Underage Drinking at EPCOT's Food & Wine Festival

[Hakunamatata]

I think the common sense approach would indicate that if you don't have a severe problem with people breaking the law at your theme park, you don't need to have as much security at your theme park. If you historically have a problem with people breaking the law at your theme park, you will take steps necessary to reduce that problem, or you will cease to attract non law breaking citizens.

~OCS~

 

[Timekeeper]

Obviously, you haven't spent much time backstage, there is Orange County Sheriff's back there all the time especially on nights and weekends.

And how would you compare the number of sheriffs backstage between EPCOT and Universal? Pretty dramatic difference. <-- That's the point.

 

[wm49rs]

Premise: Universal does more to actively discourage breaking the law than Disney. Whether there is more or less "need" to do so was never part of the initial inquiry. Proof: Visit both events and look around. It doesn't get much more objective than that.

No one disputes that underage drinking occurs at both locations. Does someone really need "empirical data" to back that up? Who here thinks that there is a zero occurrence of underage drinking at EPCOT? :brick:

Guests (particularly upper high school-college age) are known for bringing alcohol into theme parks - not to mention drugs as well. Metal detectors and an "empty your pockets" policy make it more difficult for guests to "sneak" alcohol into parks. Also, Universal does not allow ANY food or drinks into HHN. EPCOT allows you to bring in both food and drinks. Alcohol is easily disguised in any soda or water bottle. Again, Disney is objectively more lax in this area.

Or, Universal needs to have more prevalent and obvious security to discourage such actions, as others have attested to. Whereas Disney has not, but still maintains the proper security measures (both obvious and not) to do so.

You've obviously got some axe to grind here, but unfortunately you're not backing it up with more than supposition and speculation. Your reference to smoking and the bringing in of coolers (which has nothing to do with alcohol being purchased at the F&W pavilions) is more than proof enough of that.

Bottom line is that just because there's been citations written at HHN, it doesn't equate to EPCOT having more of an issue with underage drinking at the F&W Festival. That's a logic fail.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Premise: Universal does more to actively discourage breaking the law than Disney. Whether there is more or less "need" to do so was never part of the initial inquiry. Proof: Visit both events and look around. It doesn't get much more objective than that.

No one disputes that underage drinking occurs at both locations. Does someone really need "empirical data" to back that up? Who here thinks that there is a zero occurrence of underage drinking at EPCOT? :brick:

All I see is you trying to claim that there is an underage drinking problem at the Food and Wine Festival. You need data because you first need to prove that there is a comparable problem. A handful of underage drinkers (especially if they are foreigners partaking in wine as a drink to enjoyed for its flavor) is different than a group that is drinking (especially if the purpose is to get drunk). You are coming across more that you have a person issue with any persons under the age of 21 drinking regardless of number involved, reasoning and background. After all of that, you still need to support your assertion that the visible presence of uniformed law enforcement are better at resolving this problem than other less visible methods.

 

[Timekeeper]

I think the common sense approach would indicate that if you don't have a severe problem with people breaking the law at your theme park, you don't need to have as much security at your theme park.

Okay, here's an obvious and valid common sense approach to evaluating the issue. Thank you.

Now the question is: to what extent does underage drinking pose a "problem" requiring heightened enforcement? Does it have to reach the level of disturbing other guests? Well, let's first accept that it does occur at F&W (unless someone sincerely believes that it does not happen at all). That being said, how many minors need to engage in the act to warrant greater (or more visible) security?

All I see is you trying to claim that there is an underage drinking problem at the Food and Wine Festival. ... A handful of underage drinkers (especially if they are foreigners partaking in wine as a drink to enjoyed for its flavor) is different than a group that is drinking (especially if the purpose is to get drunk).

Again, when does underage drinking pose a "problem"? Surely no PR rep for WDW would go on the record as saying any small number is insignificant enough as to not pose a problem. I'm sure WDW would take the position that they don't want 1 person to break the law as much as they don't want 1,000 people to break the law. So, wouldn't even a small occurrence at F&W (compared to HHN's admittedly heavier occurrence) still warrant such measures?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Okay, here's an obvious and valid common sense approach to evaluating the issue. Thank you.

Now the question is: to what extent does underage drinking pose a "problem" requiring heightened enforcement? Does it have to reach the level of disturbing other guests? Well, let's first accept that it does occur at F&W (unless someone sincerely believes that it does not happen at all). That being said, how many minors need to engage in the act to warrant greater (or more visible) security? Surely no PR rep for WDW would go on the record as saying any small number is "insignificant" enough as to not pose a problem. I'm sure WDW would take the position that they don't want 1 person to break the law as much as they don't want 1,000 people to break the law. So, wouldn't even a small occurrence at F&W (compared to HHN's admittedly heavier occurrence) still warrant such measures?

Well, lets look at the current state of security:

Disney - not an overwhelmingly visible presence, but order is kept for the most part.

US - Military style presence where they have to have an on site processing center.

I think its fairly obvious which park is doing the better job, and in my opinion, why would I want to have bands of roving police officers present if not needed?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Surely no PR rep for WDW would go on the record as saying any small number is insignificant enough as to not pose a problem. I'm sure WDW would take the position that they don't want 1 person to break the law as much as they don't want 1,000 people to break the law. So, wouldn't even a small occurrence at F&W (compared to HHN's admittedly heavier occurrence) still warrant such measures?

No, because there is more than one approach. If there are only a handful of cases there is only the need to handle them on an as needed basis. There is no need to employ a visible force that not only deals with your supposed problem but also affects the atmosphere of the event. You are still lacking evidence that Disney does not use other methods to deal with its supposedly smaller problem that are more appropriate for handling the smaller number of problems.

Would you rent a large moving truck to move a small piece of furniture that could fit in a small van? No, because the large truck, while capable, is not appropriate for your problem. Likewise you would not try to shove a large piece of furniture into a small van but instead look for something large and more appropriate to move the piece of furniture. Solutions are not "one size fits all."

 

[Master Yoda]

Well, lets look at the current state of security:

Disney - not an overwhelmingly visible presence, but order is kept for the most part.

US - Military style presence where they have to have an on site processing center.

I think its fairly obvious which park is doing the better job, and in my opinion, why would I want to have bands of roving police officers present if not needed?

I do not think of it is US doing a bad job, I simply think that the two special events attract a very different crowd one of which happens to be a demo that tends to be under 21 and drink. After the night I had, I am glad to see that US has gone to military type measures to fix the problem

 

[wm49rs]

I do not think of it is US doing a bad job, I simply think that the two special events attract a very different crowd one of which happens to be a demo that tends to be under 21 and drink. After the night I had, I am glad to see that US has gone to military type measures to fix the problem

I would agree, which is why the comparison is tenuous at best. And that's not to say either locale is handling the situation incorrectly, but rather according to what they see as their needs. Disney obviously does't see the F&W crowd as being rife with underage drinking, whereas Uni may see the crowds at HHN in a different light.

 

[Master Yoda]

I would agree, which is why the comparison is tenuous at best. And that's not to say either locale is handling the situation incorrectly, but rather according to what they see as their needs. Disney obviously does't see the F&W crowd as being rife with underage drinking, whereas Uni may see the crowds at HHN in a different light.

Exactly. It is no different than wondering why there is so much visible security at a rock or rap concert but not at the symphony.

 

[Timekeeper]

No, because there is more than one approach. If there are only a handful of cases there is only the need to handle them on an as needed basis.

That's not always the case. How many "cases" were there of guests bringing prohibited items into the parks in their bags before the heightened security measures were implemented? We know exactly when and why security was heightened. The point is, sometimes the simple knowledge of a potential problem is enough to implement a visual deterrence. No backpack bombs have gone off in a Disney park that I'm aware of, but security officers still check bags. Of course, this has no affect on items being carried on someone's person (body, pockets, etc.). So a visual security measure plays a role in security, especially when entering any WDW parks.

Would you rent a large moving truck to move a small piece of furniture that could fit in a small van? No, because the large truck, while capable, is not appropriate for your problem.

You're right, because I know exactly that I have one small piece of furniture that I'm dealing with. The point with F&W is that they don't know the prevalence of the "problem" (how much furniture they're dealing with) until they start actively carding people who appear to be young and in possession of an alcoholic beverage. Of course, I'm assuming that breaking the law is a "problem" whether the individual is visibly intoxicated or disruptive or not. Others might not consider "invisible underage drinking" to be a "problem."

 

[wm49rs]

You're right, because I know exactly that I have one small piece of furniture that I'm dealing with. The point with F&W is that they don't know the prevalence of the "problem" (how much furniture they're dealing with) until they start actively carding people who appear to be young and in possession of an alcoholic beverage. Of course, I'm assuming that breaking the law is a "problem" whether the individual is visibly intoxicated or disruptive or not. Others might not consider "invisible underage drinking" to be a "problem."

And how do you know Disney isn't aware of the "problematic" levels facing them during the F&W Festival? Because Uni has deployed a regiment of security personnel and uniformed officers? Again, you're making a comparison that's tenuous at best, and one based on limited amounts of information.....

 

[Master Yoda]

You're right, because I know exactly that I have one small piece of furniture that I'm dealing with. The point with F&W is that they don't know the prevalence of the "problem" (how much furniture they're dealing with) until they start actively carding people who appear to be young and in possession of an alcoholic beverage. Of course, I'm assuming that breaking the law is a "problem" whether the individual is visibly intoxicated or disruptive or not. Others might not consider "invisible underage drinking" to be a "problem."

Are you implying that if there is even one case of underage drinking at F&W that Disney should immediately go to the extreme measures that US has had to employ?

 

[Hakunamatata]

The point with F&W is that they don't know the prevalence of the "problem" (how much furniture they're dealing with) until they start actively carding people who appear to be young and in possession of an alcoholic beverage. Of course,....

I thought profiling was taboo.

 

[Timekeeper]

And how do you know Disney ... based on limited amounts of information.....

Yeah, that kinda describes 90% of the content on these message boards. Observations, guesses, and opinions. I was under the impression that's what a discussion forum was for...?

PS - the 90% thing is not "data," just an illustration what what I'm reading on these boards, a lot of guesses, assumptions, hearsay, and a ton of personal opinions. That is, after all, why we come here, right?

 

[Timekeeper]

I thought profiling was taboo.

When the law applies to age restrictions, "profiling" as to age is permissible.

 

[Timekeeper]

Are you implying that if there is even one case of underage drinking at F&W that Disney should immediately go to the extreme measures that US has had to employ?

Not at all. As another poster suggested, the size of the remedy is tailored to the size of the problem, with which I agree.

But I think that if Disney went on the record, they would have to agree that even one instance of underage drinking within their parks is a "problem" and would be dealt with if it became known to them. The question is, how much effort are they putting into "finding out"... We don't have a specific answer for that, it just appears to be much less than other parks/events.

 

[wm49rs]

Yeah, that kinda describes 90% of the content on these message boards. Observations, guesses, and opinions. I was under the impression that's what a discussion forum was for...?

PS - the 90% thing is not "data," just an illustration what what I'm reading on these boards, a lot of guesses, assumptions, hearsay, and a ton of personal opinions. That is, after all, why we come here, right?

So is quote mining, but we try to avoid that around here as well.....

 

[Hakunamatata]

I personally think it's a non issue and the environment at F&W is so drastically different that it's a poor comparison to HHN.

 

[Timekeeper]

What is "quote mining"? Does that have something to do with Snow White?

Edit: Google helped elaborate that "quote mining" is taking quotes out of context. I don't think that's been done in this discussion. If a quote is shortened, it's typically to reply to the "gist" of someone's earlier comment without copying the entire thing, and missing parts are replaced with "..." to indicate such.