Nightlife
Here's My I.D., Man...
Asking for identification is bullshit.
There, I said it. With that phrase prominently in the front of your mind, think about the last time you went to a bar in Vancouver. More specifically, one that has a line-up or at the very least a dinky little velvet rope. At the end of that rope there was probably some dude hassling you for your identification. It's not his fault, it's just his job.
While I can agree with the other important aspects of this gentleman's job (keeping the peace, mainly), I think it is absolutely ridiculous to ask customers for identification. I know, I must be crazy, right?
As I'm oft to pontificate on the over-bureaucratization and the striking over-abundance of regulations in this city, it should be no surprise that I think our laws regarding identification are, quite frankly, shit.
In a city that tries so very hard (really, two pieces of I.D.?) to curb underage drinking, what we really get is a city filled with drunk kids involved in forgery, fraud, and over-drinking for those who don't get in to a licensed "establishment".
And on top of this, we have a civic government that uses these laws to punish particular businesses they don't like.
A few weekends ago I was privy to some birthday shenanigans at a downtown restaurant. Naturally, after the meal, we wanted to continue our celebrations and decided to go out to a bar on Granville. I'm pretty anti-Granville myself, but it was the birthday boys' decision, so what can you do, right?
We choose a spot, and lo-and-behold the birthday boy does not have a piece of "primary" I.D. as he had recently had his license renewed. Even with a wallet full of other evidence and a large mass of people, all of whom are well over the drinking age by at least half a decade (with proper identification), this birthday boy was denied entry as two young lads with fake I.D. strolled past us into the bar.
Naturally, we weren't too happy about this and asked the bouncer what the deal was. He told us that their concern is not actually underage drinking, but that people have some form of primary identification to show the liquor control board if they decide to show up.
Apparently, according to this same bouncer, a sixty-five year old man had been drinking recently at an establishment down the street, and the liquor control board showed up and demanded to see his identification.
Usually, being sixty-five is a pretty good indicator that you're over nineteen, however because of this "infraction", the city levied a ridiculously large fine against this venue whom they had previously had some disagreement with. Oh, and they also threw the gentleman out on the street.
While I don't agree with the broader issue and uses of identification, I can certainly understand if the LCB wanted to punish a business for allowing underage drinking - something that happens quasi-regularly.
Punishing them because a sixty-five year old does not have I.D. is absolutely ludicrous.
When the Province is reporting that Vancouver is a no-fun city, you know it's time to change.
While I'm skeptical that anything will change with Robertson's recent election win, this city needs to stop punishing businesses that do not correspond to the civic governments' "view" of Vancouver.
A recent poll commissioned by the liquor licensing review found that among almost all stakeholders, there was high demand for later closer hours. While that might not stop the I.D. mischief, it's a start towards letting businesses manage themselves.
Stop the micro-management, police-state bullshit for once and let people go out and inject money into our local economy - for fun!
You can check out the proposed changes to some of the closing times here.
(Photo by A Hermida in the BR Flickr Pool)
Discussion
17 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
and on the other side: when the Modern Club in gastown, for example, can figure out a basic management issue like: preventing their patrons from pissing against buildings, I'll be a little more convinced that club managers/owners should have less regulation.
Wouldn't that be a government issue? Haven't there been countless meetings/committees regarding more public washrooms, etc? (or even urinals in the alleys)
well why would taxpayers money get used to provide public washrooms for club patrons? Homeless, sure. Drunk 20-somethings? not so much.
because only the homeless are allowed to use public restrooms? I'm not sure that I follow your point...
It's not ridiculous to ask for I.D.
It's ridiculous to ask me, at 37, for I.D. I'm not saying I look OLD, but any bouncer mistaking me for a 17 year old trying to sneak into a bar needs to have his eyesight checked...at least twice...and then have laser surgery anyway.
My friend is 54, and she's been ID'd. She's definitely not a typical 54 year old (WETF that is, anyway) but still...
What the patrons of an establishment do after leaving the premises is not only difficult but next to impossible to control. That's like saying--why should tax payers pay for police to run check-stops when it is private business who serves/sells alcohol?
The ID thing is ridiculous, that is clear. In fact the more regulation in place the more difficult it is to control.
Europe (for the most part) has a 16 age limit for beer/wine and 18 for spirits. I haven't seen any intoxicated youth drunk on the streets there. Why? It certainly isn't a big deal to have hard liquor at 18...and certainly becomes a natural part of life, but the novelty is never there.
ID is fine...within reason. Extending hours, depending on the location (is it near residences) is also fine..within reason. It's this police-state that is described in this article that is out of control.
This "65 year old man" asked for ID claim sounds like an urban legend. No doubt, bouncers from Victoria to St.John's tell the same tale of LCB agents busting in to bars "just down the street" like Elliot Ness hunting Al Capone's ass.
I've actually been in an establishment when the LCB agent has shown up, so I can vouch for their existence ;)
So basically we should base our laws on what people who own nightclubs want? Obviously they want later hours, they're always going to want later hours, but just because they want it doesn't mean it's a smart move.
In Europe you still need to provide ID to prove you're of drinking age, and while they're more relaxed about it they still do at times ask for it.
I'm not against changing the liquor laws, relaxing rules on ID and other things but to do it just because you weren't able to go to a club the other night seems like the wrong reason. I'm sure being the Rosa Parks of inebriation sounds like a role you might want to play, but it's not one anyone else wants you to.
Can't we just accept that going to a bar is one of those things that will require ID, like going on an airplane, crossing the border or buying a gun? Yeah it might be a pain, but until we have a wide ranging societal re-think about our relation to liquor then that's the way it's going to be.
Yes there's underage drinking, and yes that's probably always going to exist as long as their is a limit. We don't do any good making drinking seem so taboo, and thus sexy, but on the other hand if you lived anywhere near a nightclub you'd probably appreciate there being at least some laws.
I just think we need to relax and - to some extent - deregulate drinking establishments in Vancouver. I'm not calling for Vancouver to become some free-for-all nightclub city, I'd just like almost all of our laws regarding alcohol become less archaic and more modern.
"well why would taxpayers money get used to provide public washrooms for club patrons? Homeless, sure. Drunk 20-somethings? not so much."
Taxpayers would be paying for public washrooms for *themselves* to use. It can be a pain in the ass to try and find somewhere to pee in the city, and unless you're a cute young woman with a charming smile, most businesses won't let you use theirs. So, what, find a mall or library or buy something you don't even want just to have a place to pee? Well maintained public washrooms scattered throughout downtown would certainly be a welcome improvement as far as I'm concerned.
And while we're talking about clubs and washrooms, the condition that Richards leaves the ladies room in is absolutely unnacceptable. If I have to pay $7 for a goddamn beer I was to be able to lock the stall behind me and not have to stand in pools of leaking toilet water when I wash my hands. If there's gonna be bylaws regulating bars, there should be one about providing reasonable washrooms.
I too have been rejected by a bar because I renewed my license. The Cambie (of all places) wouldn't let me in even though I'm definitely recognizable as being over 19 and everyone in my party was in their 30s. The guy didn't seem to know or care what the yellow paper was and I had every other form of ID available (aside from a passport).
When we finally decided it wasn't worth our effort fighting with this prick we called to the one girl in our party who had made it through the door so we could go elsewhere. Suddenly fuck face at the door was more than gracious about letting us in.
All we wanted was one friggin' beer. We got it, shitty as ever, and a terrible experience it was. Vancouver's liquor laws suck.
You guys seriously ask for two pieces of ID? Who carries two pieces of ID with them?
Oh yeah, a friend of mine once had the pleasant experience of a bouncer thinking her ID was fake because she looked (and still looks) really young. She was about 20 at the time, looked 16 and the bouncer didn't believe that she was 20.
I have been ID'd and sometimes I take that as a compliment :) But of course, I see your point!
Interesting post, but note that the Wikipedia entry you linked to really isn't arguing using certain forms of ID:
"...In many cases, other forms of documentation such as a driver's license, passport, or Medicare card serve a similar function on a more limited scale, and thus an ID card is not needed."
I agree that ID should be necessary to enter a liquor establishment, if staff suspect you are underage. I also agree that, as a culture, we need to rethink our relationship to alcohol. But Jeffery, I find your comment that suggests entering a bar should be treated in a similar fashion as buying a gun, crossing a border, or boarding an airplane, rather disturbing. What's next? Mandatory ID scanning to enter a licensed restaurant? What about cafes?
While we're at it, I suppose we might as well cave in and accept all the other assaults on our personal liberties that are being implemented by government and private institutions far too aften lately. (Because, after all, these measures are in place merely for public safety, and none of these organizations would ever sell, distribute or otherwise misuse your personal information, right? Even those liquor establishments that are owned and operated by organized crime?) Personally, I have never, nor will I ever have my ID scanned or any of my personal information used or kept at any private establishment without a satisfactory terms of use agreement. If it means I won't be able go to clubs in the near future, so be it. I'm sure it won't matter that they lose my business, because it seems like everyone else in this city has no reservations about providing their names, photos and addresses (and possibly more) to absolute stangers.
I guess everyone has to make their own decision as to what they will put up with, and where they will draw the line.
Jeffery Simpson:
Can't we just accept that going to a bar is one of those things that will require ID, like going on an airplane, crossing the border or buying a gun? Yeah it might be a pain, but until we have a wide ranging societal re-think about our relation to liquor then that's the way it's going to be.
doesn't anyone have anything better or more important to put their energy into? something that actually matters?