7 ms·

Summary: The "certification" is a 2-hour course that can be taken online. It costs $3 and lasts three years. It's a certification to pour drinks responsibly (n

Summary: The "certification" is a 2-hour course that can be taken online. It costs $3 and lasts three years. It's a certification to pour drinks responsibly (not some sort of mixology test). It was planned to go into effect last year but CA legislation pushed it out another year to help with transition. Honestly, seems like a reasonable move when 18% of Californians are identified was excessively drinking. (US average 17%). [1] [1]https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/ExcessDrink/state/CA https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measur...

88913527 4y ago
I'm disappointed by the lack of mixology portion, because it would've provided an opportunity for a real value-add of any kind. I've had simple 2-ingredient well drink orders made incorrectly at my local watering hole.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  That’s something that I’m comfortable leaving up to the market to handle (in a way that safe service feels like something the market won’t address adequately).
- Bud 4y ago
  Not realistic. This requirement applies not just to bartenders, but to anyone who takes drink orders or delivers them. Your waiter/waitress needs mixology training? Not really.
dymk 4y ago
Also one must purchase the training course itself. The article recommends this $10 course: https://servingalcohol.com/california-responsible-alcohol-course-discount/ https://servingalcohol.com/california-responsible-alcohol-co... Why do you think this course would move the needle at all on binge drinking? Overservice is already illegal. Its much more likely excessive alcohol consumption is happening at home. On top of that, oh boy, more nanny state totally-not-prohibition-lite.
- worik 4y ago
  Substitute another drug for alcohol: Should distributing powerful, dangerous, and addictive drugs not be regulated? This seems like light handed regulation to me
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >Should distributing powerful, dangerous, and addictive drugs not be regulated? Absolutely not. >This seems like light handed regulation to me Yes in the sense nothing interesting will likely happen except a few bureaucrats and people offering the training fatten themselves at the trough.
girvo 4y ago
Woah. There's not been a requirement for responsible service of alcohol until now?
- joewadcan 4y ago
  There was a requirement without training, so they're now making sure people know what to look for.
  - girvo 4y ago
    Genuinely surprising to me. An RSA certificate has been a requirement where I am in Aus for as long as I can remember. And it has consequences if it’s not followed by those who have the RSA license, too — does this bill include similar?
1123581321 4y ago
Spending two million hours and three million dollars every few years, plus the cost of implementation and enforcement, on a program that won’t meaningfully affect that statistic, isn’t reasonable. A pilot program testing effectiveness could have been, though.
- gbear605 4y ago
  The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the past research was accurate, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
  - junofan 4y ago
    You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.
  - joewadcan 4y ago
    In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      > $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.
systemvoltage 4y ago
The question everyone needs to ask is why is this required and what benefit does it bring to the table? I already have a negative reaction to this but I want to understand if I am not missing something incredibly disastrous to the society that warrants such regulatory nuissance. Whether it costs $3 and takes 2 hours is not the thing to focus here ("Death by paper cuts").
- serenitylater 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
synicalx 4y ago
We've got something like this in Australia, and it's really just a rubber stamp kind of process rather than a meaningful safeguard against problem drinking. Our taxes on alcohol are very high as well, especially pre-mixed drinks which I would classify as prohibitively expensive. The end result of that; we just spend more on alcohol, drink more of it, and drink it more frequently than ever before.
notch656a 4y ago
The overhead of administering a program must be far more than $3. Talk about throwing more money into the incinerator. [Unequal example not meant to draw an exact analogy: Ohio has boat registration for $25 / 3 years for kayaks and canoes. The state loses money on the registration scheme, and the overhead is basically selling a sticker. Unfortunately once these kinds of programs are started the lard that occupies these autocratic (whoops, meant bureaucratic) positions are exceptionally difficult to displace.]
- moate 4y ago
  So, let's just run through everything here. 1- 1 million bartenders/servers/whatever at 3 bucks a pop sets our year 1 expected return at 3 million dollars. Based on the description other people have put for the program, the state is probably just hosing a web portal with a quiz form that people fill out. Once it's built, you're probably only going to see token updates every year. I would imagine the state, over the long term, could run this for cost or a small profit, especially as you don't seem to factor enforcement fines into the revenue. Further, the page linked in the post claims that the public safety side is also factored into their costs, so reducing over-serving projects to save money overall. 2- This creates a cottage industry of 3rd party tutors. I would guarantee you that this is almost as important to the political will to create this certification as the public safety side. Someone lobbied for this because they can profit off it. Feel whatever way you want about that. TL;dr- It's a "don't text and drive" law. It's an easy piece of "common sense" legislation that politicians can point to as proof that they're trying to help the community be safer and healthier. "Can you put a price on the safety of our state's children?" YMMV as to whether this is actually true.
sigzero 4y ago
monkeybutton 4y ago
So like "Smart Serve" and similar programs in other countries?
notch656a 4y ago
That link states West Virginia is the healthiest drinking state.

88913527 4y ago

I'm disappointed by the lack of mixology portion, because it would've provided an opportunity for a real value-add of any kind. I've had simple 2-ingredient well drink orders made incorrectly at my local watering hole.

sokoloff 4y ago
That’s something that I’m comfortable leaving up to the market to handle (in a way that safe service feels like something the market won’t address adequately).
Bud 4y ago
Not realistic. This requirement applies not just to bartenders, but to anyone who takes drink orders or delivers them. Your waiter/waitress needs mixology training? Not really.

dymk 4y ago

Also one must purchase the training course itself. The article recommends this $10 course: https://servingalcohol.com/california-responsible-alcohol-course-discount/ https://servingalcohol.com/california-responsible-alcohol-co... Why do you think this course would move the needle at all on binge drinking? Overservice is already illegal. Its much more likely excessive alcohol consumption is happening at home. On top of that, oh boy, more nanny state totally-not-prohibition-lite.

worik 4y ago
Substitute another drug for alcohol: Should distributing powerful, dangerous, and addictive drugs not be regulated? This seems like light handed regulation to me
- notch656a 4y ago
  >Should distributing powerful, dangerous, and addictive drugs not be regulated? Absolutely not. >This seems like light handed regulation to me Yes in the sense nothing interesting will likely happen except a few bureaucrats and people offering the training fatten themselves at the trough.

girvo 4y ago

Woah. There's not been a requirement for responsible service of alcohol until now?

joewadcan 4y ago
There was a requirement without training, so they're now making sure people know what to look for.
- girvo 4y ago
  Genuinely surprising to me. An RSA certificate has been a requirement where I am in Aus for as long as I can remember. And it has consequences if it’s not followed by those who have the RSA license, too — does this bill include similar?

1123581321 4y ago

Spending two million hours and three million dollars every few years, plus the cost of implementation and enforcement, on a program that won’t meaningfully affect that statistic, isn’t reasonable. A pilot program testing effectiveness could have been, though.

gbear605 4y ago
The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the past research was accurate, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
- junofan 4y ago
  You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.
- joewadcan 4y ago
  In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.

systemvoltage 4y ago

The question everyone needs to ask is why is this required and what benefit does it bring to the table? I already have a negative reaction to this but I want to understand if I am not missing something incredibly disastrous to the society that warrants such regulatory nuissance. Whether it costs $3 and takes 2 hours is not the thing to focus here ("Death by paper cuts").

serenitylater 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

synicalx 4y ago

We've got something like this in Australia, and it's really just a rubber stamp kind of process rather than a meaningful safeguard against problem drinking. Our taxes on alcohol are very high as well, especially pre-mixed drinks which I would classify as prohibitively expensive. The end result of that; we just spend more on alcohol, drink more of it, and drink it more frequently than ever before.

notch656a 4y ago

The overhead of administering a program must be far more than $3. Talk about throwing more money into the incinerator. [Unequal example not meant to draw an exact analogy: Ohio has boat registration for $25 / 3 years for kayaks and canoes. The state loses money on the registration scheme, and the overhead is basically selling a sticker. Unfortunately once these kinds of programs are started the lard that occupies these autocratic (whoops, meant bureaucratic) positions are exceptionally difficult to displace.]

moate 4y ago
So, let's just run through everything here. 1- 1 million bartenders/servers/whatever at 3 bucks a pop sets our year 1 expected return at 3 million dollars. Based on the description other people have put for the program, the state is probably just hosing a web portal with a quiz form that people fill out. Once it's built, you're probably only going to see token updates every year. I would imagine the state, over the long term, could run this for cost or a small profit, especially as you don't seem to factor enforcement fines into the revenue. Further, the page linked in the post claims that the public safety side is also factored into their costs, so reducing over-serving projects to save money overall. 2- This creates a cottage industry of 3rd party tutors. I would guarantee you that this is almost as important to the political will to create this certification as the public safety side. Someone lobbied for this because they can profit off it. Feel whatever way you want about that. TL;dr- It's a "don't text and drive" law. It's an easy piece of "common sense" legislation that politicians can point to as proof that they're trying to help the community be safer and healthier. "Can you put a price on the safety of our state's children?" YMMV as to whether this is actually true.

sigzero 4y ago

monkeybutton 4y ago

So like "Smart Serve" and similar programs in other countries?

notch656a 4y ago

That link states West Virginia is the healthiest drinking state.