Editorial: Business citations ignore college drinking culture

‘ ‘ ‘ In a move designed to stop people younger than 21 from purchasing beer, the Craig… ‘ ‘ ‘ In a move designed to stop people younger than 21 from purchasing beer, the Craig Distributing Co. has closed its doors to anyone younger than 25 after 4 p.m. on weekdays and all day on Sunday. The business already has a pair of citations from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and after a third the PPLCB would revoke Craig Distributing’s license to sell alcohol. ‘ ‘ ‘ It’s a shame that a venerable business like Craig Distributing has to implement such drastic measures, especially at a time when the economy is already making sales more difficult. Dean Rogers, the general manager of Craig Distributing, estimated that in the two weeks since the new policy was implemented, the business has lost about $3,000 in business each Friday night. ‘ ‘ ‘ And while there’s nothing illegal about the company’s actions, it does make it more difficult for people of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages, especially those who live in North Oakland. ‘ ‘ ‘ All of this raises the question of the underage drinking culture in Oakland, as well as other college campuses in general. While it certainly isn’t condoned behavior, it’s a fact that underage drinking is relatively common in and around Oakland. Colleges across the country have been battling this fact for years, often with little success. ‘ ‘ ‘ The truth is that underage drinking is at least in some part ingrained into the culture of college as an institution. A vast majority of college students start drinking before they reach legal age, and a good number of them attempt to buy their own alcohol using fake IDs. ‘ ‘ ‘ This shouldn’t come as any surprise. College students consist of many intelligent and resourceful people, and many of them have money to spend and a fair amount of free time. It’s not hard to imagine that some students would put their resources and ingenuity to crafting or procuring IDs that can foil even the best of the distributors’ countermeasures. ‘ ‘ ‘ The PLCB is obviously just trying to offer a standardized practice by instituting a three-strikes-you’re-out policy. But that might not be the best case for a situation like this. Rather than a catch-all policy, it could be fairer for the PLCB to evaluate the process that distributors use to catch people with fake IDs and judge punishment based on that. So, for instance, if a distributor received its third citation, PLCB officers could review its scanning process to see if it’s up to snuff. ‘ ‘ ‘ If it is, perhaps only a fine or minor penalty would be in order, whereas violators that blatantly disregarded their responsibility to properly check IDs could lose their license. It simply doesn’t seem fair to penalize a business, and to force it to further penalize itself and its loyal ‘mdash; and legal ‘mdash; customers because of the actions of students with no regard for the legality of their actions. But as long as underage drinking exists, so will underage buying, and the PLCB should recognize that rather than punishing it indiscriminately.