Renee Rosenow

Certain alcoholics in the city of Green Bay currently face a tough task of obtaining alcohol.

According to an April 26 Green Bay Press Gazette article, businesses have received letters for the last 13 years that have a list of names and mug shots of people that are not allowed to buy alcohol. The city continues to do this because it helps to cut down the problems that involve police intervention.

According to the article, Lt. John Laux, a community police officer, said, “it does seem to reduce the call volumes of these people,” adding, “it just makes it more difficult for them.”

I don’t necessarily think this is the worst plan because clearly it has worked at least a little bit for the city, since they’ve been doing it for 13 years. But really, if alcoholics want alcohol, they are going to get it regardless.

It is pretty much the same thing as underage drinkers. People under the age of 21 are not allowed to buy alcohol but somehow manage to get it all the time. Underage drinking tickets are handed out quite frequently, so clearly just because someone can’t buy it, that doesn’t mean he or she won’t be able to get it.

The alcoholics on this list are not young teens or college students trying to get alcohol either. They are much more experienced and are probably more motivated than anyone to find the alcohol, so they are going to get it.

According to the article, businesses caught providing alcohol to someone on the list could face a fine up to $361. They could also be held liable for the person’s actions that they served, and it could also affect the status of their liquor license.

Obviously for a law like this to be in place, a fine of some sort has to exist. And in this instance, the punishment probably fits the crime. It really is not too difficult to prevent someone on the list from purchasing the alcohol.

However, I do have some issues with this. How are the police going to prove that the business served someone the alcohol? What if an alcoholic got the alcohol from another person but blamed a business because he or she was mad about not getting served there? Who do the police believe? An alcoholic, or the business that may or may not have served the alcoholic?

According to the article, someone is designated eligible for the list if he or she has generated hundreds of calls with the police each year. The most recent list sent out in December included 81 people.

I guess if someone has generated “hundreds” of calls with the police in a year, something should probably be done. If the alcoholics cause this many disturbances, I am guessing some of them involve other people. When the problems involve just the alcoholics, I guess it is their own problem. But where I think this problem needs to be addressed is when it starts affecting innocent people.

I am sure many students have heard of this story, but it comes to mind when I think of this issue.

Nick Adenhart was a 22-year-old pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. He was just beginning a promising career when a drunk driver killed him and two friends. The man who killed these innocent people was an alcoholic.

Obviously this man faces much worse consequences than simply being on a list where he is not allowed to buy alcohol. But maybe, just maybe, if there would’ve been a list that he was on, then maybe Adenhart would still be pitching in the major leagues.

So overall, I am glad something is being done to try to prevent trouble with alcohol. It is not like they are putting someone who got in trouble one time on this list. If the police are contacted hundreds of times because of one person’s actions, then maybe this isn’t such a bad idea.

Metz is a senior print journalism major and chief copy editor for The Spectator.