alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 
 V.15 No.27 | July 6 - 12, 2006 

News Feature

Strong Medicine

A call for a tougher Liquor Control Act has business owners up in arms

Bartender Sterling hangs out with Nicole (left) and Dylan at a local bar, which could be affected by the proposed liquor law changes.
Wes Naman
Bartender Sterling hangs out with Nicole (left) and Dylan at a local bar, which could be affected by the proposed liquor law changes.

It's a significant figure: 1,410. That's how many dispenser liquor licenses there are in New Mexico. None have been added since 1981.

A dispenser license is a permit that allows the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor, the kind needed to run a full-service bar. When a license is revoked, it's erased from the rolls, subtracted from that number, and cannot be resold. When a bar is busted, found in violation of the Liquor Control Act too many times, the number of dispenser licenses shrinks. Because of their rarity, Alcohol and Gaming Division Director Gary Tomada has heard reports of licenses selling for between $200,000 to $350,000, though such figures are based on speculation since all licenses are privately owned these days.

Tomada is the man faced with a decision about proposed changes to the Liquor Control Act--an issue that has bar and restaurant owners up in arms. The rules governing liquor licenses in New Mexico would stiffen significantly if the proposals are adopted, but among the many amendments up for discussion, one in particular is weighing heavily on license holders' minds: a proposal stating that with two citations for selling alcohol to an intoxicated person within a 12-month period, a restaurant or bar could have their costly liquor license revoked.

1,410 ... 1,409 ... 1,408 ...

"For most people, that liquor license, that’s a lifelong investment," says Billy Baldwin, owner of Stone Face Tavern, the Horse & Angel Tavern and Billy's Long Bar, all in Albuquerque. "I think they may have gotten a little overzealous with this."

The Breakdown

Only two licenses have been revoked in the last 10 years under the current rules, says Ed Lopez, superintendent of the State Regulation and Licensing Department. But whether that's due to poor enforcement or because the rules themselves aren't strong enough is hard to determine. Still, a good portion of the DWIs in New Mexico trace back to patrons being overserved at bars, "mostly bars whose primary business is alcohol, not food," he adds. "It's directly related to cutting people off when they're visibly intoxicated."

Gov. Bill Richardson convened a task force in 2005 to examine the regulations governing liquor sales in New Mexico "to recommend tougher regulations" that would help curb drunken driving, according to a news release. That task force came up with a list of tweaks to the rules, most of which make up the revisions on the table for discussion at three public hearings, the first of which was Wednesday, July 5, at the National Hispanic Cultural Center (NHCC).

Among other things, amendments include: serving minors or drunk people four times in 12 months would result in a revoked license; serving intoxicated people two times in 12 months would also mean license revocation; the director would have the option of not renewing a license if he considers the business unsafe for the area it's in; employees would be banned from drinking while on duty and couldn't be drunk at their place of work, even if not on duty.

Prove It

The most frightening proposed change, says lawyer Kerry Morris, who represents TD's Showclubs, is the one that would disallow license holders from having an opportunity to rebut a citation, to say, "Hey, that guy wasn't drunk when we served him." In a June 1 article in the Alibi [News Feature, "Downtown Fights Back"], Peter Olson, communications director for the Department of Public Safety, says a citation is given when a Special Investigations Division (SID) agent witnesses someone serving liquor to a customer exhibiting signs of being drunk. In this case, what's considered drunk is a .14 blood-alcohol level, but a Breathalizer reading is not required as evidence.

Determining if someone is drunk is harder than it sounds, say Morris, who also worked as a prosecutor in DWI cases for two years in the early ’80s. What if the patron is a seasoned drinker and exhibits no outward signs of being drunk, even with a high blood-alcohol content? The proposed revisions would also stipulate that if a person is found drunk two hours after buying alcohol, it can be assumed he or she was above the legal limit when served the last beverage. "It's a nightmare in terms of proof," Morris says. "It's hard for a server who's had some training, or a club owner or a license holder—short of giving a Breathalizer test to each patron when they enter or when they leave or periodically throughout the night—to have any kind of degree of certainty as to the blood-alcohol content of their system."

But Lopez says that argument is nonsense. "My 5-year-old son could identify an intoxicated person," he says. Lopez believes bar owner Baldwin, who as president of the New Mexico Hospitality Retail Association is spearheading the effort to battle the proposed changes, is feeding the debate with misinformation in an effort to divert attention from a lawsuit. Baldwin is facing a lawsuit after a drunk driver killed three people in a taxi on Thanksgiving Day in 2005. The driver is said to have been drinking that night at Baldwin's bar, the Horse & Angel Tavern.

Baldwin declined to comment on the case, because it's still pending. But he did have a few words on Lopez' allegation: "I've been in business 25 years. If I was trying to do that, I would probably be better off if I wasn't saying anything [about the proposals] to try and keep the crosshairs off me."

Thinking It Through

Lopez admits his department probably hasn't thought of all the repercussions surrounding the proposed changes. That's why there are three hearings taking place in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces. The hearings, which are open to the public, all take place this week (July 5, NHCC; July 6, Las Cruces Public Schools Board room; July 8, Santa Fe’s Toney Anaya Building). A report, including public comment, will be prepared after the meetings by the hearing officer. Then it all comes down to Alcohol and Gaming Division Director Tomada. He says he hopes to come to a decision 30 days after the final hearing, though he can't guarantee he will.

The rules are not extreme, Lopez says, adding that neighboring states have even more stringent regulations than New Mexico's proposed changes. In California, three sales-to-intox citations in a three-year period results in revocation. More than three citations in two years gets your license revoked in Arizona. Three in three years is all it takes in Texas.

But remember that number, 1,410? In New Mexico, it hasn't been increased in 25 years, making licenses that much more expensive and difficult to obtain and, one could argue, more sorely missed when revoked without the possibility of resale. Texas has no limit on the number of liquor licenses available in the state. California takes a look at its population every year and decides if more are warranted. Arizona has a limit but released more last year and might do so again in another four years.

"I'm almost afraid to sell any liquor lately," says Jerry Wright, owner of the Great American Land & Cattle Co., a restaurant that also houses a full bar and a wine shop. He's not against all of the proposed changes. Some, he says, are long overdue. "But I could see how overzealous enforcement could pull my license. If someone doesn't like me, if I'm getting sting after sting after sting ..." Wright says he works hard to enforce the rules and takes his responsibility seriously. "I'm trying to be one of the good guys," he says. "I have a good friend who was almost killed by a drunk driver. We have to do something to get those bastards off the street."

Part of Wright's job is to take the occasional sip of wine to make sure the bottle's good. Would he get cited for such an activity if the revisions are adopted? He wonders. What if he sits down to dinner and a glass of red after work? He's the owner, so he doesn't clock in. Who's to say he was or wasn't on duty? "We need clarification," he says.

For more information on the proposed regulation changes or the hearings, go to: www.rld.state.nm.us/agd/.

Public Comments (2)
  • Strong Medicine - A call for a tougher Liquor Control Act has business owners up in arms  [ Mon Jul 10 2006 12:46 PM ]

    […Billy Baldwin, owner of Stone Face Tavern, the Horse & Angel Tavern and Billy's Long Bar, all in Albuquerque. "I think they may have gotten a little overzealous with this."] Wow! Does he really think so? I bet that if this paper had a wider political circulation, the Alibi would find that most people don’t think this is at all over zealous. Or maybe Mr. Baldwin is so caught up in the money making that the fact that drunk driver’s become drunk from drinking alcohol, which the majority of them drink in bars and then drive off to kill other people’s father’s & mothers, sons & daughters, sisters & brothers, that this just doesn’t matter to him [or to the rest of those crying ‘Woe is Me’]. Can any intelligent, analytical, common-sensical adult human being really believe this? If so, our world is in a lot of trouble.

    […a good portion of the DWIs in New Mexico trace back to patrons being overserved...It's directly related to [not] cutting people off when they're visibly intoxicated."] Factually, actually, this has got be one of the biggest understatements of the year. If you don’t believe so, go do a little research for yourself, Dear Reader, instead of believing everything you see on the television news or in papers.

    [Among other things, amendments include: serving minors or drunk people four times in 12 months would result in a revoked license; serving intoxicated people two times in 12 months would also mean license revocation; the director would have the option of not renewing a license if he considers the business unsafe for the area it's in; employees would be banned from drinking while on duty and couldn't be drunk at their place of work, even if not on duty.] Hmmm. How many times should drinking establishments be allowed to play Russian Roulette with our lives? Should they be allowed to serve alcohol using statistical probability as their litmus test of whether they should have their licenses revoked? Last time I checked, which was recently, it was ILLEGAL to serve alcohol to minors or drunks.

    […a citation is given when a Special Investigations Division (SID) agent witnesses someone serving liquor to a customer exhibiting signs of being drunk. In this case, what's considered drunk is a .14 blood-alcohol level, but a Breathalizer reading is not required as evidence.] Isn’t that just like a New Mexico law. Wouldn’t it make more sense for drunk being defined as a .08 blood alcohol level before getting into the car? Or do people actually believe that blood alcohol is going to drop .06 points in the time it takes to walk across the parking lot? And just to keep everyone on the up and up, make the Breathalizer necessary. Duh!, as my teenager would say.

    [Baldwin is facing a lawsuit after a drunk driver killed three people in a taxi on Thanksgiving Day in 2005. The driver is said to have been drinking that night at Baldwin's bar, the Horse & Angel Tavern.] Now we know who should guide us iggerents, don’t we? Maybe the drunk driver was only ‘allegedly’ drunk or driving? Or maybe the driver only ‘allegedly’ killed those people? Or maybe the Horse & Angel only ‘allegedly’ serves alcohol? And never to someone whose blood alcohol level is .08 behind the wheel.

    [In California, three sales-to-intox citations in a three-year period results in revocation. More than three citations in two years gets your license revoked in Arizona. Three in three years is all it takes in Texas.] And, they don’t have the problem with drunk drivers that we do. Don’t believe me? Then do the research. And, those states can have more licenses per capita because they have stricter laws AND they enforce them. What a novel concept.

  • Personal responsibility​  [ Wed Jul 12 2006 3:57 PM ]

    It would be great if our society would return to placing blame where blame lies... with the individual. That is not palatable with zealots like Empress (wrote the comment above) or lawyers, because individuals' pockets are not as deep as the bar's. Why not sue the car manufacturer?!?!

    This article is about the oppressive law the state and city are coming out with. It doesn't matter if the person has a designated driver or is taking a taxi, the bar would still be punished too harshly.

    Why not just reinstitute prohibition? It looks like we are headed that way.

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Latest User Posts
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Most Active Users
  • Web Exclusives
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.
    "The Best is Yet to Come"
    "The Best is Yet to Come"6.21.2013