Winos don't drink Duck Pond merlot
Nor do they sit under Cinzano umbrellas sipping Kendall Jackson zinfandel. But poor people do like to cop a buzz off a 40-ounce malt liquor in the privacy of their own little apartments.
All of these truths have been brought to the fore in connection with the City of Portland's proposed ban on sales of certain types of alcoholic beverages in the downtown core.
To us, it's not clear why such a ban, if enacted, should be limited to downtown. Certainly the same beverages have been known to cause problems in many east side neighborhoods as well.
Don't worry, hipsters: Microbrews will be exempt. As one of our readers explained it, you will still be permitted to get drunk and act like a fool if you have money.
Comments (11)
Imagine a place with public drunkenness, beer and wine bottles littering private property and the street, people passed out on sidewalks and lawns, people urinating and defecating on bushes, lawns and in the street, and neighbors and business repeatedly complaining about it all but getting no help from the City.
But enough about Last Thursday on Alberta.
Posted by the other white meat | August 16, 2010 9:17 AM
Hmmm...that brings up an interesting question. Considering attire and grooming habits, why is it that we haven't heard of the Portland police shooting a hipster mistaken for a homeless guy? Does Sam Adams send the cops out with a special detector that spots nasal voices or Buffalo Exchange clothing tags?
Posted by Texas Triffid Ranch | August 16, 2010 11:01 AM
Duck Pond Merlot, complete with the algae?
Oh! Not that Duck Pond!
Posted by Lawrence | August 16, 2010 11:16 AM
Hey! If you can get in your toney car, drive away drunken, and mow down some unsuspecting innocent, then it didn't happen. I assume that's because it keeps the hungry defense attorneys working, whereas those not leaving by vehicle don't have the financial wherewithal to hire effective representatation.
Remember, justice is provided only to those with the financial capacity to afford it.
Posted by godfry | August 16, 2010 12:07 PM
Don't worry, hipsters: Microbrews will be exempt.
My (admittedly unscientific) anecdotal evidence of leftover cans and bottles from teenage drinking parties in nearby Forest Park suggests that microbrews are a far worse problem than the class of beverages that CoP is targeting with this ban.
Posted by John Rettig | August 16, 2010 12:43 PM
Down in Eugene they have banned the sales of 40 oz malt beverages in the downtown area. It seems the poor folks wern't enjoying their 40's in their little apartments, they were consuming them in the parks and on the sidewalks. According to the stats. property crime has dropped dramatically since the ban. They don't mention if crime has risen in other parts of town where the dreaded 40's are still sold.
Posted by Bart | August 16, 2010 12:57 PM
There goes the evening glass of Port at the Arlington Club.
Posted by Isaac Laquedem | August 16, 2010 1:15 PM
godfry... or, of course, you could be the wife of a sitting US Senator and be driving drunk and cause an injury accident and know the boys in blue will make it all go away.....
Posted by LucsAdvo | August 16, 2010 2:19 PM
Lets not forget those merlot and microbrew drinkers aren't very likely to require detox, get arrested, need medical help. Fortified alcohol (FA) is not the same as regular alcohol. FAS is a product designed to pander to the addictions of poor urban males,primarily. It gets you off quick and brings you down fast. It reacts differently on your body.. ever have a MadDog hangover? case in point.
The cost of FA is borne by the taxpayers, while the distributors make the profit.
I once read that for every dollar spent on FA, the cost to the community was $7 in social services. Does it make sense to continue down the same path?
Posted by Joe Adamski | August 16, 2010 5:35 PM
That's the exact same argument that resulted in disparate sentencing for crack users vs. cocaine users.
One was a street drug with the express purpose of getting you high; the other was a more expensive "recreational" drug that did the exact same thing.
The hypocrisy of monitoring alcohol content by neighborhood and by "intent" (posh high-alcohol microbrew vs. a cheap tallboy) is so very Portland it hurts.
Posted by Kevin | August 16, 2010 10:54 PM
Unfortunately, as much as I love the 14th ammendment and think that it is violated and ignored way too much, not even I could make a 14th ammendment argument about this kind of hair splitting.
Posted by LucsAdvo | August 17, 2010 5:51 AM