Secrets of the City

Ultimately what these secular Puritans and denizens of good behavior want is a work force that is optimized for labor. They should just raise the age for everything to 70 and be done with it all.

Or is that a plot for a sci-fi book?

But interestingly, too: The bar owners totally wash their hands of any culpability. They lure people in with what are basically loss leaders (they loose money if you buy just two $1 drinks) and promote an environment that fosters binge drinking.

I’m not saying I’m for this at all. I’m just a bit curious why the owners are all deny any responsibility as pushers.

And I should add: I’m not really curious why they deny responsibility. I get it: It’s good business. But saying that college bars owners don’t play a role in promoting binge drinking is sort of like saying Wall Street and deregulation isn’t to blame for the mortgage crisis.

Just sayin’…

I warned of this when they banned nickle nights in Mankato. I had government figured out even 10 years ago.

I figured out that government made laws about 37 years ago.

I say do it. It’s only for their own good.

I say the best way to discourage college drinking is to actually make college hard and to flunk out the kids who don’t do the work. We’ve already made college expensive and that doesn’t seem to work. We need to try something else.

Max beat me to the post. I got an email yesterday from Jarret Oulman, manager of the 331 Club about this.

The Oulmans are friends of mine, and we have discussed this subject before. He feels he runs his business in a responsible manner, saying he follows state and city regulations on alcohol to the letter.

In particular, Jarret is upset that a newspaper clipping on an event at his bar is being used in a MN Department of Health slide show on binge drinking and young adults. His “Drunken Spelling Bee” event, now renamed “Adult Spelling Bee,” (which sounds even kinkier) is featured on slide #18.

That’s heresy. College education is a Right!

Great, now I don’t have to be jealous that my friends get to go and I get to work through it.

But seriously, these moronic busybodies have bigger fish to fry. I think of all the people that enjoy a couple of beers and some cheap food with friends after work and trying to take that away just seems so damned evil. The entire city – the neighborhood bars in NE and South, the Nicolette bars downtown, and so on – is being harmed because a few stupid college students can’t handle themselves. If this is really about college students, then do it within a radius of the U. I’m very disappointed in Cam Gordon over this, who I enthusiastically voted for and thought was above this kind of nonsense.

Ah ha! The real culprit:
Portland, Ore. already has the one drink at a time rule.

I knew somehow this was Portland’s fault.

If the majority of these outraged, facebooking, discount drinkers caucus on March 3rd and become delegates to the Ward conventions, City Council members will get the message that interfering with the after work, on the cheap social hour is not worth risking their cushy $90,000 a year jobs for.

Would happy hour defenders bring other issues to the caucus? Do people who can only afford to drink or dine out during happy hour also want guaranteed access to healthcare?

What’s the fun in get elected or appointed to something if you can’t make rules, jeff?

Another observation: I wish they would try to take this to the state legislature instead, where it would be quickly and mercilessly squashed by an army of Rangers.

“If this is really about college students, then do it within a radius of the U.”

Then the bars just outside the radius could clean up. Then they’d have to extend the radius. Then again.

That’s government picking successful businesses and the unsuccessful.

The more fair move would be to make all less successful.

where it would be quickly and mercilessly squashed by an army of Rangers

Lead by this legislator, no doubt!

(grin)

@justbob: I think Oulman should sue for misrepresentation. Or, at least, serve a cease-and-desist on those MN DoH bureaucrats. That’s outrageous.

I don’t know Rat, my experience is that University undergrads don’t venture too far out of Stadium Village/Dinkytown. If they were tempted, we could build a wall.

A friend raised a good question: what about Tracy’s wooden nickels? I’ve converted all my money into them to survive inflation.

But saying that college bars owners don’t play a role in promoting binge drinking is sort of like saying Wall Street and deregulation isn’t to blame for the mortgage crisis.

But that’s impossible. We all know that it was the e vil Democratic congress that forced the banks to make loans to poor people with no money. Becaue a free market is infallible, and if anything bad happens, like binge drinking, it’s because the liberals…

“If they were tempted, we could build a wall.”

At last!!

I have already offered my PR advice to Jerret on this matter. One of my suggestions was to use the power of social media to spread the word on this.

It worked.

I guess the real question is: are there bars in Minneapolis (let’s just focus on one city for the moment) that knowingly create a “binge drinking” culture for young adults?

Have these bars been cited for any liquor law/ordinances before?

What actions, if any, has the city taken before to deal with this issue?

What can the hospitality industry do to prevent some “bad apple” bar owners from turning their bars into drunkatoriums for the young and stupid?

For some of us who aren’t college binge drinkers, these are the best times to go out, budget-wise.
also, for those of us that run trivia nights, part of the draw are drink and food specials….

Pretty soon, y’know, we’re all gonna be required by law to wear helmets, won’t be allowed outdoors after dark, and will have to be in bed by 10 p.m.

Is there any statistical evidence that shows happy hour drinking is more dangerous to general society than non-happy hour drinking? Seems to me most of the drunk driving accidents and arrests that get reported occur well after the end of happy hour. If there is no evidence of civil debauchery, then this proposal just speaks of political ass-hattery.

“What can (be done) to prevent some “bad apple” bar owners from turning their bars into drunkatoriums for the young and stupid?”

That’s really the question. I think there’s near-universal agreement that getting rid of your standard, All-American after-work happy hour is stupid. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a binge drinking public health problem. The challenge is finding a way to address that problem, and pressure the “bad apple” bars to discontinue the most egregious drunk-inducing games/specials/etc. without punishing everyone else.

Perhaps the subject of this week’s Eskimo Witch investigative report!

Can anyone find something specific that says they’re trying to ban happy hour? I’m talking about the happy hour as, I’m guessing, you and I know it–going out for cheap food and drinks after work.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2009-meetings/20090206/HEE20090126agenda.asp

From the meeting minutes of the Health, Energy and Environment Committee, (the PDF about binge drinking a little down the page), it looks like they’re just trying to possibly, maybe, think about, banning;
1)serving more than one drink to one person at one time.
2)encouraging or permitting drinking games
3)selling multiple or unlimited drinks at a fixed price.

How many of you does this seriously impact?

Oh, and the High Risk Drinking pdf is ridiculously awesome. Come on, they have a picture of Edward 40 Hands!

The 331’s new oddly entertaining computer generated web ad is fun, too.

Can anyone find something specific that says they’re trying to ban happy hour?

I believe a definition of “happy hour” includes something along the lines of 2-for-1 drink sales. That would mean that a principal element of happy hour would be prohibited.

Re: Binge drinking. Do these bureaucrats not understand that all they will accomplish by this is remove binge drinking from public establishments to dorm rooms and college apartments? And, because booze is so much cheaper to buy at the liquor store, I doubt a happy hour ban would have the desired effect of reducing consumption?

It will never work. College kids drink less in public because its expensive. If you want kids drinking cheap vodka mixed with fruit for 20 cents a shot (cost) out of a Rubbermaid in an overcrowded fire hazard basement then pass this legislation

Good call.

Next, they’re going to ban puppies that pee on the carpet and sunshine, because it causes cancer.

btw, binge drinking is NOT a public health problem compared to about 196 other more dangerous things, you know like jay walking and not chewing your food.

This is nothing but oppressive “save the children because it makes us look good” crap. Fire these assholes and burn down their houses.

If they want to address binge drinking in other ways, fine. Don’t dictate what sort of specials, targeted advertising, and promotions a business wnats to run.

I mean banning bar games? Beer pong?
I used to play billiards for drinks, maybe they should ban pool too. Selling one drink at a time? Stupid.

and all this when business are hurting with decreased sales, etc. Brilliant.

yeah, I guess the ridiculous stuff like 3-for-1 “yag bombs” from 10 to midnight with a college id could deserve some scrutiny, but certainly not your traditional happy hours….

At some point, college kids are going to have to learn to take care of themselves. I drank a lot in college, but always (almost) knew my limit. It’s not hard to figure out how much you can have and not fall into the river.

Here is something that should be asked of any bureaucrat: Who elected you to be a nanny?

Jeffk: I noticed the Portland thing too. Why is Portland always popping up in annoying comparison to the TC?

On another note, if they try to ban FOOD happy hour specials, I will protest mightily.

A friend who lives in Boston said they can’t have happy hour drink specials there, only specials on food. When I heard that I thought, wow, I can never live in Boston. If Mpls passes a no happy hour ordinance, I think I’m going to have to move.

Seriously, how can they make the case that this is some public health problem? Thousands of kids go out drinking every weekend, and only a few of the wind up dead or hurt per year.
I say natural selection. If you are dumb enough to have 21 shots of booze in a night….

I wonder what a republican city council’s take on this issue would be….? Is there such a thing even?

I suspect a Republican city council would be similar. Moorhead legislated happy hours a number of years ago when Morrie Lanning was mayor. Since becoming a Republican legislator, Lanning was the instigator of a state law banning the “Power hour.” A person can no longer legally drink at 12:01 AM on their birthday.

Republicans are just as prevalent as Democrats in legislating which substances a person can recreationally injest.

Democrats have no monopoly on legislating their various pruderies.

The laws of economics are irrefutable. It incentives exist within a market situation, economic units will make an effort to take advantage of them.

It should be safe to assume that if rules and regulations are placed on a market or institution and incentives exist to get around these rules and regulations they will.

Rules and regulations are never complete so there will always be a way for players in a market to take advantage of incentives available to them.

You are right, but sometimes I think these types of ‘it’s for the greater good’ issues are more often popular with democrats, and republicans in this case would potentially give potential effects on business owners more weight, while the democrats might give more weight to ‘it’s for our kids health’ issue.

It was Ronald Reagan that implemented the nationwide drinking age of 21.

Perhaps, it is time to revisit this particular concept. If a 14 year old can legally have a beer, is it such a big deal for a 22 year old to get smashed? Alcohol is the sign of adultness, and thus, young adults binge drink to prove their worthiness of adulthood. If you remove this perception, doesn’t that remove the binge drinking? Discuss…

I guarantee that the neo-prohibitionists who now populate MADD have their fingerprints on this piece of legislation.

Their legislative strategy is all about chipping away at the status quo until no one will be able to legally consume more than one drink a day.

Coming attractions from your MADD overlords? .04 DUI. You heard it here first!

Don’t they understand that the easiest way to get rid of binge drinking is to make alcohol more available, cheaper and easier to get?

Oh and maybe let people drink in a same atmosphere like the dorm cafeteria? It’s the culture not the industry that needs to be changed and laws that make liquor harder to get and more expensive drives people to drink cheap vokda mixed with gatoraide as fast as they can to maximize the drunk.

I just took another look at the MN Dept. of Health slide show, and it is not very impresive, IMHO.

It has very little hard data, makes some big assumptions and uses anecdotes to support its case.

The slide show talks about drinking by 13-16 year olds. Unless this is about underage drinking, why is that included in this discussion?

You are right, but sometimes I think these types of ‘it’s for the greater good’ issues are more often popular with democrats,..

I don’t buy that for a second.

Same sex marriage (same sex sex, even, in some places), adoption/foster parenting by gays, porn, strip clubs, gambling,  marijuana, public swearing, visible thongs, low riding jeans, are all issues where Republicans have taken a “greater good”stance for restrictive legislation.

True, but most of those are tied to a percieved ‘morality’ stance… Republicans are well known to think they know how all of us should behave morally.

I was thinking more along the lines of smoking ban…which was considered a public health issue, much like this happy hour thing we are talking about.

It took 49 comments for you to spit out “I was thinking mora along lines of the smoking ban…”

Pretty lame.

Let it go, baker. Even I’m getting tired of that old debate.

Next!

haha, you telling me to let it go? That’s rich, bob.

Isn’t tho? (grin)

“.04 DUI. You heard it here first!”

.04 DUI is already on the books,if you’re breaking another law while driving you can be charged with .04 also it’s the level for commercial drivers even if they’re not at work.

@baker: Democrats approach “lifestyle” issues, like drinking and smoking, from a social engineering viewpoint; Republicans approach the same issues from a concept of morality.

The Puritans were hardly democratic and their leadership wielded vast control over how their communities behaved … to the point of banning dancing, public drunkedness, and requiring members to observe the Sabbath by sitting in a church for 8 hours.

Now, really, why do we pay such high respect to a people who would ban dancing?!

ALso,

“Minneapolis is in the process of forming a task force to take a closer look at the recommendations and decide if it should be considered by the city council”

Forming a task force? Doesn’t Minneapolis currently have a little bit of a budget problem?

Maybe there needs to be some binge ordinances enacted against city councils.

Someone had to bring it up. It takes rumors of the Death of Happy Hour to get this crew agitated. Cigarette smoke just makes the crinkle their nose.

And actually, I think this is a perfect example to use here.

The concerns are the same (binge drinking problem vs. effect on business), the goals are the same (public health vs. ‘let me run my business’),
and the advocates for both sides are also likely the same.

I don’t see bob agitating for the happy hour ban.

Seems to me the discussion of the smoking ban was conceptual, not directed at anyone.

Seems to me the discussion of the smoking ban was conceptual, not directed at anyone.

On the contrary, Rat….

baker, I think a public health argument is on firmer ground in a free/democratic society than a morals based argument.

i.e. the potential of someone’s smoking/drunk driving etc. causing injury to ones person or property is a stronger claim for legislation (even under a libertarian regime), than ones sense of morality being offended.

I think smokers get a larger share of moral indignation directed at them than non-smokers. You’ll see the requisite condemnation of it here shortly, but nonetheless….

(crickets)

… the potential of someone’s smoking/drunk driving etc. causing injury to ones person or property …

I wish that people would stop being so judgmental about what I do to myself. If I want to get hammered, let me be. If, however, I choose to drive a car after getting hammered, well, then, you have grounds to make some kind of law in the interests of public safety.

One argument, I imagine, would be that happy hour specials increase the number of people going out and getting hammered. That increases the number of people potentially driving drunk (or causing property damage heading home). Since the police have limited resources, and can only catch a fraction of those, you would attempt to cut the problem off at the source.

Part Deux

the potential of someone’s smoking/drunk driving etc. causing injury to ones person or property is a stronger claim for legislation (even under a libertarian regime), than ones sense of morality being offended.

Except if you’re an American Taliban. Then, it’s less of an issue about injury or property damage and much more about a skewed moral indignation based upon a Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

In the Taliban world, unwed teenage motherhood is not bad because it has financial and social consequences; it’s bad because YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!

Since the police have limited resources, and can only catch a fraction of those, you would attempt to cut the problem off at the source.

So, you punish everyone for the sins of a few? I no longer buy that kind of legislation.

Well, mnblrmkr, let’s continue sliding down your slippery slope. There’s a chance that I will get hit by a bus when I cross the street, so let’s ban busses.

There are many lethal accidents caused by fog, so driving any motorized vehicle in the fog should be banned as well.

————————————-

There a a great many people who drink responsibly, even at Happy Hour. So we should punish the pocketbooks of the vast majority who are responsible by enacting an outright ban of drink specials? A charitable word for that is overreaction.

“That increases the number of people potentially driving drunk”

I hate these kinds of arguments..potential this, potential that. If you are going to argue for a law, provide cold hard facts, not assumptions.

there are all sorts of assumptions that could be made about why people might drink more.

Also, I can’t remember the last time I got completely hammered at happy hour. It’s usually 1/3 of a buzz, then go home. Am I an anomoly?

So, you punish everyone for the sins of a few? I no longer buy that kind of legislation.

I see it as  sliding scale along multiple axes. As the potential for damages, the level of  potential damages, and the randomness of  interactions with others all increase, the greater the level of restrictions that would be acceptable.

And for the record, I wouldn’t see myself supporting this happy hour ban. I don’t think it would be particularly effective, for one.

As for the American Taliban, even they try to make additional arguments besides their moral offense. Too few people agree with them for mere moral arguments for them to be successful.

Witness all the claims that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marraige. Even abortion, they’re trying to claim that women are irrevocably harmed psychologically by it.

I don’t think so, baker. You strike me as a reasonable and responsible person.

I used to have nightmares in which I am sliding down a bannister and it turns into multiple axes.

Max, you peaked at the penalty portion of the new “smoking in car with kids” bill!

I hate these kinds of arguments..potential this, potential that. If you are going to argue for a law, provide cold hard facts, not assumptions.

I’m sure MADD can provide you with all the drunk driving statistics you would care for.

…as related to happy hour specials? I’d love to see that.

MADD can’t provide you with drunk driving statistics that are factual. Only their crazy version of the facts. If a sober person hits and injures a pedestrian who has had one drink, then that is a alcohol related death. If a passenger in a car is drunk and the sober driver hits another sober driver, that is an alcohol related crash.

Don’t believe MADD.

No, it’s NOT true. It’s spin and overhype by WCCO that everyone, for reasons I can’t comprehend, is taking for bible truth.

For the facts, see here: secondward.blogspot.com.

Cam sez: “There was a story on WCCO yesterday about Binge drinking, and I wanted to let people know that despite how it may have appeared on the segment, I am not necessarily supporting banning happy hour or drink specials in the City of Minneapolis.

Looks like he’s not ruling out his support either.

That’s weasel talk.

‘CCO stated that everything was preliminary. They might have stressed the happy hour angle, but they have an out. 

Gordon can clear the air on this just stating what he thinks.

Robin, I pulled this directly from the blog you linked “selling multiple or unlimited drinks for a fixed price”.

That was in the list of proposed bans. Since most happy hours offer 2-for-1’s, I would say that everything people are saying here IS true. That is an effective ban on most happy hour specials.

Here’s a more direct link to the post “Robin” refers to upthread.

Max and the Bartels should be happy this post got the attention of one of Gordon’s staffers/supporters.

This site has been a little dead of late, but not today.

As for the American Taliban, even they try to make additional arguments besides their moral offense.

Maybe so, but just barely. Just enough to give their religious sheen a slightly opaque secular veneer in the hope their moral indignation will render common law action.

And if tara_r has to leave Minneapolis, I say it’s on Cam Gordon’s head. He’s driving good citizens out of this city.

It’s outrageous and egregious.

…as related to happy hour specials? I’d love to see that.

Yes, if I were going to actually argue in favor of it, that would be the kind of statistic I would look for.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable hypothesis that happy hours with heavily discounted drink specials could lead to increased drunk driving or other alcohol realted incidents. It probably wouldn’t be difficult to design a study to test that either.

Indeed!

Incidently, until Robin brought it up, I had no idea Jason’s Station had covered it.

Here it is.

• Limit/prohibit the sale of 40 ounce malt liquor

Why 40s?
Because with cans you have to stop and open a beer before you move on to your next 12 ounces? I suppose that 4 seconds might help you sober up a bit…

It would take a little longer if you crushed the can against your forehead.

And, no, I don’t know from experience.

Rat (and Tara), if you read the rest of his statement, it’s clear that he thinks most of these proposals have a pretty high bar to clear to win his support.

True, he didn’t rule out supporting some combination of the recommendations, but then, at this stage of the process, why would would you? They haven’t even had a chance to review the committee’s report.

I think Emily K. at CP is a MNspeak lurker…

I take it all back. Emily!

Please, forgive me…

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable hypothesis that happy hours with heavily discounted drink specials could lead to increased drunk driving or other alcohol realted incidents.

Let’s play a game:

I don't think it's an unreasonable hypothesis that [LIQUOR STORES] with discounted [LIQUOR AND BEER SPECIALS] could lead to increased drunk driving or other alcohol related incidents.

Not everyone drinks in a bar, mnblrmkr.

Off-sale stores generally don’t allow you to do your drinking on their premises, and it’s illegal to have an open container in a vehicle. The connection to the liquor store sale is going to be much more difficult to make.

@mnblrmkr: I’m not talking about drinking-while-driving after leaving a liquor store.

I’m talking about drinking heavily at a private party, then getting into a car and plowing into a telephone pole. Or punching somebody out while in an alcohol-fueled fog. Or any of a number of other alcohol-related incidents that can be committed by anyone capable of getting drunk on store-bought booze in the privacy of their own home, or friends’ house, or while riding as a passenger in a powerboat, or wherever.

Your hypothesis neglects to include those kinds of situations, which are just as reasonable as your hypothesis. Ergo, if someone wants to ban happy hours because “it’s a reasonable hypothesis” people get drunk and do stupid things, then liquor stores should be prohibited from offering their inventory for sale at a discount, too.

And let’s close to border to Wisconsin on Sundays while we’re at it because, dear God, you can buy alcohol over there on the Lord’s Day! Bloody sausage-eating heathens!

The connection to the liquor store sale is going to be much more difficult to make.

Who is talking about making a “difficult connection” between alcohol-fueled behavior and any specific liquor store? The Mpls. City Council certainly isn’t singling out specific bars, are they, if they were to ban happy hours throughout the city?

There are already laws on the books that make a bar (or any licensed alcohol-serving establishment) responsible for the behavior of their patrons even after leaving the premises.

Frankly, I think my original post may be close to the truth of the thinking that went into proposing this kind of ban: Students shouldn’t be drunk; they should be studying so they can become productive members of society.

First they came for the binge-drinkers,
and I did not speak up because I was not a binge-drinker…

“True, he didn’t rule out supporting some combination of the recommendations, but then, at this stage of the process, why would would you?”

Personally because I don’t want to see another law. He’s making it clear that he does. He’s like Bob. Benevolent, well meaning, but a regulator and an overlord.

There are already laws that limit service to God’s-own-drunk patrons. Follow those.

At what point are businesses going to stand up against this? Seriously, this is a new level of idiocy even I didn’t expect from the City Council.

Oh, and there already are laws against combating binge drinking. It is already against the law to serve and obviously intoxicated person at your establishment. How about we start enforcing that one (or increasing the penalties) before we start banning things? Crazy, I know.

You don’t take away alcohol during a recession. That’s economics 101.

Personally because I don’t want to see another law. He’s making it clear that he does. He’s like Bob. Benevolent, well meaning, but a regulator and an overlord.

Uhm, no he didn’t make it clear that he thinks that there needs to be another law. He said that he thought education might be more effective, and that there might b e ways to do that within the existing structure.

Frankly, I think my original post may be close to the truth of the thinking that went into proposing this kind of ban: Students shouldn’t be drunk; they should be studying so they can become productive members of society.

No,. the thinking that went behind these proposals was probably, “we’ve got some number of students that are killing or injuring themselves (and putting other people at risk) by binge drinking. Is there something that we might do as a society to address this issue.

“Is there something that we might do as a society to address this issue.”

Public beatings?

Your hypothesis neglects to include those kinds of situations, which are just as reasonable as your hypothesis. Ergo, if someone wants to ban happy hours because “it’s a reasonable hypothesis” people get drunk and do stupid things, then liquor stores should be prohibited from offering their inventory for sale at a discount, too.

No, my hypothesis was simply this: There may be a connection between deeply discounted drink specials happy hours and drunk driving. Nothing more. If you want to expand it, you might through in various assaults, vandalism, etc. 

That would probably be simple enough to test. Look at which bars offer these specials, and then look at drunk driving stops in the vicinity during, and/or shortly afterwards.

As a control, you would compare those numbers to areas around bars without the drink specials, or even the same area during times without the drink specials. The later would be useful as a control for demographics, which would be another factor you would want to control for.

Once you have that data, and if the hypothesis were confirmed, what steps might be taken (if any), is a completely different issue, and is not addressed by the hypothesis.

As for the liquor store sales, that’s kind of irrelevant.

If I go into the store, and by a 6 pack of beer, the store has no idea whether I’m going to drink it all by myself in 10 minutes, or a day, or even a couple of weeks.

If I go to a happy hour, and buy 3 2 for 1 beer by myself, since I can only consume them on the premises, the bar still has some control and responsibility.

@mnblrmkr: On the same level, a bar offering happy hour cannot predict the alcohol consumption of its customers when they enter the establishment. They can, and many do, monitor subsequent consumption and, because of dram laws, are legally responsible for any alcohol-related mishaps that may occur after a customer has exited.

But to equate — exclusively — binge drinking with happy hours leads one to an erroneous conclusion. Students will binge drink anywhere. Anywhere.

If you favor the prohibition of happy hours, then you must also favor the regulation of off-sale purchases which should not be kept immune from the same pricing limitations the City Council wish to levy upon on-sale establishments.

Because, otherwise, you’ll just spread the problem out … like street walkers who scatter to the side streets when the police step up prostitution patrols on main streets.

With existing laws in place, it is possible for a responsible bar owner to control the amount of drinking that is done on his property. There are no such controls easily enforced when the binge drinking is done on private and, sometimes, public property unless death is involved.

“He’s like Bob. Benevolent, well meaning, but a regulator and an overlord.”

You need not describe “what I’m like” to this group, Rat. Speak to me directly. These folks know both of us. You and I, we know each other, and they know us.

Overlord? Heh! Ask Mrs. Lungs about that!!

(grin)

I do appreciate the “Benevolent, well meaning,” Rat. I hope I can live up to those kind words…

Rat sez: “Gordon can clear the air on this just stating what he thinks.”

He has, and his position is that we should have a discussion about what the City can do about binge drinking. That’s it. We should gather a group of people – City regulatory staff, public health folks and folks in the bar business – to look at the recommendations from the Public Health Advisory Committee (not “the City,” by the way, but an independent citizen board). These folks will come up with recommendations of their own, which will be made to the Council. At that point, he’ll take a position on specific ideas.

What I can say unequivocally is that no one other than WCCO, not even PHAC, has mentioned “banning happy hour.”

Aliecat brings up an interesting point. One of the recommendations from this task force may well be to better enforce existing overservice regulations.

It’s reasonable for folks to make the claim that the City has no role in preventing binge drinking. I happen to disagree, but it’s a reasonable position. What’s unreasonable is to equate the action the Council has taken so far (which, for the record, is postponing a decision on whether or not to create a task force to develop recommendations to the Council on what the City could do about binge drinking) with “banning happy hour.” And, in my opinion, it’s equally unreasonable to state that any Council Members who haven’t taken a position against regulating any drink special that anyone anywhere has ever included in a happy hour are out to ban happy hour entirely.

Do not believe everything you hear on TV or the internet, folks, especially from this shoddy WCCO report. There is no action to ban happy hour before the Minneapolis City Council. A citizens committee took a look at binge drinking – that’s all. There is no such policy before the city, city resources did not go into this idea and no one is going to ban happy hour. Sheesh!

Looks like there already have been stipulations made in the past by the City Council liquor licenses are sought:

[from Minneapolis City Council proceedings 10/22/04]

PS&RS – Your Committee, having under consideration the application of Lucia Watson Enterprises, dba Lucia’s Restaurant, 1432 W 31st St, for an On-Sale Liquor Class E with Sunday Sales License (upgrade from Wine Class E with Strong Beer) to expire April 1, 2005, now recommends that said license be granted, subject to the following conditions:

a. the licensee shall continue to comply with all Statutes, rules and Ordinances related to the sale and service of beverage alcohol and food.

b. the licensee shall not disproportionately deviate from the sample liquor service menu, as set forth in Petn No 269954 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and made a part of this report by reference.

c. the licensee shall not feature “shooters”, Happy Hour specials, or other promotions centered on the sale of beverage alcohol, other than wine.

d. final inspection and compliance with all provisions of applicable codes and ordinances. The substitute report was adopted 10/22/04. Declining to vote – Benson.

Approved by Mayor Rybak 10/22/04.

Ok, lets think about legislating morality and personal responsibility which minnesota has been trying to do for years. This doesn’t work, we have to educate ourselves out of this mess. A philosopher once said about the future of soviet russia and the usa is that we’ll become more socialistic and they’ll become more democratic, this has become a reality. Look at the illegal roadside stops we’re experiencing, the WWII german gestapo is here!!