Massachusetts Mulls Letting Bars Offer Happy Hours (ban signed by Dukakis)

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

This city has a robust bar culture, with trivia nights, $1 oyster specials and plenty of other perks to keep patrons coming. But not since 1984, when “Cheers” was new to television, has Massachusetts allowed bars to hold happy hours.

It looked as if that might change last month, when the State Senate passed an amendment that could pave the way for bars and restaurants to once again serve free or discounted drinks during certain time periods.

The amendment’s ultimate passage seems doubtful now. But it has rekindled an old debate, even provoking a stern warning from former Gov. Michael Dukakis, who signed the ban on happy hours 27 years ago.

The Senate last month included the amendment in its version of a bill allowing casinos in Massachusetts. Specifically, it gave bars and restaurants the same rights that casinos would have under a new “gaming beverage license,” citing as theoretical examples “the right to give free alcoholic beverages to customers as part of promotions” and “drink specials that vary by night.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/massachusetts-mulls-letting-bars-offer-happy-hours.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Massachusetts had (still has?) some very rigid alcohol laws

Like they were leftover from Puritan days.

[pam4water]

55. No there are a lot of dunk driving incidents after happy hours. After one famous one the law was

put in place.

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/food_dining/general/view/20111025dukakis_recalls_happy_hour_ban_guarantees_more_deaths_if_its_reinstituted/

[naaman fletcher]

58. Noting in that article

has any statistics that happy hours leads to an increase in drunk driving incidents

[No Elephants]

59. Please see Reply 33.

[tabasco]

2. Get rid of the nanny state.

I hate this kind of crap.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

4. Some history and references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

[bluestateguy]

6. Nanny statism comes from the busybody wings of the Left and the Right

Fundy Christian conservatives who would say you can't look at porn in your own home, and do-gooder liberals who would say you can't own a handgun.

[defendandprotect]

20. "Nanny State" is strickly RW concept and RW propaganda --

"Busy-body left" --

"Do-gooder liberals" --?

And only "Fundy Christian conservatives" object to porn?


Violence of porn and guns is freedom -- ???


:rofl:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

28. The entire post ....

was intended as an insult to the left -- reread it --

including the "Nanny State" comment --

"term nanny state is typically used pejoratively" ....

[Chan790]

30. Perjoratively is not partisan.

It's a critique of invasive authoritarianism into the private lives of other people for no reason...partisanship doesn't enter into it.

Nanny-state is not a pejorative against liberals as much as some would like to portray it as such.

[defendandprotect]

36. And you think gun control and drunk driving laws are "invasive authoritarianism" ... ???

Our police departments are in favor of gun control -- !!

Most citizens are in favor of gun control -- !!


The entire nation is in favor of drunk driving laws -- !!


The Democratic Party -- the left -- are the supporters of the New Deal -- which is

certainly the target of the RW "Nanny State'rs" -- !!

I'm sure you've noticed --

In fact, we have those on the Wall Street right within the Dem Party also attacking

the New Deal --

In fact, the Dem Party is now controlled by Third Way which stands for "ignoring the

base of the party" --

and suggests that "populism and populist discussions and debate are the equivalent

of Karl Rove propaganda of extremism" --

Per Third Way president, Jonathan Cowan -- on C-span a few weeks ago!


No -- he didn't say "Nanny State" -- !!

[Chan790]

41. Where did drunk driving laws come into this...

any attempt to attach the issue of happy hours to drunk driving is tenuous. That's one of those idiotic hyper-anal arguments that ideologues with no legitimate POV march out when their backs are against the wall. You know what else increased drunk driving? The repeal of prohibition...I suppose we shouldn't consider reinstating prohibition to be invasive. Dukakis was wrong to sign this law into effect in the first place; it's sad and pathetic that it has taken this long for there to be serious discussion of its' repeal. Back to the inane Drunk Driving argument, it's right up there with "Won't you think of the children?" No, I will not think of the children. F**k the children.

As for gun control, yes I consider gun control laws to be invasive and I oppose them, so shoot me.

[blueclown]

44. "any attempt to attach the issue of happy hours to drunk driving is tenuous."

Why? Because you say so?

Does a bar exist seperate from civilization, in its own little world? How does one get home after frequenting a bar when they are under the influence? They usually have to drive home in a car, take a train, taxi or find a designated driver. Which is the cheapest?

To simply act like there is no connection at all between drunk driving and happy hours is to willfully ignore the clues.

[Chan790]

48. In my part of the world they take a cab or a city bus

Of course I live in a city where more than 50% of the population doesn't drive and grew up in a city where 80%+ of the population doesn't have access to a car.

[TheEuclideanOne]

52. So you are basing your logic supporting your view of drunk driving statistics

on a city with an 80% population that doesn't drive? So, somebody calls you out on saying something idiotic and you support it with something even more idiotic.

If you follow your logic and apply it to other things relating to driving you could easily conclude any of the following:

- An infinitely small portion of the population of the world gets any traffic tickets
- Hardly anybody has ever gotten into a car accident... ever
- The percentage of legal age drivers who are able to buy cars actually do not ever buy them. After all, that is why the auto industry is failing. My statistics show that the absolute max percentage of people that would ever buy a car is 20%. No wonder they needed the government to bail them out!

I will out idiot you.... I grew up in a town where not one single person drives a car, therefore I can say, based on my experience that the following statements are 100% true.

- There is no such thing as a car accident. Never happened, never will.
- Not one single person has ever gotten into a car accident after leaving a happy hour. Ever! I mean, never! Not even once, and I have lived in my town of 0% drivers my whole life, so I can tell you that is a fact!
- Cars do not exist. Or, at least not even one person has ever driven one.
- Speeding tickets do not exist either. In fact, traffic tickets are a myth too.


See, you can argue any idiotic point if you qualify it in the right way after somebody calls you out on it.

[defendandprotect]

46. No connection between "Happy Hour" and drunk driving? ROFL

Do you recall the original message I was addressing when you jumped in?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5058386&mesg_id=5058407


That's one of those idiotic hyper-anal arguments that ideologues with no legitimate POV march out when their backs are against the wall.

Rather, it looks like you're out of debate --


You know what else increased drunk driving? The repeal of prohibition...


An even stronger sign that you have no debate --


Insults ever work for you -- ??? :rofl:


Back to the inane Drunk Driving argument, it's right up there with "Won't you think of the children?" No, I will not think of the children. F**k the children.

As for gun control, yes I consider gun control laws to be invasive and I oppose them, so shoot me.



Pitiful --

And you're on ignore --

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[christx30]

49. What do you think about blue laws

of the 80's? Where you could not find an open store on Sunday morning?
Or forcing a sound minded adult to wear a helmet while bicycling?
Laws against gambling? Or raises in the cigarette taxes to try to stop people from smoking? I could come up with a lot of examples, but I am on the side of being against "nanny state" laws. I will always err on the side of more freedom, and less control over my life from busy bodies on either the left or the right limiting me for my own good.

[defendandprotect]

51. Obviously you object to them all .... ????

I'm generally against "blue" laws -- and think shopping any day of the week

is fine for shoppers --

However, there's a secondary issue in depriving workers of overtime -- though

that's pretty much been done away with by many other means.

Many people in department stores have very limited hours -- purposefully.

Sometimes to deprive them of benefits.


Or forcing a sound minded adult to wear a helmet while bicycling?

We had motorcyclists on the Garden State Parkway with us late this afternoon --

doing 85/90 mph! They had helmets on.

Often they were leaning over enough that you wondered if they would fall over and

knock over one of their co-motorcyclists, as well.

However, the only motorcycle accident I'm personally aware of was to a neighbor who

fell off his motorcycle on Rte. 22 -- don't think he was hit or caused any accidents.

However, he seriously damaged one side of his body -- especially his leg -- and up

to his arm/shoulder. Took many years to recover and still has a limp and may need

a new hip. Granted -- the helmet didn't do much for him! :evilgrin:



Clearly, there's a line that comes down on almost every issue --

With gambling, I feel it's a positive when we can take "numbers" out of the hands of

organized crime and maybe use some of the wagered money to finance needed projects.

And we do know that there are abuses of these ideas.

However, I think expanding gambling into horse racing, etc. away from the track or

into dog races, whatever is a mistake. And harmful to communities. This isn't a

moral issue -- it's an economic issue. It does deprive families, children -- and

communities of funds.


Or raises in the cigarette taxes to try to stop people from smoking?

I absolutely agree with taxing cigarettes to stop people from smoking. And, again,

it's not a moral issue -- it's an economic issue. Tobacco industry lied to smokers

for generations and we're paying the price now in cancer cases and much suffering --

PLUS government/taxpayer have to pick up the costs. Most of the efforts to recover

costs from the industry were overturned or lessened to such a degree as to be meaningless.


Again, "Nanny State" is a RW insult to everything from the New Deal to MEDICARE!

If you feel the same way, keep at it!


Freedom -- ?

Right to have cancer is freedom?

Right to have no pension is freedom?

Right to be unemployed is freedom?

Right to be hit by a drunk driver is freedom?

How many Americans would give up seat belts today?

[christx30]

56. In answer to your last question

when I go up to New Hampshire (where they don't require seat belts for people over 16), I don't put mine on, just because I know it's allowed. I'm in favor of freedom. You speak of consequences (cancer, unemployment), but I talk about the right to do these things. I am capable of making my own decisions. I'm 36 years old, have two kids, a wife, and a dog. I'm a very smart, responsible, together person. Why should I be treated like a child but by some self important politician that doesn't know me from Adam? I ride my bike to work, and I don't want to deal with a bulky helmet, so I don't wear one. Would you want that to be mandated?

About the smoking thing, people have known for 50 or more years that cigarettes are lethal. But they make the decision on smoke anyway. Someone tells me not to put my hand on my stove's burner cause it'll hurt, and I don't. It sucks for the person that ignores the advice, but they chose to ignore it and must face the consequences. There doesn't need to be a law against it. We don't need some politician fining people from doing it or fining the companies that make stoves.

The right to do what you want is freedom. If you know that what you do is going to give you cancer, or make you lose tons of money, but choose to do it anyway, then that's your fault it happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Would you be OK with the withdrawal of Medicare from smokers?

People who get cancer, heart disease etc. cost Medicare money. Fine, they've contributed in taxes; but smokers knowingly increase the risks, substantially, of needing treatment. Without tobacco taxes, you increase the costs to the country. And smokers have also been increasing the deaths from second-hand smoke. Are you saying those are freedoms you demand?

And I'd advise you to wear seat belts wherever you are. You appear to be risking your life just to make yourself feel you are special. I hope your kids don't pick up your habit. It'd be a shame for them to think the mark of an adult is 'not wearing a seat belt'.

[defendandprotect]

73. Great question ....

and evidently the poster doesn't recognize while he's taking these risks that

he family may not be as well off without him!?


Amazing!

[defendandprotect]

72. Then why obey STOP signs?

Or YIELD's -- what you're saying is nonsense.

Rights have consequences -- if you have an accident in NH and you're not wearing

a seat belt, the damage done to you and your family could be extensive. Do they

have rights?

In some areas, people have to wear helmets when riding a bike.

Again, if you were hit by a car, your injuries could be extensive. Maybe your

family doesn't need you?

Sadly, you're making obvious just why some need to be treated like a "child" -- !!


:evilgrin"


Re smokers -- again, taxpayers pay for the damage done by cigarette smoking.

Al society pays the price in cases of cancer caused by smoking.

Families pay the price.

Manwhile, the tobacco industry LIED to the public. Over generations.


Maybe you might think about being responsible enough to save your family some misery?

[No Elephants]

60. D & P said the entire post was pejorative against the Left.

If true, that would indeed be a partisan post.

I'd rather ban someone from happy hour than from using contraceptives or having adult consensual sex.

You can say that all are infringements upon freedom and, duh, yes, most laws are. It's called living in a society. However, all infringements on freedom are not equal.

[defendandprotect]

74. " all are infringements upon freedom and, duh, yes, most laws are. It's called living in a society"

Nice post --

[tabasco]

8. No, it's not.

But rudeness and intolerance of differing viewpoints are indicators of stupidity.

[blueclown]

11. I have a rudeness and intolerance for simpleton talking points.

You presented one. I batted it down. You reduced a complex issue down to a right-wing code word. Deal with it.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. You batted it down?

Where I come from, that means offering a factual counter-point.

All you did was break a DU rule.

[blueclown]

15. Factual counterpoint: States have rules for retailers that distribute alcohol.

Massachusetts may change those rules. Breaking News at 11.

Can I spell it out any clearer for you?

What DU rule did I break, exactly?

I thought DU would be above parroting right-wing talking points.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. See your subject line.

Implying the person would be better off at FR?

"Do not personally attack any individual DU member in any way. Do not post broad-brush attacks, rude nicknames, or crude insults toward a group of DU members."

[blueclown]

18. I wouldn't consider that an attack. I'd consider that a question.

The use of the term "nanny-state" is not a word that is typically used on a progressive message board. I think this is a very serious issue that needs to be discussed, and not reduced to talking points. Drunk driving is a very serious issue, and a reinstution of the Happy Hours policy will put more drunk drivers on the road.

And let's leave moderating to the moderators, okay?

[Psephos]

19. You're wrong.

The rules are clear, and they exist for an important reason.

On top of that, your authoritarian instincts are shown clearly by trying to hide behind the moderators' skirts.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I note that MA has a check in every single column.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/AlcBevContWeb/pages/t11.htm

Will it put more drunk drivers on the road? Source?

[blueclown]

32. MA does not allow a Happy Hour. I'm not sure what that chart is referring to.

Source?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/pireweb/images/2240pierfinal.pdf

Studies that show that up to 50 percent of people driving under the influence
had their last drinks at licensed establishments are a strong indication the enforcement and
prosecution of laws governing the consumption and distribution of alcohol should have a
significant impact on the reduction of injuries and fatalities resulting from the consumption of
alcohol (O’Donnell, 1985; Anglin, 1997; Gallup, 2000).

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Should?

So nothing specific about happy hours?

That chart was a state-by-state list of sales tactics prohibited by said state. A check means it's prohibited.

MA had every prohibition possible.


Maryland has a population of 5,773,552
Washington has a population of 6,724,540

Maryland Drunk Driving related fatalities in 2008
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-maryland.html

Washington Drunk Driving related fatalaties in 2008
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-washington.html

In 2008, you can see the rate flipped, WA had slightly more. Previously, despite having +1 million people, and only two prohibited 'happy hour' statutes, Washington had equal or fewer alcohol related driving deaths.

One might think something OTHER than happy hours might be related.

[blueclown]

37. Why are you referring to Massachusetts and then using Maryland's #s?

Massachusetts population in 2008: 6.5 million
Washington's population in 2008: 6.55 million

Massachusetts' alcohol-related deaths in 2008: 151
Washington's alcohol-related deaths in 2008: 225

Massachusetts prohibits every alchol-related sales tactic on the list. Washington only prohibits Happy Hours and Reduced Prices at a Specific Time.

Wouldn't this data shoot a hole in your entire theory?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. My mistake.

I subbed in the wrong state.

Not only did it support your contention, but apparently my fellow Washingtonians are shitty drivers, drunk or sober.

[blueclown]

33. Here's more, from the same study.

The results demonstrated a significant correlation between lower drink prices and higher bingedrinking
rates. The presence of weekend beer specials and alcohol promotions was also highly
correlated with a higher binge-drinking rate. This same study demonstrated a reduction in selfreported
drinking-and-driving rates when laws limited underage access to alcohol and high
volume sales of alcohol (Wechsler, et al., 2003). The presence of these laws was associated with
lower rates of drinking-and-driving among college students, a group at risk for both binge
drinking and alcohol-related traffic fatalities (Wechsler, et al., 2003; NHTSA, 2002; NHTSA,
2004). This effect was enhanced when there was active enforcement of laws limiting underage
access to alcohol and high-volume sales of alcohol.

Next time, please do some research.

[alp227]

40. whether the states had rules against those things

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/AlcBevContWeb/pages/HappyHours.html

this report lacks a frame, the main cover is

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/AlcBevContWeb/pages/

[Muskypundit]

39. Nanny states are not partisan.

There is a nanny state in Alabama, and one in Massachusetts. I dislike them all, right and left. It seems ridiculous to the fifth degree that bars are not allowed to offer happy hour in the first place.

[blueclown]

42. It's not ridiculous.

States adopting statutes that limit the drink specials that bars and restaurants can offer keeps me and you safe on the way home from work or school from potential drunk drivers. It is a public good, a service to the community, and certainly not ridiculous in any way.

Here we go again with the "nanny state" framing. This highly nuanced issue is simply being demagogued you and others. You can't boil this discussion down to a talking point. There have been studies that have shown that binge drinking can and will lead to higher incidents of drunk driving. How does one engage in binge drinking at a bar? Usually, through reduced price drinks.

[Occulus]

67. Note who is complaining about happy hours.

Now go look at that porn thread from a couple days ago.

See anything familiar?

[defendandprotect]

24. "term nanny state is typically used pejoratively" ....

but not as an insult, of course -- !!

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

61. Self delete.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blueclown]

17. Drunk driving is already the leading cause of death among young adults.

I would say that more drunken drivers on the road is not what Massachusetts needs. Are these restaurant establishments going to make sure that people are not leaving their premises heavily intoxicated, or will they simply look the other way?

[Taverner]

22. Take them off the roads, rather than punish them into bankruptcy

Seriously, do the checkpoints, but instead of destroying the offender's life, why not just get them off the road - take their keys, give them a $200 fine, and call a taxi. Or have them waiting by. Seriously. Just get them off the road, not completely destroyed.

[defendandprotect]

29. Checkpoints for everyone so we can have more Happy Hours?

"Just get them off the road"?

Agree, property shouldn't be confiscated --

However, drunks have a way of killing people .... BEFORE you get them off the road.

[Taverner]

31. Then set up "No Record" Checkpoints right at the bars

So, if they want to 'turn themselves in' they don't get any ding on their record, no fine, no nothing - just a taxi call

[defendandprotect]

35. Boston is about CARS ... not taxis --

That's why in NYC you could get as drunk as a skunk and get home safely --

Boston, not so much --

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Well, that sure explains this.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-new-york.html

Granted, that's the state, not the city, but the state is near the top of the list for the nation, and the city is the most populous area of the state by far.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Boston is about cars? That's the most seriously ill-informed comment on this thread.

Boston and other adjacent communities have extraordinary rates of walking and use of public transportation. Ride the MBTA trains or buses any weekend after 9 PM: they're rolling drunk tanks.

[defendandprotect]

75. Boston isn't NYC re taxis .....

and while I have no recent familiarity with Boston -- I do recall doing lots

of walking -- but not likely that would be an option for drunks.

Public transportation and standing in the cold waiting for a bus?

Also no tlikely.

If they have a car -- and again, Boston is FULL of cars -- they will want to drive.


Granted the walking and public transportation will appeal to college students --

but generally they don't have cars.

[Gormy Cuss]

77. I lived in Boston for decades.

I witnessed it first hand. Yes, people who are drunk do wait out in the cold for a bus. Yes, even people who have cars take the T or walk if they can just because they CAN get drunker.

In many cities there really is little option other than driving but Boston isn't one of them. Same is true for San Francisco.

[Riftaxe]

43. So in your world alcohol is only available in bars?

It's an open secret how to make it, has been for 1000's of years. I have lived and worked in Massachusetts, their blue laws should have been completely repealed in the 19th century, yet remnants hang on in the 21st.

On a re-read i was not calling you a control freak, it's just the entire concept of assigning definitions to words on whim, really irritates me for some reason.

A few decades ago, I used to make a real mean strawberry wine :)

[blueclown]

45. You are free to drink to your heart's content in the comfort of your own home.

There are no limits of the amount of alcohol consumption when you are in the presence on your own home. However, there can and should be a limit on the availability of drinks in a public establishment, where a method of transportation would involve using public roads to reach your household, thereby putting other fellow citizens at risk if you consume a large amount of alcohol.

[Riftaxe]

50. Personally drinking would drop my glucose levels

so low, i would be lucky to get off being just a zombie :P

But I think this is more about Massachusetts's ancient blue laws then anything else, you could consider them the precursor to the 1919 Volstead act I suppose.

People are going to drink if they want no matter where (some do it in surprising places, and with a determined ingenuity for making it).

Limiting availability is realistically pointless, unless you go the entire 9 yards and i believe we have tried that before.



Drunk driving is something i personally abhor, since i have lost dear friends to people who have made that choice, however; I suspect the people who chose to get into that state in the first place would hardly be limited by time of day or location that they could drink.

[Leftist Agitator]

63. Not everyone drives.

Should your arbitrary rule apply to non-drivers? Or should those who do not drive be restricted in their consumption as well?

[Taverner]

21. Nanny-State-ism is Nanny-State-ism

Whether it is a good direction or not

Err on the side of freedom, I say

That is why I am anti-DP, pro-gun (even though I don't own one), pro-free speech, pro-porn, pro-complete legalization of drugs, pro-marriage equality, pro-right to privacy, pro-civil rights...

[No Elephants]

62. Question is, whose freedom?

The bar's, to encourage as much drinking as it can?

The drinker's, to participate in happy hour?

Or society as a whole, to reduce accidents due to drunk driving or the nuisance of having drunks roaming around the neighborhood or annoying people on buses and trains? We don't have enough law enforcement to police every situation, so we try to cut it off at the source, without outlawing bars entirely.

Even a red light infringes someone's freedom. Almost every law does, unless its some silly proclamation type law. So, you have to weigh one freedom against another.

I may not agree with outlawing a happy hour, but. according to Reply 33, happy hours do correlate to an increase in accidents. So, is it that important to have a right to a happy hour, in a bar, as opposed to drinking in that same bar during that same time without a happy hour? And how do you weigh that against someone dying from increased risk of drunk driving?

[SoapBox]

5. Cool! More drinking and driving!

...just what is needed.

*snark*

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Just what we need - more drunks on the roads.

The bastards are playing the judicial system like a Stradivarius as it is.

Screw that.

[totodeinhere]

9. I am not a Mass resident but I would support this. It is getting very expensive these days to buy a

drink at a bar. And low income people who are trying to survive on unemployment insurance or a minimum wage job probably need a drink once in a while. Don't you think that poor people should be able to have an occasional good time at a bar, or should this be one more thing that only people with the money to afford it can enjoy?

[alp227]

12. Republicans say that poor people can just bootleg a la Prohibition nt

[defendandprotect]

26. Recently in Boston, at the bar before eating, we paid $8 for a drink -- plus tip -- !!!

[No Elephants]

64. Please see Replies 33 and 65. I'm not taking a position on the law per se.

Happy hours don't necessarily reduce the price of drinks. Sometimes, free hors d'oeuvres (sp?) or cheap meals are the incentive.

While your point is about value at a time when people have less money, I think the food incentives are preferable because at least you are less likely to be drinking on an empty stomach.

[Gormy Cuss]

70. I was a MA resident when the happy hour ban was instituted.

As is mentioned in the linked article, bars offered other promotions to get people in during those early hours. Free appetizers were common in the first few years after the ban. IOW, there were still discounts to be had for those pinching pennies.

What DID change is you didn't see so many young people who were stinking drunk at 6 PM.

[Philosopher King]

10. 27 years without Happy Hour...Do they require a fun permit too...?

[Chan790]

25. 27 years without happy hour.

It has been great for the state of CT's economy. I wonder what the new primary industry of Windsor is going to be now that Happy Hour tourism is out.

[Historic NY]

38. Free is the same as selling in NY & its illegal to have a one price all you can drink...

They have Happy Hour its just not drink fests.

. No licensee, acting
individually or in conjunction with one or more licensees, shall:
(a) offer, sell, serve, or deliver to any person or persons an
unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed
price.
(b) allow a person, agent, party organizer, or promoter, as such terms
shall be defined by the authority in rule and regulation, to offer,
sell, serve, or deliver to any person or persons an unlimited number of
drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price.
(c) advertise, promote, or charge a price for drinks that in the
judgment of the authority creates an offering of alcoholic beverages in
violation of the purposes and intent of this section, or which in the
judgment of the authority is an attempt to circumvent the intent and
purposes of this section, such as, but not limited to, offerings of free
drinks, or multiple drinks for free or for the price of a single drink,
or for a low initial price followed by a price increment per hour or
other period of time, or for such a minor amount that in the judgment of
the authority the pricing would constitute an attempt to circumvent the
intent and purposes of this section.


The SLA does allow 2 for 1, half price and other such specials where the price of a drink is not lower than one-half of the premise's normal or regular price for the same drink.

[saras]

57. The kind of "freedom" people are advocating for here is incompatible with public health insurance.

Do we want to subsidize every stupid dangerous thing people can think of doing with free health care for the consequences of it? If not, where do we draw the lines? Special extra insurance for every activity with the slightest amount of additional danger? Who gets to decide that, although something is risky, it is nevertheless common or desirable enough that society is willing to absorb its costs?

[kelly1mm]

66. So, in the name of public health, should we outlaw all alcohol and/or tobacco?

I already make my own beer and wine and know how to distill (but, of course, never do as that would be illegal!!!!!) to make the hard stuff. I also grow/dry/cure/process my own tobacco. I may buy about $20-$50 worth of these products a year. The rest I make myself. So not really effecting me anyway. Just curious.

[hughee99]

71. Exactly, where do we draw the line?

As your "health care provider", the government would now have a financial interest in what you do with your body. You shouldn't smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs, listen to loud music, engage in dangerous activities (rock climbing, skydiving, unprotected sex), consume foods high in calories, fat or cholesterol or sugary drinks.

Where is the line? Does the government get to dictate your lifestyle, how much you eat, how much you exercise, how long you watch TV for, your hobbies, and your vices? Do you have to file a report outlining your high risk behavior so the government can get an accurate risk assessment? Do you have to submit to being monitored or tested to ensure that the government data is accurate? Will you be fined (or have to pay more) if you choose to engage in some non-approved activity?

My freeper brother firmly believes that the reason that we "libruls" are so big on health care and environmental legislation, is because under the guise of being our health care provider, government will start passing rules on what you can and can't do with your body, and under the guise of protecting the environment, government will start passing rules on what you can and can't do with everything else. Now I think that's a load of crap, but every time such discussions come up, someone will always bring up the "subsidize *their* bad behavior" argument and it makes me wonder if his argument might be an accurate description for at least some progressives.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Is the rate of drunk driving fatalities significantly lower than in state which permit happy hours?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

76. Wow, telling a company they can't have special deals?

What a stupid law