As you approach the end of your final term in office, Gov. Ted Kulongoski, I would like to urge you to take an action that will make future generations bless your memory and secure your legacy as one of the great governors of Oregon history:
Fire the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Fire the whole damn agency. Fire every single one of ’em, from the commissioners themselves down to the guys who clean the lavatories. And replace them with people who, collectively, have an IQ approaching triple digits.
What brought on this tirade was an experience at a popular local restaurant yesterday evening. (I won’t name it, but I can mention that it’s in the Old Mill District.) My wife and I had just sat down and ordered a couple of cocktails from the friendly server – she a martini, me a gin and tonic.
The drinks arrived and the server asked us if we’d like a few minutes to look over the menu. Shortly he returned and we placed our orders. I told him I would like a glass of Syrah to go with my entree.
“I’m sorry, sir, but I can’t serve you two drinks at a time,” he said. “It’s an OLCC rule.”
My initial reaction was an increase in blood pressure to approximately 380 over 250. My next reaction was to say, rather loudly, “What???” I might have added a couple of words after “What???” for emphasis.
“I’m sorry, sir, but those are the rules,” he continued. “As long as you have the gin and tonic on the table, I can’t bring you the wine.”
Okay, I was thinking at this point, the kid is young and probably confused. Maybe he came here recently from another state. Maybe he doesn’t really know the rules. I’ll check with the manager.
The manager, appearing slightly annoyed, confirmed that such was, indeed, the OLCC rule. “If that’s the rule, it’s a goddamned idiotic one,” I gently remonstrated.
“That may be, sir, but it’s the rule and we have to follow it.”
Now, I have been eating and drinking in Oregon restaurants for almost 25 years and nobody, in Bend or anywhere else, has ever mentioned this insane rule, much less enforced it. You go into a place, you sit down, you order a drink to enjoy while you engage in a little conversation and peruse the menu, you order dinner and some wine, the dinner and wine arrive while what’s left of the cocktail is still on the table, you eat your dinner and drink your wine and, maybe, finish the cocktail.
This does not result in any Bacchanalian orgies, people stripping naked and copulating on the tables, vomiting all over the floor and urinating in the potted plants. At least not in the places where I generally hang out.
One of the many oddities of this policy is that I could, theoretically, have as many drinks as I want as long as I had them one at a time. My wife and I could have had a magnum of champagne brought to our table and drunk it all by ourselves – the equivalent of two full bottles of wine, or about six drinks apiece – and the OLCC would be cool with that. But a G&T and a glass of wine on the table at the same time? Horrors!
The Wandering Eye has written before about the imbecilic policies of the OLCC, a Prohibition relic that evidently exists for the sole purpose of writing dumb-ass rules and enforcing them, and has called for reform of the agency.
But after last night, I have decided the OLCC is too far gone for reform. It is terminally stupid. It must be razed and rebuilt from the ground up. It must be extirpated. It must be destroyed, root and branch.
Governor Kulongoski, fire up your chainsaw.
This article appears in Jul 23-29, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The OLCC is now in the business of writing new rules just to enforce them. Sounds like a wasteful Government spending and we are looking for ways to reduce state cost. So lets move those employees around to other divisions and get that department out of our state.
total agreement
You moron. That’s not a law, it’s a policy of the restaurant. Get your facts straight before you rant.
Woman in paper this week ran over bar employee with her car . Drunk as a skunk …. Took many people to stop her from driving…
haha it was prolly red robin.
“You moron. That’s not a law, it’s a policy of the restaurant. Get your facts straight before you rant.”
I suggest you learn how to read before calling somebody a moron, moron.
In the first place, both the server and the restaurant manager told me quite clearly and repeatedly that it was an OLCC rule.
In the second place, I have eaten at that same restaurant before and never had any problem getting a cocktail and a glass of wine.
What I suspect is happening is that the current regional OLCC administrator behaves like a petty tyrant (many businesses and even local governments have complained about him) and all the local restaurant operators are terrified of running afoul of him, so they are enforcing every little niggling rule.
“Woman in paper this week ran over bar employee with her car . Drunk as a skunk …. Took many people to stop her from driving…”
You think a policy of not serving her a glass of wine at the same time as she’s finishing a cocktail would have prevented that?
Preventing serious problems like drunk driving and serving alcohol to minors is what the OLCC should be focusing on, instead of a lot of chickenshit little rules that only serve to harass the responsible, law-abiding citizen.
What’s all the fuss? Do like I do and down the G&T, get the glass of wine and if you need another drink after dinner order the damb thing. That’s called being a tight ass.
That restaurant does not know the liquor laws. You can have 2 drinks in front of you at the same time, you just can not order them at the same time.
It is hard to establish the fine line between those responsible with their alcohol consumption and those that are not. The OLCC is trying to pick up slack where bar-tenders and servers who have the responsibility to determine this,as taught in the servers class for the OLCC certification, of who not to serve because they show signs of intoxication. Everyone has a right to rant about how they were singled out, or how they are a responsible drinker and should be the exception to the rule…this cannot be, blame should fall where the blame should fall, with those serving the alcohol.
OLCC is doing a fine job with attempting to protect those on the road and by-standards that get injured by those who are not responsile drinkers. And yes, are some of the rules strict and seem over-the-top, of course…but it is not OLCC that issues so many DUII’s in the Central Oregon area, it is not the OLCC that serves the alcohol to patrons of establishments, so blame the right people (irrisponsile servers) for this not the wrong people (OLCC).
Just my two cents worth, after all I have been working in the security industry for 20 years and am the victim of a DUII driver who ran me down while doing my job. So unless you have had the oppertunity to have a vehicle run you down because they were overserved…stop blaming the OLCC for the problems.
The new law/regulation mentioned here is similar to a long-standing one in Utah that I was relieved to get away from when I moved to Oregon. Not only was it a pain, but I thought it actually defeated it’s own purpose because it encouraged you to down you first drink in order to get another one. As a result, I witnessed more chugging (not a good practice for moderating alcoholic intake) due to this regulation.
Abuse of alcohol and DUIIs are serious problems to be addressed, but the OLCC seems to be taking a tact very reminiscent of Utah, being sticklers for inane, inconvenient, and often shifting rules that frustrate free and responsible adults while actually driving the worst offenders to down the drinks faster. Please, ler’s not go there!
Oregon Liquor Control Commission
Chapter 845 – Division 6
(a) Each purchaser of alcoholic
beverages may buy no more than two
drinks at any one time, or one bottle of
wine or cider for consumption on the
premises that is no larger than 750 ml
at any one time.
“Abuse of alcohol and DUIIs are serious problems to be addressed, but the OLCC seems to be taking a tact very reminiscent of Utah, being sticklers for inane, inconvenient, and often shifting rules that frustrate free and responsible adults”
The OLCC does seem to have been taken over by a gang of neo-Prohibitionists who think it’s their mission to make it as difficult and frustrating as possible for people to have a drink.
Oregon Liquor Control Commission
“Chapter 845 – Division 6
(a) Each purchaser of alcoholic
beverages may buy no more than two
drinks at any one time, or one bottle of
wine or cider for consumption on the
premises that is no larger than 750 ml
at any one time.”
But if I read that right I COULD have bought the G&T and the glass of wine at the same time.
As I said before, what I suspect is going on here is that the regional OLCC manager has the local bar and restaurant owners in such a funk they they don’t know WHAT to do.
I have several customers who own restaurants, and I can confirm your suspicion – the local OLCC folks have the folks serving and selling alcohol in a panic. We were told the same thing (perhaps in the same restaurant) recently. So, to make a point, I suggested that we should order one bottle of wine each. The server said he thought that would be okay. Where’s the logic? Oh, wait, it is a faceless, entrenched bureaucracy which is accountable, apparently, to NO ONE.
Time to start over.
For clarification, I posted more of the law that Lisa referenced. That part of the law only applies to special events. It doesn’t apply to restaurants.
845-006-0430
Alcohol Management in Public Venues
(1) Purpose. The Commission is charged with regulating the sale and service of alcoholic beverages in a way which protects the safety and welfare of the citizens, and helps ensure that alcohol is used legally. The purpose of this rule is to set minimum standards to help licensees manage large public events, ensuring that minors and visibly intoxicated persons do not get or consume alcohol. The Commission may place additional requirements on individual events to help ensure legal, well-managed events.
(3) This rule applies to:
(a) All annually licensed premises that do not have a Commission-approved operating plan and have any event with a daily attendance of 2000 or more. Annual licensees with a Commission-approved operating plan are exempt from this rule no matter what size events are held at the premises;
(b) All off premises events held by a regular or temporary licensee with a daily attendance of 2000 or more. If such licensee holds an event at another regular licensed premises that has a Commission-approved operating plan, the event holder must comply with the operating plan that is approved for the subject premises;
(c) To determine if this rule applies to an event, the licensee counts the total daily attendance (It does not matter how many people may consume alcohol or how many people are allowed in a confined area; what matters is the total daily attendance.) To determine if an event needs Alcohol Monitors, see Section (2), Definitions, and Section (5), Assignment of Alcohol Monitors.
(a) Container sizes. Alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises must be served as follows:
(A) Malt beverages:
(i) In a container no larger than 16 ounces;
(ii) For tastings, no more than 3 ounces of product.
(B) Wine:
(i) By the glass, a standard pour of no more than 6 ounces of product in a container no larger than 24 ounces;
(ii) For tastings, no more than 1 1/2 ounces of product in a container no larger than 24 ounces;
(iii) A bottle of wine no larger than 750 ml sold for more than one person and for on-premises consumption only, with containers no larger than 24 ounces.
(C) Distilled Spirits:
(i) Up to 1 ounce of distilled spirits without mixer in a container no larger than 4 ounces;
(ii) Up to 1 ounce of distilled spirits with mixer served in a container no larger than 12 ounces.
(D) Cider:
(i) In a container no larger than 16 ounces;
(ii) For tastings, not more than 3 ounces of product;
(iii) A bottle of cider no larger than 750 ml sold for more than one person and for on-premises consumption only.
(b) Container color or type. Containers used to serve alcoholic beverages must be of a visibly and distinctively different color or type when compared to containers used to serve nonalcoholic beverages.
(7) Limits on Alcohol Sales.
(a) Each purchaser of alcoholic beverages may buy no more than two drinks at any one time, or one bottle of wine or cider for consumption on the premises that is no larger than 750 ml at any one time.
“So, to make a point, I suggested that we should order one bottle of wine each.”
LOL! Excellent idea! And then after each of you finished off his first bottle he could order another bottle, and then another, etc. Apparently as long as no one patron orders more than one at a time there’s no problem.
The reason youรข โขve never had this issue happen before is because the regulation doesnรข โขt exist. Despite what the manager told you, itรข โขs a house policy not OLCC regulation or rule. A bit embarrassing, but on this particular issue youรข โขve got egg on your face.
That said, the OLCC has out lived its place in our society and would have been removed long ago if it were not for the simple fact that it is a MASSIVE revenue generator for the general fund, over $100mil annually. Itรข โขs not going anywhere until someone finds a way to replace what would be lost income to the state, period! The legislature has passed a lot increases in taxes/fees to increase or create government programs. No amount of moaning and whining is going to get the state to kill the golden goose. Look, if we want government programs then the money has to come from somewhere, why not perpetuate the sin taxes? Nobody is crying about tobacco or lottery taxes, but touch persons alcohol and you get a nerve. Bigger government means bigger revenue is needed to support it. Itรข โขs not rocket scienceรข ยฆ just politics.
OLCC is outdated, economic taxpayer money pit for administrative costs all done poorly – get rid of it
HBM: Some of the previous posters are right. OLCC doesnรข โขt have a statute or OLCC rule that would prohibit everyone with a liquor license from serving two drinks at a time. It could have been a house policy, part of a voluntary control plan, or a restriction on the license. We generally think of รข ruleรข ย as a law, but the manager may have used รข rule” in the generic form instead. Sometimes businesses that have been over-serving alcohol create a voluntary control plan. Only serving one drink at a time might be something that they offer to do to prevent intoxication. In some cases, if a licensee has a history of over-serving alcohol, a restriction could be placed on the license to help them control over-service and to prevent them from losing their liquor license. Or, it could simply be a house policy. We find businesses and event planners frequently use the OLCC as a way to justify unpopular policies.
Many of the other folks who have commented about DUII are right. The purpose for working with licensees to prevent over-service is because customers who are involved in fights, altercations, harassment and especially DUII are most often intoxicated from alcohol. Did you know that by statute (not OLCC rule) servers and bartenders who serve to visibly intoxicated people can be held liable for liquor-related damages, injuries and even death? The rules may seem archaic, but they are there to protect the server as well as the general public. Think about the person who matters most to you and then imagine what life would be like if that person was killed by a drunk driver. Thank goodness that didn’t happen, but if it had, this posting would have a much different angle.
What I love about OLCC types is the idea that they are somehow responsible for preventing DUI’s or our community’s safety. Look at the post above – as if they were the ones protecting us. However, the OLCC is just enforcing the rules that our society has told them to enforce. The problem that most of us have in Bend is that they enforce them in a haphazard, expensive, and confusing manner that actually endangers the community through their lack of consistent standard. When people talk about “eliminating” the OLCC they are not talking about replacing the organization with anarchy. Replace the OLCC with existing police and city or county services. That’s what most states who moved effectively beyond prohibition did. The state will make MORE money, citizens will be SAFER, public services will get a LARGER budget and the local yokels at the OLCC can stop endangering the community with their random acts of concern.
“OLCC doesnรข โขt have a statute or OLCC rule that would prohibit everyone with a liquor license from serving two drinks at a time. It could have been a house policy, part of a voluntary control plan, or a restriction on the license. We generally think of รข ruleรข ย as a law, but the manager may have used รข rule” in the generic form instead.”
1. Both the server and the manager told me it was an OLCC “rule.” I guess I should have asked them for a precise definition of “rule,” complete with etymological citations, but the restaurant was pretty busy and I already had taken up quite a bit of their time.
2. Someone else on this thread has commented that the same “rule” has been enforced at the Deschutes Brewery.
3. If it was house policy at the restaurant where I ate, how come I had eaten there several times previously and such a policy had never been enforced before?
What happens, I suspect, is that the OLCC commission makes the “rules” but the regional managers interpret them, and the current Bend regional manager is a notorious hard-liner who interprets rules arbitrarily and capriciously and, it’s been alleged, vindictively.
So either (a) we have a stupid rule or (b) we have a rule being interpreted stupidly.
“Did you know that by statute (not OLCC rule) servers and bartenders who serve to visibly intoxicated people can be held liable for liquor-related damages, injuries and even death?”
Yes, I know that.
“The rules may seem archaic …”
Only some do.
” … but they are there to protect the server as well as the general public. Think about the person who matters most to you and then imagine what life would be like if that person was killed by a drunk driver.”
Oh please, don’t try that tired old line. People are getting killed by drunk drivers every day on Oregon roads and OLCC’s silly rules are not preventing it. What prevents it, to the extent that it is prevented, is good law enforcement. There is no evidence whatsoever that Oregon fares any better at preventing drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities, underage drinking, alcoholism or any other alcohol-related problems than states with less draconian alcohol regulations.
No matter what you do, however much education you give to the public, it is still up to the person drinking to be responsible. I remember back in 2006, the OLCC Director stepped down because of a DUIi. If you can’t stop your own director from getting a DUI, then how effective are you really OLCC?
Thanks but no thanks!
If cell phones or texting are worse than driving drunk, can we combine them from drunk-text-driving? You know, two negatives = a positive?
OLCC exists to perpetuate itself. There are plenty of more efficient ways to answer the mandate. Actually, do they still have a mandate?
are you kidding me? this chain of banter confirms what a complete TRAIN WRECK the olcc is. it’s an embarrassment to the great state of oregon. as a newcomer to the state, the rules cited above are laughable. who wrote this nonsense? and what role does the olcc play? in the rest of the country, they have something called “police officers” that enforce laws and keep drunks off the road. in bend, the olcc strikes me as police academy drop-outs who couldn’t make it as cops but they still have a power trip and and ego that needs to be stroked so they wreak havoc on the local community. who can end this madness? enough already!
The problem is OLCC goes out and make laws by telling resellers the laws is this and then changes it to something else at the next stop. So everyone is lost on what is real.
The Oregon Marine Board is even worse. Law enforcement is out doing the same thing. Making up laws to suit their needs and not reading or following the law that is past.
The problem is OLCC goes out and make laws by telling resellers the laws is this and then changes it to something else at the next stop. So everyone is lost on what is real.
The Oregon Marine Board is even worse. Law enforcement is out doing the same thing. Making up laws to suit their needs and not reading or following the law that is past.
Oregon has State owned and operated retail Liquor stores…..maybe they should expand their empire and start closing down privately owned bars and re open them under State control…..Screw it…Just let Oregon control everything…would be so much easier for us morons.
“If cell phones or texting are worse than driving drunk”
They are — much worse. There’s a front page story in today’s NY Times about how people who text while driving are 23 TIMES (!!!) as likely to have an accident.
We have a law against having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle. We should also have a law against having a switched-on cell phone in a vehicle. I’m convinced the goddam cell phones are killing and injuring more people than the drunks.
“The problem is OLCC goes out and make laws by telling resellers the laws is this and then changes it to something else at the next stop”
I think this is pretty common behavior for bureaucracies.
One problem with the OLCC probably is that the rules have gotten so vast and complicated over the decades that not even Stephen Hawking would be able to make sense of them.
I have had an OLCC servers permit in Oregon for more years than I can count. What I think it is a mis interpretation of the rule. I worked at Chinook Winds Casino as a server and cocktail server, Sharis Restaurant’s and have been a manager at one time for Skippers restaurant. I have never heard of a rule such as this. Someone and not the writer HBM, is blowing smoke somewhere. The rule’s of the server pernit sometimes can be confusing to even management. Yet in the last few months I have heard that the Central Oregon Mountain region is not having luck with the OLCC. What I have heard about the OLCC over here surprises me, because when I have worked in the valley and the coast there has never been these problems. Because as was pointed out if someone had placed a bottle of wine on a table there is more than one glass in a bottle, then rightfully the server is breaking the law along with the restaurant. The other options is that one of the restaurant’s was busted by an undercover sting and they are just being overcautious. Something smell’s in the OLCC.
not familiar with this law. even if it is a law a server can easily work around it. in this case just say ok and bring the wine with dinner or after he’s mostly finished with his cocktail