Silly Season on Beacon Hill Continues: Happy hour coming back?

Not all Slot Barns offer FREE ALCOHOL.

Those that do cause increased DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS and ACCIDENTS.

Genuflecting before the Gambling Industry, Senators defend the indefensible, using silly Industry rhetoric.

The solution of course, would have been to remove the possibility of serving FREE ALCOHOL.

That's not what the Gambling Industry wants.

Why?

DRUNKS gamble. DRUNKS willingly sign for loans to gamble beyond the money in their pocket.

A pathetic commentary on the sanity of Beacon Hill.


Happy hour coming back?
Casino amendment may be boon for local taverns
By Chris Camire

BOSTON -- Happy hour could be returning to Massachusetts.

The Senate approved an amendment yesterday that could once again allow bars and restaurants across the state to offer free drinks.

The amendment, which passed in a 25-13 vote, was attached to a bill that would legalize Las Vegas-style resort casinos

This description truly is one for the books! What Massachusetts will get are SLOT BARNS or as Senator Tucker described them "Slots in a Box."

in Massachusetts. Its supporters say it will put restaurants and bars on the same playing field as casinos by allowing them to offer free drinks if casinos are also allowed to do so.

"What I think we should allow is an equal playing field for restaurants around the state," said Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican who co-authored the amendment. "The introduction of casinos here in Massachusetts, as we've seen elsewhere, has a huge impact on existing businesses." [No kidding, Senator? Do you think just maybe the local impacts will exceed the overstated revenues?]

Massachusetts banned so-called "happy hours" at bars and restaurants in 1984 in hopes that drunken driving would be reduced by stopping establishments from offering special, low-priced alcoholic drinks during a specified time period. The law bans free drinks, discounted drinks or special "jumbo" drinks that cost as much as regular drinks.

The law would be overturned if the casino bill -- which includes language allowing casinos to offer patrons free drinks -- is signed into law in its current form.

The amendment divided area senators. Those supporting allowing bars and restaurants to offer free drinks include Eileen Donoghue of Lowell and Ken Donnelly of Arlington. Both Democrats also support expanded gaming. Senate casino opponents Susan Fargo of Lincoln, Barry Finegold of Andover and Jamie Eldridge of Acton -- all Democrats -- voted against the amendment.

Finegold said he is concerned that bringing "happy hour" back could reverse much of the progress Massachusetts has made over the past few decades to curb drunken driving.

"Part of the problem is, once a few bars and restaurants start doing it, everyone is going to think they have to do it," Finegold said. "The days of two drinks for one will have to come back, and I'm not sure if that's good for the restaurants, the bars, or anybody."

Donoghue said the amendment will have no impact on laws regulating the serving of alcohol that are designed to protect the public. She said bartenders will still need to be certified, and establishments will still be penalized if they over-serve patrons.

"As far as the enforcement of existing laws goes, no way do I see this changing that at all," Donoghue said. "Right now, if an establishment over-serves, they are going to be subject to losing their license."

Patty Stella, owner of Centro, a restaurant and bar in downtown Lowell, said although customers would like discount-drink deals to come back, it might not be in the best interest of restaurants or public safety.

"I think the way it is now is better," Stella said. "Money is tight right now for everybody, but doing the two-for-one deal means business owners would take a hit. I'd be shocked if they passed something like that. The liability is huge. Insurance would go up. You're just asking for more trouble."

Chris Bujold, owner of the Boulder Cafe in Fitchburg, was also cool to the idea. Bujold said he saw the positives and negatives associated with "happy hours" when he went to school in Connecticut.

"There is a binge (drinking) component that could come into play, but it also gives people an opportunity to experience a cheaper night out," he said. "I think any incentive we can put out there to remain competitive is something we always want, but liability is something we are always aware of."

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a national lobbying organization that supported the initial happy-hour ban, is not opposed to re-instituting discount-drink deals. A spokesman for the organization said there are tougher laws in place today to discourage people from getting behind the wheel while drunk.

"Generally, as long as establishments are serving alcohol to people who are of age and in a responsible fashion, we wouldn't be opposed to it," MADD spokesman David DeIulis said.

The Restaurant and Business Alliance, a statewide trade organization, sent out a statement last night applauding the Senate for passing the amendment.

"I would like to thank the members of the state Senate for providing an equal playing field for all restaurants in Massachusetts, regardless of location or affiliation," said Dave Andelman, president of the alliance.

The amendment was approved after the Senate voted to preserve a portion of the casino bill allowing casinos to offer free drinks to patrons. The Senate also rejected an amendment that would have lowered the minimum gambling age in casinos from 21 to 18.

The Senate is expected to continue debating the bill tomorrow.