Council. On the contrary, it seems like we are all in agreement the alcoholism is a problem that affects our community deeply. I commend our elected officials for wanting to do something. However, I strongly believe that this zone proposal is very misguided. It only covers up the effects of alcoholism rather than the causes. I also believe it is in direct opposition to the principles of a free market and private property rights. This is not a "bashing" of the Mayor or the members of City Council. This is just a personal evaluation of a proposal from our elected leader.
Caidog...my thoughts exactly!! Thanks for putting it in words for me. Everyone knows it isn't going to stop the problem but at least it might help the smallest bit. We are not trying to "save people from themselves"...we are trying to cut down on the costs WE pay for people who don't want to save themselves!
People. We live in a country that is supposed to be for freedom. I'm sorry, but that includes the freedom to be a stupid drunk. Once one becomes a DANGEROUS stupid drunk, then you can take away that person's freedom to be a drunk.
Grown adults have the right to make their choices until they show that they are incapable of making those choices. That includes the folk that drink and the folk that own the liquor stores.
This seems to me to be yet another case of giving up personal freedom in the name of political correctness. Frankly, it scares me. I'd like our elected officials to concentrate on more pressing issues. If this is REALLY a problem, then maybe they should look at banning the alcohol itself - until then it's nothing more than control. "I don't like it, so you can't do it."
hmmmmmm
Good point Dana. Its called freedom people, and every law, no matter how good intentioned, takes just a little bit more away from us.
for every action there is a reaction.
passing laws without careful consideration can often came back to haunt us down the road.
personally i think drunks are a pain in the butt and an eyesore to the community, but i am a adult and have the choice of being around them or not. I stay away from drunks because they are obviously unstable and I dont trust their behavior (junkies and meth-heads are no different). Winos tend to become aggressive when they need to score a bottle of booze just as junkies become desperate when their Jones is coming down. So I ask some of the more schooled and opinionated persons on here to answer this one question, what is the differance in some polar bear that has wandered off couse seeking food, and the bear was destroyed for well being of the population, so what about aggressive drunks and drug addicts,shouldnt they be considered a potential threat as well$ stupid suggestion but really I see little differance. Frankly I would rather encounter a bear because they are probably a bit more predictable than some wino or addict.
But again, passing laws without a great deal of thought may be detrimental to us in future years. It sort brings "Big government" into mind.
For situations like this, I need look no further than my "What would Obama do" bracelet. Blame whitey.
Obama is so magical....
dumpbush -
"what about aggressive drunks and drug addicts,shouldnt they be considered a potential threat as well$ "
They most certainly are treated as a threat. Why do you think there is such a horrendous crack down on the highways? So many people being pulled over for barely-legal reasons? Because society has decided that anyone who drinks and gets in a vehicle is a potential murderer.
Why do we bust anyone found with cocaine or crack? Because society has decided that anyone who uses cocaine or crack is going to harm society eventually and must be punished (even before they are shown to cause any actual harm).
So, we are already treating people in a similar fashion to this bear, that arguably posed a real and honest threat to the village. We perceive threats every time someone has a drink or a toke or a snort. We say they commit crimes even if their actions don't actually harm anyone.
reader 1 , is this the best shot you have? you are a total amateur, I wont stoop to your level and will ignore your childish comments. this last one actually made me sort of happy that people like yourself are terrified that Obama will possibly win? Yep, obama has a hell of a lot to do with controlling drunks and passing unstable laws, but then you really have no concept of what is even being discussed, give me a break.
You need to get a life.
thanks newsreader, thats my point exactly.
i am merely playing Devils Advocate and agree with you 100%.
It wasnt a shot at all, I thought it was quite funny. And to me it makes more sense than your comment comparing killing a bear to controlling drunk humans. I am worried that Obama might win. I am also worried that Clinton or McCain might win.
You comment about big government is curious. I assume it means you are against it yet from your earlier posts I know you support Obama. My problem with Obama is simple. He stands behind a podium and tells us that we are too stupid to raise our own kids. To plan for our own retirements. To provide health care to our families. To handle our own money and buy a home within our means. To responsibly own a gun. He would have the government have a hand in all of that and more. That is my problem with Obama and socialists in general.
Now, lets see if you can respond without resorting to personal attacks on me.
hmmmm recall strle? could be a good idea..... but did you see the other choice in the election? sad, like her clone.
READER1,
As a person of color I found your comment offensive.
i came up here three years ago to attend the University. Your comment is my very first experiance with racism in Fairbanks or Alaska for that matter (nothing serious but racially motivated just the same). Perhaps it seems innocent enough to you but, "Blame Whitey" is to me a slap in the face to those of us (of color) that are responsible citzens and blame no-one for any thing. I do come from a drug and alchohol infested place (East Oakland) and yes, I do harbor fears of these people, you might as well if you had to step over "nodded-out junkies on you way to school each morning.
We each have our own political opinion and I welcome the onslaught of opposition from those that think different than I do (at 20 yrs. of age , I do have much to learn and I admit it), but, there is a line that I will not cross to make a point with another person no matter how aggressive they become. This forum is based on opinion and we must be thankful that we do have a plce where we can voice our opinions and lISTEN to those opinions of others.
I admit that my handle is a bit strong, so realizing that I am indeed in a Conservative community that leans more to the right, I will ask that my "dumpbush" name be changed, I do this to please those that I may be offending.
I welcome all attacks from those that do not agree with muy opinion, but I will never be disrespectful to others unless I am being disrespected, I trust you will follow suit. I never mention race or religion in my comments unless the topic is being discused and then I still willl be very careful not to offend anyone personally.
Yes, I am againt the war because of the way it is being fought, I dislike the current administration because they have done nothing for the poor in this nation, but these are my beliefs and I do have the right to be heard, just as you do.
I am sorry that something happened to you in your life that made you so bitter againt my race, if it will help I apologize for any injustice that was thrust upon you by the African American community.
Well, I dont have a problem with any race, I take men one at a time and find a reason to hate them based on their words and actions.
My "blame whitey" comment being tied to Obama is quite easy to follow, seeing as how Obama attended a church for 20 years and its pastor, who happens to be Obamas mentor, has said that it is the rich, white man that is to blame for blacks problems. Not to mention inventing AIDS, (I will leave that one alone).
Thats where I came from on that.
Now, I agree with you that this war is being handled poorly at best.
Now if you will indulge me for a second. I happen to be reading a short article that I think you might enjoy. If nothing else, it is food for thought. But it goes directly with your comment about this administrations lack of support for the poor.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007...
It's nice to see this topic coming up, about downtown's image. Alot of different ideas posted here; get voting.
/gets on the soap box:
I'm of the opinion that this option is foolhardy if the city wants "economic devolopment", as their mantra goes. Let the liquor licence process dictate which businesses have the privilege to sell. Ever goto another state where there's rediculous laws about alcohol sales on various times, days, and zones? Rehabilition, and education are far different then prohibition. Prohibition isn't a "rainbow in the dark."
/gets off soapbox
polarmark- 'like her clone' is an understatement. the only real difference was that Terry actually did something and not just talk about it.
The article headline reminds me of the movie tenacious D and the pick of destiny, "Gonna lick a toad in the party zone, gonna dropa lo.." never mind.
Once again it seems that Fairbanks is really divided about issues like this. The "old Alaska" is gone. This is the "new Alaska". I guess we will have to accept it on some level, but it leaves a very sour taste in the mouth!! I have always said, let the people have a say, referendum govt. is "where its at!!" Now-a-days, it seems Alaska that we have loved and staked so much for (and I have only been here just short of 30 years, so I am still a cheechako) is going away. The days of Foodland and Lindy's are gone. I guess there will never be another Mom & Pop grocery store that sells liquor in Fairbanks. Sad!!
There are better ways of dealing with both chronic inebriates and drunk drivers. First use breathalyzers at "any" establishment that furnishes alcohol. In places that serve, such as bars and restraunts. All patrons purchasing booze would have their keys labeled and kept in a locked box with a wrist band assigned. Too much to drink (many drunks bar hop) and you'd either have to opt for a virgin drink (perhaps allowing the person to remain on the premesis until blood alcohol level is reduced to a safe, legal limit and has to show they've re-earned their wrist band back), take a cab or call a friend. Sounds harsh, but as a former bartender it sure would help since many chronic drinkers are very good at hiding their level of intoxication or are on the verge of crossing the line. Second, mandatory traffic stops during peak hours. Not everyone drinks in the bars. It would take only a few moments to ask the driver to blow into a breathalyzer. Violation of civil rights? What about the rights of people who have innocently lost their lives to a drunk driver? Third, many more foot patrols through the bars. As former drunk, I know these measures would go a long way towards cutting down on fatalities.
"mandatory traffic stops during peak hours. Not everyone drinks in the bars. It would take only a few moments to ask the driver to blow into a breathalyzer."
MrsSaenz, Please leave Alaska as fast as you can and never come back. Yea, Im serious.
Chelly - if you are out there - after reading MrsSaenz post, do you still think that my previous exaggeration is unwarranted? You thought I was joking when I said that mandatory searches of everyone would be next. And yet, here we have someone suggesting just that.
I suppose that next, we should establish a group of storm troopers (we can call them SS) and send them house to house searching for drugs or contraband, right?
MrsSaenz -- You must have seriously lost touch with reality if you think mandatory breathalyzers during peak hours would only take a few minutes. You see, a few minutes per car times the scores (hundreds?) of cars ahead of me means a several HOUR wait. It'll never fly.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.