Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

UN-HAPPY HOUR

Massachusetts Refuses to Lift Ban on Happy Hour

It won't help bars compete with casinos' free drinks anyway, says Alcohol & Beverage Control

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t

Image: frilldeal.com

For Massachusetts fans of the sauce, the day when they can get sloshed at 5pm on a bar stool with nothing more than the coin in their pocket is on hold yet again.

The Bay State won't be lifting its nearly 30-year ban on happy hour, reports the Consumerist. State lawmakers considered the idea as a way of allowing liquor license holders to better compete with casinos offering free booze to their patrons.

The longtime ban was put in place after a woman was killed by a drunk driver who'd indulged in one (or two) too many happy hour drinks. It continues to be defended as a way of keeping citizens safe.

As for the economic argument, the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission believes lifting the ban would do nothing to help the bottom line of restaurants and bars. Or at least according to the establishments they've talked to:

"Many restaurant owners feared the changes would create a 'race to the bottom,'" claims the agency, "in which establishments would try to undercut each other's prices to the extent that their business models would no longer be viable."

Meanwhile Kansas, ducking its supposed reputation as a red state that frowns on fun, has ended its prohibition on happy hour after a decades-long Highball hiatus post-high noon.

Via the Consumerist, the Boston Globe and the Kansas City Star.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Are bans on happy hours a good idea on public safety grounds?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • marine1
    !
    It's all part of their revenue plan and if you make the good choice to walk home their parking gastapo will get you
  • martydotcom
    !
    @marine1 We have a great local police policy, if you've had too much to drink, don't drive, call us we'll give you a lift home. Only problem is remembering in the AM where you parked your car LOL
  • o
    NTBFW
    !
    You can't stop a drunk from drinking. You can stop some from driving drunk. But penalties are still not tough enough on drunk driving.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    There is no excuse for liquor establishments to be offering an easier road to driving drunk. Sorry folks, until you've lost a family member to a drunk driver you have no idea how much contempt I have for those who line up at the grocery store or park on a bar stool and then drive drunk and millions still do. Most never get caught. Until they kill someone.
  • hankf68
    !
    Yet someone caught with a small amount of harmless grass can spend years in jail, ah, the f n hipocracy of it all, argh! I hate all drunken idiot driving fools far a reason too!
  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    The drunk driver didn't run the woman over with alcohol. Why aren't we banning traffic during happy hour instead?
    Why should people who just want to kick back with a couple of friends in the bar and call a taxi afterwards be punished just because some people are stupid enough to drink and drive?
  • u
    mtkopf
    !
    @stepped_in_it I just have a question that may need some clarification: so it is perfectly acceptable to punish the many for the crimes of the few in the case of happy hour laws but, when it comes to banning assault style weapons you have said numerous times you are against it. Why the hypocrisy?

    Btw, I'm not for banning assault type weapons or for drunk driving nor am I trying to start an argument. I'm just trying to get the logic on the two widely different stances on what is relatively the same argument.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @mtkopf Because banning assault guns will not solve the problem....and just might make it worse. Bans don't work (country wide bans for clarification). Prohibition was a country wide failed ban that made crime go up, along with drinking. Drugs are another. Has drug use gotten better or worse. How much have we spent on that war. As for assault guns and high cap mags, will a ban take them out of criminals hands....no. Will another gun suffice on some (if not all) of these attacks.....yes. The ban is a stop gap to appease the stupid until the next attack happens .....with a shotgun/semi auto hand gun/ hunting rifle.....etc! As for high cap mags, any fool knows a little tape and viola.....2 10rd mags are ready to rock.
    Now, stopping happy hour in a few cities (Massachusetts isn't very big) is easy to do.... even though I don't agree with it. Between you and me, Commonsense made no common sense in his argument....so I had to bust his boys a little!
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Why do you need two drinks for the price of one to kick back with a couple of friends in the bar? I thought the idea was to have fun with your friends. I've never met a drunk that was any fun.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @mtkopf Google "effects of alcohol on the brain". You will find that the regular drinker after a number of years has the membrane around their brain eaten away by the effects of alcohol. This happens even if the drinker always takes a cap, never drive drunk, never gets busted, never hurts anyone else. That membrane holds the brain in the proper position and when it starts to allow the brain to move around it causes serious medical problems. For the person and society at large. For every regular drinker. That's not the case with even a small majority of gun owners. that's one difference.
  • View all 6 replies >
  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    Why not allow in the case that the bar confiscates your license for the night (then you can taxi back there tomorrow and retrieve it but if you're there to retrieve it they can't serve you alcohol at the same time)?
  • bsking
    !
    And yet I've seen countless stories of illegal aliens who are drunk and driving and killing people and no 1 says we need to curb the amount of the legal aliens ..... must be the new math

    ;-o
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    Drunk driving laws are there.....judges just don't take those laws to their limits. Using judges discretion, judges will all too often allow a plead down or let them go on lesser charges. Has anyone ever heard of someone who has had 5 or 6 DUI's....and never spent more than a night in jail? I have....way too many times!
    My ex-brother in law was arrested 2 times for DUI. On his 3rd time, he ran from the police on a souped up ATV....on the streets. He tried to run across some fields, into a barbed wire fence. He was lucky, the wire hit his handle bars. A few inches higher and it would have decapitated him! And that 3rd DUI (with the other charges) got him a total of 4 months county jail time. But (with a good woman he later married), finally cleaned up his act.....
    Stop judges discretion when it comes to drunk driving!!!
  • hankf68
    !
    Probably because many of those judges are at happy hour themselves or drinking on their lunch break...well, here in my county anyway, our Circuit Court judge, now retired thank goodness, after 30 or more years of his lordship, had 2 DUI's and never suffered any consequences, even after running from the county police and crashing his car, crazy indeed!
  • DARSB
    !
    Lifting the ban would probably not instantly return to those drinking days of yesteryear - MADD has had quite a lot of influence over what we think of as acceptable.
  • jaybebo84
    !
    Funny...never thought Massachusetts had a ban on Happy Hour...guess you might as well ban something in a state in which little is banned...
  • u
    norezen
    !
    By that logic we should also ban popular drinking holidays and events. New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving, St Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, weddings, graduations, sports events.
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    @norezen No...these holidays and events are not dedicated to selling and/or consuming acoholic beverages. People just consume alcoholic beverages while they celebrate on these occasions. And, not all of those celebrating these events allow acoholic beverages to be consumed. Happy Hour was specifically created to attract patrons to bars whose owners are in business to sell acoholic beverages. It is not a celebration of anything...just a drinking party.
  • u
    norezen
    !
    @seedtick The purpose behind the activity is inconsequential.
    If 80% of people driving out of a sporting event are DWI and 20% of people leaving a happy hour were DWI, which activity would you ban?
    Now I know thats definitely not the case but you see the purpose of the event doesn't justify the DWI.
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    @norezen It is not inconsequential if the sole purpose is to sell and consume alcoholic beverages. You might argue that the monetary transaction separates the seller from the consumer. But, then you must look at the advertisment that entices the consumer into the Happy Hour venue. It is the same situation as if you invite someone to a party and furnish alcoholic beverages...except there is no monetary transaction.
  • u
    norezen
    !
    @seedtick so its ok if a sport venue produces drunk drivers routinely but a happy hour location produces 1 drunk driver and its a bad thing. got it.
  • View all 6 replies >
  • Russell797
    !
    Consuming alcohol reduces inhibitions leading to many a poor choice in behaviour. Alcoholics don't know when to stop, and they will get behind the wheel. The public deserves to be protected from this bad behaviour. It's like with guns, the greater the opportunity and availability the greater the chance for bad outcomes.
  • PayThatCEO
    !
    So, it's not OK to be blind drunk during happy hour, but it's OK to be blind drunk at midnight?. Does it really matter what time they sell it? Most people who leave a drinking establish are probably not safe on the road.
  • Russell797
    !
    @PayThatCEO Of course not, who said that? The thing about happy hour though, is that people who might not otherwise be on the road drunk at any hour, are enticed to stop off after work and slam a few cheap ones down along side their buddies before heading home. This produces a surge in inebriated drivers within a certain window of time. No time is a good time to be driving drunk however.
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    Well, the article didnt mention Boston, it mentioned the state. Boston is a city where most people walk and take public transportation. Per-capita, very few own a car.
    Also its a college town (83 of them) and they have ( or at least had) pretty strict guidelines on serving and selling alcohol. Mass in general is a very conservative states ( not a political remark) the liquor stores close early, no beer or wine in stores ( at least it used to be that way) and its typically not a late night state. Its a real tragedy when anyone dies at the hands of another person. But I dont agree with punishing the entire state for the death of one person, and the article reads as if the motive behind it was more about money than ethics.
  • ConserveUSA
    !
    The way this country has been going. I can use a strong drink every now & then.

    With Hillary thinking about being President, pass me 4 more drinks.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    We have such silly laws in the US most of which come from the "overly emotional we must do something about this now crowed" From gun control to mass media blast about a certain type of crib that hurt two infants out of 4 millions units sold. We seem compelled to stomp out every possible thing that may cause your harm. I am just waiting for the day where we all wear bullet proof environmentally controlled bubbles so can keep ourselves snug, warm or cool, fuzzy and safe from all things that could possibly harm us. As a nation we are regressing to a cotton ball like existence.
  • R Load more comments...