This plan is destined for failure. Either at ever getting off the ground, or at fixing any problems.

I suspect that they wouldn't legislate against "Any beverage with contains over 5.57 percent alcohol" [and I am assuming that is Ms. Mirk's typo] because that would get rid of all wine sales as well.

Also, I think the deal will only work if the corner markets can sell marijuana to replace lost revenue. That seems fair and less dangerous.

Why box wine? I've never seen a street drinker sipping from a spigot sticking out of a box-shaped paper bag.

I'm not opposed to the single can ban, but the boxed wine ban seem like a bad idea: Cheap&easy booze is the problem and there are some boxed wines that are more expensive per liter than wine in a bottle. In any case, a 3 liter box of wine can run upwards of $20 which is significantly more than someone who is homeless and needs a cheap fix can afford; Boxed wine is an investment, unless it is for a party it will often last several weeks in my house before it gets finished off. That is a complete reverse of the single can rule, it is like banning cases of beer, but still allowing single can sales.

Of course, I'm only opposed to bans that affect me: The boxed wine one would and I've bought some downtown on my way home from work, but I've never bought a single can except in a bar.

@DemonJuice

The sophisticated street drinker with a discerning palette prefers spigots from box shaped paper bags. It's a well known fact.

Number Six,

thanks for the correction. I checked and, yes, there are different standards for wine. I updated the post with the correct amount - 5.75 percent for malt liquor and 13.5 percent for wine.

@Matthew_D Similarly, there are numerous high-end wines that exceed 13.5 percent. Lots of reds coming out of California (ooh, maybe this is a veiled attack on Napa), Ports and desert wines might find their way into this ban. Other than that, this at least seems to be a more focused plan than the initial reports a few months ago that they were hoping to ban most things over 5% or something like that. Still not sure how I feel about it, but at least they seem to be targeting the offenders' beverages of choice (or circumstance).

They tried this in California and it didn't work in large part because regulating sales of specific types of alcohol falls under the State jurisdiction and not to local law enforcement or municipal governments. There is ample case law surrounding this issue. Secondly, if they target a specific geographic area for special enforcement they will be litigated and lose. Los Angeles targeted South Central Los Angeles for just such an effort in the mid 80's, lost the legal challenge and ended up enacting some City wide standards which still did not address specific types of sales, but rather best practices. If the OLCC was willing to aggressively enforce existing laws about sales to obviously intoxicated patrons those few retail bad actors which represent the majority of problem sales could be squeezed into compliance through financial incentives. There are some approaches that can mitigate the problem but outright bans won't work

They tried this in DT Seattle years ago. Not sure how it turned out. I think the stores just over the boundary of the Zone of Banishment saw a nice spike in malt liquor sales. It would be excellent for the Plaid Pantry on East Burnside.

Are gentiles allowed to drink Joose?
(I know, bad joke)

I smell the Portland Business Alliance. Where are they? Where are they? They're hiding behind this, somewhere...surely...

Hi Janelle! Good to see you around here, I take it you still alive and well and not the victim of any ID theft by possible felons.

Keep in touch.

3 Buck Chuck + HRD or Everclear = Crazy Delicious.

Actually, wine can be sold over 13.5% at 25c an ounce. Boxed wine is a favorite of the street youth, who take the highly mobile bag out of the box and drink it straight from the spigot.

If you would like more information, give me a call.

Theresa Marchetti
503-823-3092

The drunken nonsense that you deal with downtown is rarely of the sauced up street person variety. It's more the douche bags stumbling out of Kells/Dirty/Dantes.
I live downtown and will be damned if I have start crossing a bridge to buy wine.

Kids living on the street drink because they're lives suck. "What's that? I can't buy a can Steel Reserve? Suddenly my mental illness has disappeared. And I have forgotten about all of those times my older brother bad touched me." This is not going to happen.

Try harder.

Matt Davis strikes again. Matt Davis is the kind of "blogger" who reports on things simply to get a rise out of people. I met him at the Future of Portland Media event at the Stag Building last year. We were sitting inside of a breakout session for the Non-Profit business model, AKA OPB. There he complained about lack of access to the media themselves. Ironically enough, he is an agent of for-profit business model, the Portland Mercury.

Now he is complaining about the PBA (Portland Business Alliance) being involved somehow. Of course they are, however this is a good thing. Portland is maturing into a real city and the children of its forgotten past continue to complain. Matt, again, I ask you to please grow up and stop abusing your "power" as a "blogger".

This ban sounds pretty stupid to me. It seems to say that if you're a drunken douchebag or date rapist with a credit card, go ahead and be drunk and rowdy. If you're poor however, get the hell out of here.

MD, you should start calling yourself a PowerBlogger TM. (You'll have to trademark it, of course).
@Bret, you're clearly some kind of genius.

How about a ban on the sale of Axe Body Spray downtown? I think that's a cause we could all support.