Massachusetts has banned businesses with liquor licenses from offering lower-priced drinks during happy hours since 1984, after a woman in Braintree was killed by a drunk driver who had consumed seven beers at a happy hour event. The Gaming Act provision specifies that free alcoholic beverages can be served on a casino’s gaming floor. Free. Not just two for one, not half price, not with a purchased sandwich, just “free”.
Question One: If your “business model” depends on an inebriated customer, what does that tell us about the product you are selling and your intent as to the health of the local community?
Question Two: If you are a small tavern, family restaurant, or other small dining/drinking establishment in the shadow of a casino, how do you compete with “FREE”?
Question Three: What’s the difference between a drunk driver on highway leaving “Happy Hour” versus a drunk driver on the highway leaving the blackjack tables?
Question Four: Why would our state treasurer who called the Happy Hour ban a “a very important public safety issue” not be against the Gaming Act that allows free liquor?
Question Five: Why would our state Attorney General not be against the Gaming Act that allows free liquor when she, in the past has tried to close the loopholes in our states drunk driving laws?
Those laws don’t seem all that compatible from the policy for banning happy hour.
I do wonder if the happy hour law has had an impact on drunk driving deaths, though. Looking at some available general stats, it looks like drunk driving deaths in MA dropped around 5+ years after the law went into effect. It was interesting to see during the recent discussion of bringing back happy hour that this question was not really raised. Some large restaurant groups opposed the change because of anecdotal evidence about how bad happy hour was. I love partaking in happy hour in other cities that offer it, but I’d be all for banning it if it was proved to have the impact the prohibition laws claim.
One sure fire way to lower the public’s respect for law and to bring suspicion on those writing the laws is to write legislation that clearly support one group (the wealthy casino owners) while it punishes others (small business owners). The Gaming Act is that sort of law. If we allow the wealthy entrepreneurial class the right to inebriate their clientele for personal gain, it is unjust to deny this same predatory behavior on the part of small, locally owned businesses.
…I don’t really care what the cost is. Aren’t bartenders supposed to cut you off when you look like you’ve had too much, and would that still apply? Throughout this debate one of my ideas to ameliorate the effects has been to forbid any alcohol distribution on casino premises.
Comorbidity is where the profits are.
Grossman, ABCC, Legislators, Gaming Industry have offered a bone to restaurants that cannot compete with state sponsored monopolies by revisiting Happy Hours ( HH.)
Bet on them taking a re-visit to lowering the drinking age. Common sense prevailing we will Repeal the casino (f)law by Voting YES on Question 3 on November 4, 2014 (11/04/14 – play those numbers!) and the likelihood of HH and the legal drinking age being lowered significantly diminishes. If I were a restaurant, bar, package store owner I would want to level the playing field and get HH back to try not to lose all my clientele to Big Gambling.
Traffic fatalities decreased dramatically with elimination of HH and raising the drinking age. Policies that I believe were brought to us by our last true Progressive Governor, His Excellency Michael Dukakis.
Do you have a source for that?
I’m not attacking, just want to know if it is actually true.
I’ve found this (which provides a source though I have not confirmed it), but this shows the topline numbers not dropping until 1990/1991, and then another drop sometime around 2008.
It could be a lag in enforcement leading to changed behaviors, but it could also be because of other factors. I know that drunk driving deaths have dropped nationally among the same period, including in states with happy hour.
I’m just wondering if there has been research done demonstrating the correlation between the drop in drunk-driving deaths and the institution of one or both laws in 1984?
If the law doesn’t work for its goal, why should we keep it?
…they are essentially admitting that people won’t give them business if their judgement is intact? Isn’t this kind of like saying it wasn’t rape because the woman was too drunk to say no? So much for a truly free market, which in my view requires conscientious consumer choices.
I don’t see anybody seriously considering lowering the drinking age. Technically, 21 is the law in all 50 states, but isn’t it a de facto federal because there is highway funding tied to it?
It wasn’t “grandfathered either” – you could drink and then all of a sudden not. To prevent drunken driving deaths – we need strict laws and endorsement of DUI. But lower the drinking age to 19 and allow happy hours. This is the law in Canada.
We are not Canada.
Ed King raised the drinking age from 18 to 20 because drunken teenagers were killing themselves and others all too often. It worked, immediately. You would apparently have us repeat the experiment — like so many other GOP proposals, history and data are apparently trumped by dogma.
If we really do want to lower the drinking age, then we should follow the model of Germany — raise the driving age to 18 (or higher), and lower the drinking age for undistilled beverages (beer and wine) to 16.
We should strictly enforce DUI laws as well, but that’s been promised (along with “eliminating waste and inefficiency in government”) for as long as I’ve lived in MA — I’ll believe it when I see it.
One step that would help enormously is to confiscate whatever vehicle is being driven by an operator who is intoxicated. Such a move would make it harder for repeat offenders to stay on the road (lifting their license has no effect at all, they just drive without it), and would make family and friends more reluctant to allow a problem drinker to “borrow” a vehicle.
But there seems to be a cottage industry of attorneys who seem to be able to prevent you from being convicted. After a fair trial – it’s not unreasonable for a car to be forfeited for a DUI conviction.
Drinking at college campuses has been driven underground – it’s unhealthy for the students and the communities that surround the colleges.
19 is not an unreasonable age – that is the drinking age in all of Canada – except for Quebec where it is 18.
BTW – if you let a friend “borrow” a vehicle who has a DUI conviction – you insurance company may not cover any accident that driver has.
I never said that a 19 year old drinking age is unreasonable.
I said, instead, that:
1. Keeping a 16 year old DRIVING age while lowering the drinking age causes people to DIE
2. We tried a 16 year old driving age and an 18 year old drinking age and we turned our highways into rivers of blood
Regarding DUI enforcement, the reasons why it doesn’t happen don’t matter — it is all too easy for habitually drunken drivers to stay on the road. It’s not just the attorneys, it’s — for example — state laws that say that a suspect’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test may not be used in court. Meanwhile, the standard is still much too high (0.08%).
By “strict”, I mean “measurable”. If you drink AT ALL, you must not drive.
You’re old enough to drink in my book. Much like our laws against moarkuana, laws limiting access to under 21 year olds seem to be entirely ineffective. Also, now that I am paying for my own booze and going out to bars and restaurants with my friends, I actually drink a lot less than I did during the unsupervised parties we had in college. I actually had to quit the debate team since the binge drinking culture it fostered was becoming detrimental to my health and my relationship, and that is a culture directly fostered by the underground nature of underage drinking.
It starts so fast and you don’t have time to learn what your limits. 19 seems reasonable, and fatalities in Canada aren’t significantly worse than they are here. Seems to me the best way to crack down on drunk driving is to let the T run all night and mandate that establishments you have to drive to have far stricter limits on consumption. And perhaps raising the driving age, and treating spirits differently than beer and wine are good moderate solutions as well.
The “old-enough-to-fight-then-old-enough-to-drink” was precisely the argument made when the drinking age was lowered to 18 in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War.
The results were that thousands of people were “dying for their country” by merely driving — especially on Friday and Saturday nights. It truly was brutal, I remember it very well. I lived on a busy road then (Boston Road/3A, in Billerica) with a badly-placed tree and telephone pole adjacent to the road, and my wife and I pulled dead and dying teenagers from cars virtually every other weekend. I particularly remember a Mothers Day eve when a young mother of 19 or so, totally drunk, slid into the pole. She was fortunately uninjured, but incoherent — my wife and I had to endanger our own lives because her several toddlers were running around the busy thoroughfare in their pajamas (at 11:30p in a Saturday night).
The cars stopped crashing into our yard — IMMEDIATELY — when the drinking age was raised by Ed King. It was one of the few positive things he did.
I can’t emphasize enough that we’ve already tried this, and it failed. It failed nationwide, and it failed here in MA.
…that there is a sound scientific basis for waiting until 21, something about the brain finally completing its development or being able to hold your liquor only once you are that age. Is there anything to that?
… there is a lot to that. Neuroscience has come a long way and we know that the later the persons starts drinking the better chance they have to develop fully and are much less likely to develop a dependency. A great deal of science regarding both the development of impulse control and the overall health of the brain has been done specifically in regards to this question.
The question of “old enough to fight, old enough to drink” is a bit of a paradox: the military prefers the 18 yr old for the enlisted corp because he (and now she) is malleable, easily directed and on the cusp of real impulse control and, thus, very trainable and, once on the battlefield, tractable to orders. Too young and they are not controllable. To old and they have habits of independent thought they must unlearn in order to function as a unit. The same thing that makes them good soldiers are problematic under the influence of alcohol: ‘easily directed’ in boot camp is good, but tends to things like drag races and fights and all kinds of other shenanigans whilst under the influence…
But I would support a 19 age to prevent alcohol getting into the high schools.
Our state is very puritanical with our drinking laws. Most other states you can buy beer and wine just about anywhere – and there is nothing wrong with this.
Happy hour, liberal byob, drinking beer on trains, and having grocery and drug stores carry alcohol are some of the only policies Illinois does better than Massachusetts. And the CTA, as shitty as it is, is significantly better than the MBTA. If we want young people who go to college here to stay here and work, we need to work on both of those things.
If the driving age remains 16, I doubt it would take more than one or two evenings of riding shotgun in an ambulance with even a 19 year old drinking age to change your mind.
How many bloody bodies that used to be teenagers have you scraped off a telephone pole?
I encourage you to visit 372 Boston Road. Note the telephone pole by the road. Note the substantial tree (with the tire swing). Swing the “street view” to the right, and note the gentle downhill road, banked the wrong way from Billerica center.
I’m not talking about political abstractions like “freedom”, “puritanism”, and “libertarianism”. I’m talking about real blood and real gore that I’ve had to wash off my hands and clothes in the kitchen of that lovely red Victorian.
Massachusetts is currently the only state, along with South Carolina, that does not have a per se alcohol limit to discourage drunk driving. This limit means that failing a breathalyzer is sufficient grounds for a drunk driving arrest. We don’t have it. We also don’t have the policy Ontario has adopted. On the one hand, it is more liberal with a 19 year drinking age. A balanced approach that keeps booze out of the hands of high school students and lower classmen in college, while ensuring that responsible drinking occurs at legal establishments for the college crowd. On the other hand, it has a zero tolerance policy for under 21 age drivers getting a DUI. They get their license suspended automatically, and it takes a long time to get it back.
The head of the Reagan appointed task force that recommended nationalizing the 21 year drinking age, regrets it, cites Ontario as a model, and also points out-a fact I can corroborate-that driving underage drinking underground into frat basements makes sexual assault, binge drinking to excess, and other related problems more, not less, likely.
So a 19 year age along with stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws seems like a smart way to go. Also strictly regulating alcohol advertisements so they do not target young people is another policy that could work. And making alcohol education a stronger component of teen health classes, in a realistic way, is another.
… has a graduated licensing scheme of learners permit (for which they must pass a written test), probationary (which last 1 year and for for which mandatory drivers education courses are provided) and, only after having passed the course, full license. During the learners and probationary stage strict limits are set on the blood alcohol content of both the learner and any fully licensed accompaniment.
All you have to do to get your license in Mass is to apply for your learners permit, endure the time, and then pass a written test followed by a driving test. Mass is lax on drivers education when compared to Ontario.
I’d be more than supportive of lowering the drinking age to 19 if we similarly adopted Ontario’s approach to driver education and experience…
and strict DUI .02 for under 21.
http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/jol/jol_penalties_chart.htm
I don’t think it’s an age issue – before the early 1980’s – it was acceptable to drink and drive – the police would actually send you home if you were really drunk. There is a scene in “It’s a wonderful life” where George Bailey crashes his car into a tree – George is a hero at the end – now he would be arrested for leaving the scene of an accident and DUI.
That being said – it does seem like alcoholics seem to keep driving – but lowering the drinking age is not going to affect this at all.
BTW Canada seems to be the same as US .08 – the EU .05
My understanding is that the data tends to support you, somervilletom, on this, but I still think that this is nevertheless a difficult issue.
On the one hand, a lower drinking age increases the incidence of drunk driving, and therefore increases the incidence of drunk driving injuries and deaths.
On the other hand, it is my view that criminal laws that are routinely flouted by significant cohorts of the citizenry should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
In addition, the Age 21 rule certainly seems to drive the consumption of alcohol by people under age 21 completely underground, where it cannot be controlled or supervised in any way. I know many parents that have expressed the view that they would rather their kids do their adolescent experimentation with alcohol with friends, in the basement, where responsible adults might intervene if a dangerous situation develops. But no one parent can do this, because it is a crime. That means that the adolescent experimentation happens away from any control or supervision, and intervention in the event of the development of a dangerous situation is left in the hands of another drunk teeneager. That doesn’t seem to be a particularly ideal result.
Also, I believe that there is some data that suggests that “underground” drinking by the under-21 set increases the prevalence of “binge drinking” which has social costs of its own, including but not limited to increased risk of sexual assault.
So while the Age 21 limit definitely has its benefits in terms of drunk driving statistics, it also comes with tradeoffs and costs that tend to be ignored in the discussion. I am not sure that 21 is a no-brainer policy.
If you are talking about Mass, I believe you are incorrect… I turned 20 in 1984 and could drink. On June 1, 1985 they froze the cutoff birthdate for a year, so I was grandfathered for the next few months.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/6/3/drinking-age-takes-effect-pjune-1/
Point taken, but the casino doesn’t really want you to get drunk. They want you to stay at the table.
A waitress, dressed sparingly, comes over and offers you a free drink. This happens if and only if you’re at a table. So while waiting, you play … it would be awful to leave and disappoint the young lady …. and when it finally arrives, it’s watered down. But what the heck, it was free.
Meanwhile …
While they do not want you to fall over and pass out from too much alcohol and they do not want you to spend your time waiting at the bar instead of toss your money at the gambling tables, they do want you to have free access to alcohol which will impair your judgement behind the roulette wheel as well as the steering wheel.
Your point would be taken if the waitress charged you for the drink, but she does not. It’s free. It’s encouraged.
… is that they don’t expect you to get drunk. It is free and encouraged, but it’s lousy drinks. Not to mention that a drink would barely equal a single bet at most tables.
Bottom line, it aint about the drinks. But you’re right, they are part of the atmosphere.
at those tables.
That’s the point.
That’s why *every* major casino in the US has free drinks.
The state should not have allowed this, just like they don’t allow free or even discounted drinks at any other bar. The fact that the state has allowed this shows just how nefarious this industry is.
n/t
If your candidate defends casinos and reject efforts to repeal this bad law by saying “”I have said that casinos is not the first place I ever would have gone for economic development.” My question to them and you is this: Why are you both settling for second best when there are better choices?
It’s one issue among many, I have a long history with my candidate, and the casino question is going to be decided by the voters anyway. If repeal goes through it won’t really matter if Coakley or Grossman supported them, and if it doesn’t Berwick would be stuck with them.
I agree with you that that the casino and the corner office are two separate issues that may deliver an odd outcome. “I don’t like it but I will not fight to stop it”. I’m just puzzled by the remark that seems to cut it two directions. It reminded me of when I first heard of casinos coming to Massachusetts from a member of the legislature who said, “Like it or not, they are coming and we can’t stop it, so we will just have to do our best to control it.” Casinos are not like a hurricane or act of nature. They are one sort of human activity that can be stopped by human activity of another sort. Who is running things if we can’t stop casinos?
The casino gambling industry players who are pursing a foothold here in Massachusetts are wealthy, powerful, and connected (see Carlo DeMaria). They are therefore very close to those who pull the levers and push the buttons on the Democratic Party machine (yes, there is one, like it or not).
The two candidates you mention have spent their entire political careers ensuring that their interests and agenda align well with those at the top of the same Democratic Party machine. We should not be surprised that they continue to do so now.
That’s a sufficient answer to your two questions for me.
Although my typo works just as well in context.
I’m opposed to the casinos in MA. Always have been.
My question: why not chip away at the casinos while simultaneously fighting the whole kit and caboodle? I’m no expert in casinos or MA law as it applies to casinos, so some of these may be redundant or already covered, but some ideas:
* No free or discounted drinks
* High labor standards at casinos (no tipped wage positions, etc)
* No smoking on the property — anywhere, including hotel rooms, private events, outside, etc.
* All buildings must be LEED (green) certifiable
I’m sure there are plenty more. Simply take a big-D Democratic value (labor, environment, public health, fairness), and add it onto the casino requirements. At least this way if we’re stuck with casinos, it will do some combination of make them less attractive to customers (reduce consumption of casinos) and spread more of the revenue to the working class (reduce sucking of wealth out of the community). Couldn’t hurt, right?
Isn’t making it through the leg anytime soon – even if there was the will to do it. The legislative session is over
Unfortunately, too, things only seem to go in one direction with casinos, if allowed in – and that’s the direction of the casino lobby. Fewer rules, less taxes, more gambling capacity.
Just look at NY. It just passed a bill allowing a bunch of new casinos, as the market gets more and more saturated, putting more and more pressure on local populations toward the bottom of the pay scale to make big profits.
There’s an article in today’s NYT about it – I’d link if I wasn’t on my phone, it’s worth the read.
Just read about the problems that NY is having with casinos. In short, the market for casinos is saturated, and shrinking. Niagara Falls is a disaster. The reason that Las Vegas was a hit was simple. It was the only place in the country. (more or less) Same thing with Atlantic City for a time. It was the only place on the east coast. There are only so many people who like to go to these establishments. Let me put it another way: How many Massachusetts citizens who have never been to Foxwoods or the rest will become casino patrons once casinos are here?
But there is no way in hell it’s gonna happen. The whole point of the industry is that it is a predatory one, preying on working class patrons while also leeching the economic vitality out of the surrounding community. From shuttered restaurants and local businesses to rising crime rates and decreased property values. It actually has eroded the tax base of communities it was supposed to assist. My thread linking to the Frum article lays all of that out, so I won’t go into more detail.
What also makes it predatory though, is that they come into states desperate for new revenue holding all the cards. The house, as it were, has stacked the deck against the kind of moderate and mitigating regulations you proposed. They want the license to operate, and then, they want to be left alone. They make some promises about job creation and respecting unions, but any additional regulations that would actually affect their base of customers will be strongly opposed. Adelson is so brazen in his defiance of past agreements that he has actively circumvented the laws of an authoritarian government, with far more power than our meek and lobbyist infested gaming commission. The balls on that guy! And Wynn has just as big a pair of them, he has backed out of union promises in the past, and he and Trump are begging for a bailout on their Atlantic City properties. A city that doesn’t even have a freakin grocery store in it’s limits, will now be stuck with the rusting hulks of several casinos unless taxpayers actually bail them out. This is the bleak future for MA if we don’t vote these down.