A Supervisor that is doing something about securing hard liquor

Comments

5 responses to “A Supervisor that is doing something about securing hard liquor”

1. 

   Nancy Turner

   January 7, 2017

   wow that is impressive especially since the rest of this state has been doing this for the past couple of years….as well as Oregon….time clock tick tock on last chance grade….

   Reply
   1. 

      Samuel Strait

      January 7, 2017

      Wow, unless I’m mistaken, Oregon has State operated liquor stores; therefore, it wouldn’t be possible for Walmart to sell liquor in Oregon. In addition, I’ve been in many Walmart stores in California and have yet to come across any that secure their liquor in any way. Just what are you saying here?

      Reply
2. 

   Concerned Citizen

   January 9, 2017

   Walmart currently has a device attached to the tops of liquor bottles which will sound an alarm if taken out the door without being removed first. These devices can only be removed by Walmart employees at the check out line; The problem is those devices are only on some, not all, of the bottles sitting on the shelves. Rite Aid and Safeway do not use such devices whatsoever.

   The big problem in this town are the small liquor stores and the riffraff they attract, where those patrons reek havoc and continually commit crimes while destroying the quality of life and property values in residential neighborhoods. Scumbags go into those small stores, buy alcohol, and bring it outside to minors and habitual drunkards who are not supposed to be allowed to, or have been banned from purchasing alcohol from that store. Why don’t we talk about that?

   Reply
3. 

   Informed Citizen

   January 9, 2017

   WOW we’re a little misinformed here. Sam and concerned walk through the liquor isle at Walmart and Safeway, see all those funny tops on hard liquor bottles…secured. That’s to keep you from taking a large swig on the way to the meat department. I’m sure Walmart isn’t going to place their booze in a locked cabinet as it would take a full time employee to monitor it!

   Reply
   1. 

      Samuel Strait

      January 9, 2017

      I am not sure just how you are able to label yourself as an “informed citizen” as you have added nothing to this thread that “Concerned Citizen” had not already addressed. Safeway locally, at least according to the article and “Concerned Citizen”, does not employ security caps as yet. As for my part in this thread and my REPLY to Nancy Turner, I was merely questioning her statement that “the rest of the State has been doing this for the past couple of years…as well as Oregon.”
      My contribution is merely to state that Oregon sells liquor through their system of State operated liquor stores and retailers would not be using security caps on liquor bottles because they do not sell liquor. I go on to say that in my travels through California, I have not personally come across any retailers who utilize security caps on their liquor stocks. I have seen gratings and locked cabinets for liquor in some smaller retail settings, but agree that it would be cumbersome in a large retail setting Granted the last time I actually purchased liquor was a bit less than fifty years ago in a State operated liquor store in Corvallis, Oregon. I do; however, pass down the liquor aisle on occasion and haven’t noticed the rather obvious security caps that currently grace the bottles of liquor at Walmart. In addition, I do not make a habit of passing down the liquor aisle on the way to the meat counter so that I might “take a large swig” of liquor.
      To add something useful to this thread, security caps have indeed been employed as an antitheft measure in some retailers in California for at least five years. Because of the cost only a small number of retailers initially elected to go that route. While it is not as universal as Ms. Turner has suggested, it is a tactic employed by some retailers in California to reduce liquor theft. For Ms. Turner, local retailers no doubt have been reluctant to utilize this tactic as it does increase cost and perhaps they can be given some measure of consideration for their concern for economy.
      The “real” point of my reply to Ms. Turner is exactly “what was her motivation” for the comment in the first place? Is it because Roger Gitlin has a minor role in this decision by the local Walmart? Does she still harbor angst over the fact that Roger retained his seat on the Board of Supervisors and continues to try to make some modest improvement in this community? “Time clock tick tock on last chance grade….” really? Is it now much of a mystery what Ms Turner is all about?
      So, “Informed Citizen”, just how exactly are we so misinformed? This being an open forum, kindly have at it.

      Reply