Letters to the Editor

One drink at a time is a city ordinance

The Honolulu Liquor Commission, in its mission "to promote our community's health, safety and welfare by effectively and fairly administering Hawai'i's liquor laws," continues to take aggressive action to address the issue of alcohol consumption and prevention of underage drinking, and to promote ways to help provide a safer community.

Restricting a person who is going to consume or purchase alcohol at a sports activity, an event frequented by many who are underage, to one drink at a time is a bright line that lets people know that the product is not just a bag of popcorn that may be shared by any and all.

Of course, it is easy to defeat this logic and ignore the message by returning to the line 30 seconds later.

If vendors such as Volume Services or the Aloha Stadium Authority wish to accommodate impatient or inconvenienced patrons, they may write to the Honolulu Liquor Commission for a declaratory interpretation of the no-stacking rule (Rule 78.5-2 Stacking Drinks: "The stacking of liquor by the licensees for consumption by customers is prohibited. No customer shall be permitted to have, for consumption, more than one drink at a time ... ").

Exemption would allow for more than one drink with reasonable controls, e.g., the I.D. card of a spouse or a disabled person, or the allowance of a maximum of two drinks, to allow for responsible consumption.

John P. Spierling
Chairman, Honolulu Liquor Commission

City, state officials getting out of touch

I am fed up.

We have a state government that has no concern for the wishes of the people. Its officials are only concerned with the welfare of the government and themselves. Prime examples include the wonderful traffic cams.

It is evident from public discussions, readers' viewpoints, radio shows and other media that the traffic cams are not wanted by the majority of the people of Hawai'i. Yet the government insults our intelligence and tells us it's a safety issue and then puts the cams in speed traps. How many accidents have occurred at the Pali Highway cemetery lookout?

We also have the real property valuations issued by our wonderful city government. Way out of sync with reality. I am willing to gladly sell my condo to the government for its appraised value. Surprise! No takers from the government.

We now hear of the settlement of the oil company suit for overcharging the people of Hawai'i — with the money recovered going to (who else?) the government.

We now find out that it appears our wonderful mayor and his political machine is also in the business of raising money for re-election or election by whatever means is necessary to get elected. I now see the city has backed off the traffic cams, at least until after the election.

It is time for the people of Hawai'i to speak with their vote and remove the existing governments that will not follow the will of the people.

Gary G. Osterman

There's good reason for banning fireworks

Twice a year, on or about Independence Day and New Year's week, my wife and I are denied the right to peaceful enjoyment of our home and property.

Several times during those occasions, we are forced to take up push-brooms, dustpans and large trash bags to clean up the litter left by inconsiderate revelers who fire off every description of incendiary device without regard to asthmatics, victims of post-traumatic stress syndrome, animals or private property.

This past New Year's, only 4,401 fireworks permits were sold. Yet there had to be that many people in my neighborhood alone setting off the devices. Officials claim the current fireworks law is effective. If so, how did thousands of other firebugs obtain their materials?

Was there less overall noise and smoke this past New Year's Eve? It all depends on where you were. Many areas were worse than in 2000.

There is a very good reason virtually all municipalities and states on the Mainland have banned the private use of fireworks: common sense.

Sid Potter
Kapolei

How can government condemn private land?

I feel compelled to respond to the City Council's recent preliminary vote of condemnation of private citizens' land for the benefit of a retail development plan.

I find it hard to believe that in the year 2002 in the United States of America, the government can take land away from a citizen and sell it to a private corporation.

I also find it difficult to understand that while amicable negotiations are continuing, the government can vote to condemn.

Don't landowners have rights?

Of course I support the improvement of Waikiki, but not at the cost of the landowners. This is not a government-proposed project; it is a private company that will benefit at the cost of every landowner in Hawai'i. That is a very high price to pay.

Sloane Perroots
Lewers Street landowner
San Jose, Calif.

The threat of prison doesn't always work

The drug court program mentioned in your Jan. 14 editorial on alternatives to incarceration is definitely a step in the right direction, but an arrest should not be a necessary prerequisite for drug treatment.

Would alcoholics seek treatment for their illness if doing so were tantamount to confessing to criminal activity?

Likewise, would putting every incorrigible alcoholic behind bars and saddling him with a criminal record prove cost-effective?

The United States recently earned the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world, with drug offenses accounting for the majority of federal incarcerations. This is big government at its worst. At an average cost of $25,071 per inmate annually, maintaining the world's largest prison system can hardly be considered fiscally conservative.

The threat of prison upon which coerced drug treatment relies can backfire when it's actually put to use. As noted in your excellent editorial, prisons transmit violent habits and values rather than reduce them. Most nonviolent drug offenders are eventually released, with dismal job prospects due to criminal records.

Turning recreational drug users into hardened criminals is a senseless waste of tax dollars.

Robert Sharpe
Program officer, The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Maybe we should vote on all issues

Gov. Cayetano wants us to vote on the gambling issue because the state cannot come up with any other economic solution. If our politicians cannot make critical decisions on gambling, why not let us vote on traffic cameras and marijuana use, too?

How about lowering taxes by vote? Why not get rid of politicians altogether and just let the people vote on every issue?

It is clear that gambling and traffic cameras are simply bogus money-grubbing solutions from a dysfunctional and clueless state government.

Steve Tayama

$18 million 'break' should go elsewhere

Your headline "Airport tenants get $18M break" seems to condone this misuse of funds.

With $18 million, one could give $1,000 per month to 1,000 people who lost their jobs for the duration of 18 months. This would be a true help for them. But instead the money is given to wealthy merchants.

Klaus Wyrtki