How many more drunks?

State debating new casino booze rules

By Dave Wedge
Tuesday, August 21, 2012

State liquor officials are still mulling just how free the booze should flow at the state’s new casinos, as well as whether restaurants and gin mills should have more freedom to slash prices and run specials to compete with the gleaming gaming palaces.

“They have to give restaurateurs a little more flexibility,” said state Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican and restaurant owner. “We know the casinos are getting special privileges.

I’m not suggesting we should match the casinos. But we should take a look at the regulations and see what we can do.”

It’s expected the new Bay State gaming parlors will be allowed to give free booze to gamblers, similar to most casinos, but the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission have yet to finalize rules. A public hearing is being held today on Beacon Hill, where restaurateurs, lawmakers and residents are expected to give their two cents on just how relaxed the alcohol laws should be at the casinos.

Photo by Patrick Whittemore

LOOKING FOR FLEXIBILITY: State Sen. Robert Hedlund, who owns a restaurant, wants more freedom when it comes to rules on booze.

The hearing is also being held to review existing booze rules to help the ABCC decide whether to roll back restrictions on “happy hour” and other laws barring drink specials at existing establishments.
“The ABCC went into this with an open mind to see if the changes in the environment — the casinos, slots parlors — would dictate any changes in the happy hour legislation,” said State Treasurer Steven Grossman, who heads the ABCC and planned to attend the hearing. “It’s a listening opportunity.”

Another hearing will be held next month in Northampton, while the ABCC is slated to submit a report to the Legislature, Gov. Deval Patrick and Grossman by Jan. 30. The Gaming Commission and the ABCC will jointly create the booze rules for the casinos while the Gaming Commission will issue alcohol licenses, officials said.

Hedlund doesn’t support a return to “happy hour,” but fears free drinks at casinos will siphon away business from nearby restaurants and pubs.

“The laws are archaic,” he said, noting that many establishments regularly violate laws against daily drink specials. “They need to be reviewed.”

Strega owner Nick Varano thinks the casinos will attract more tourists and be “great for the city” but is hoping liquor officials will offer some “flexibility” with restaurant and bar owners to “level the playing field.”  [There is no indication that Mr. Varano has conducted any reason research before making this fanciful statement. Studies have determined Casinos destroy tourism. Never let the facts determine a decision! ]



“I won’t mind if my competition gets certain privileges if I get some. too,” Varano said. “I look at this as a positive.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061154716&srvc=rss

"Happy Hour" Free For All

As the victim of an 'impaired driver,' the amendment passed by the Senate to allow "Happy Hours" to return is reprehensible and the result of their willingness to genuflect before the Gambling Industry.

Not all states allow FREE ALCOHOL so no imperative exists.

Failing to consider the results in Connecticut proclaims the ignorance of those lawmakers who supported this amendment.

How come you can't sell alcohol to a drunk, but the legislation proposed would allow drunks to continue to GAMBLE?

Patrons could also sign on the dotted line and indebt themselves further to wealthy Gambling Investors, even intoxicated. You have no problem with that?

Does anyone wonder why the ABCC can study this issue for one year, but there is no INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS ever conducted?



Hedlund, Timilty back off return of happy hours
By Michael Norton
State House News Service


BOSTON — Two local state senators are backing off a proposal to bring “happy hours” back to Massachusetts.

Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, and Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, are recommending that a six-member conference committee negotiating casino legislation authorize the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to spend a year reviewing the measure first proposed as a way of leveling the playing field for restaurants and bars competing against casinos, where free drinks will be allowed.

The pair said that they hope changes will be made in the rules governing alcohol before the first casino opens in Massachusetts – bills approved by the House and Senate this fall would authorize three casinos and one slot machine facility.

Critics slammed Hedlund’s proposal to allow businesses to offer free and discounted price drinks as part of the casino bill after the senate shot down a measure to ban free drinks at casinos. Casino supporters say the free drinks allowance will help casinos compete with out-of-state counterparts.

“It’s about fairness and that’s all it was,” Timilty said. “It wasn’t about Animal House, which as I say again, is illegal. This is about putting a few more people to work.”

The senators said they hope the ABCC will review regulations that Hedlund called “arcane and archaic,” with many rules dating back more than two decades. He is part-owner of a restaurant and bar on the Braintree side of Weymouth Landing.

In a letter to the conference committee, the pair said a bar recently was able to offer tequila shots for 40 cents each because it offered the drinks at the same price for seven days in a row. By contrast, they said a regional chain restaurant was recently found out of compliance with rules for offering $1 off locally produced beers on Wednesdays night because the promotion didn’t last a week.

“This illustration shows that while our current alcohol laws may be well meaning, they are also mostly ineffective at preventing binge drinking, and so convoluted that experienced restaurant owners often unintentionally run afoul of the regulations,” the senators wrote.

The senators said Massachusetts has had 27 years to weigh the results of the ban on drink specials enacted in 1984 and copied by only Utah since. Both claimed that ban had not decreased drunk driving, saying the recent Melanie’s Law raising penalties on repeat offenders had had a more demonstrable impact.

The House casino bill didn’t address the alcoholic beverage serving rights of non-casinos, but Timilty said of the Senate amendment, “I have a sense that it’s a non-starter over there. They’re not going to recede to it.”

Hedlund agreed. “This place is not always, but often about compromise,” he said.

In a statement released by Hedlund, Ron Bersani, the grandfather of Melanie Powell, who was struck and killed by a drunk driver and for whom the repeat offender law is named, said he supports the alternative proposal. “I have all the faith in the ABCC to promulgate common sense regulations that balance public safety with a sound business environment,” Bersani said.

Alcohol-related policies have risen to the forefront on Beacon Hill in recent years. After agreeing to assess the 6.25 percent sales tax on retail alcohol sales, the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick watched as voters repealed that levy. This session, in addition to routinely passing laws granting alcohol licenses to particular businesses, the Legislature is advancing a bill giving large chains access to more alcohol licenses as they become available. That bill follows the approval last session of the so-called brunch bill, which permits businesses serving brunch to serve alcoholic beverages starting at 10 a.m. on Sundays, rather than noon.

Massachusetts: Rushin' roulette

Rushin' roulette

It’s hard to know what the right metaphor is to capture all the absurd gyrations and policymaking-on-the-run that have characterized the mad dash to casinos and slots. Sometimes it seems a balloon is the right image, with every effort to squeeze some sense into this thing merely causing another area of the casino balloon to bulge toward the breaking point. Or maybe it’s the sweater metaphor, where each tug at a knot in the knitting only unravels things a little more.

First was earmarking a cut of the house’s take to programs that try to stop compulsive gamblers from betting away the keys to the family car. (With compulsive gamblers responsible for as much as third of all casino revenues, it would present a problem for all the revenue and jobs projections if these programs were wildly effective, but that’s probably not a worry.) Then came the effort to protect existing concert venues, theaters, and other cultural institutions that are likely to take a hit when Donnie and Marie roll in for a week on a casino hall stage.

Now on tap are questions surrounding what’s on tap. The casino bill would allow gambling halls to hand out free or reduced-price drinks. The Senate included language in its version of the bill that would level the playing field by having any such provisions apply to all licensed establishments statewide. In other words, gone would be the nearly three-decade-old state ban on “happy hours.” CommonWealth’s Paul McMorrow, in his Boston Globe column last week, explained how the “happy hour” amendment was yet another effort to try to patch up a problem that casinos will cause -- in this case the hit to the local restaurant and bar economy.

“Happy hours” have been banned in Massachusetts since 1984 -- and, it turns out, with good reason. State House News Service reporter Andy Metzger recounts in graphic detail the bad old days of happy hours in the Bay State. With drunk driving fatalities piling up faster than empties in the Red Sox clubhouse, the story that finally did in happy hour involved a group of young people who got plastered on a September 1983 afternoon at a Braintree bar. One of them, a 20-year-old woman, ended up riding on top of a car through a parking lot. She fell under the car and was dragged 50 feet, sustaining fatal injuries, according to the SHNS story. The driver of the car had downed at least seven beers, according to the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. “I guarantee you that if happy hours are restored, dozens of people will be killed or maimed on our highways because of it,” former Gov. Michael Dukakis, who signed the ban in 1984, told Metzger.

Allowing the statewide happy hour ban to be lifted would defy any sound public policy rationale -- such a proposal would never be under serious consideration on its own merits. Pulling the Senate amendment from the final bill, however, would put restaurants and bars at a further disadvantage. The amendment sponsor, Sen. Robert Hedlund, who claims he’s only interested in maintaining an even playing field for local businesses (including, presumably, the Braintree restaurant he is part owner of), said his first choice would be to ban free drinks from casinos, an idea that fell flat with his colleagues. That would seem to be the policy that makes the most sense. But good sense is not necessarily what’s carrying the day in this debate. Taking free drinks off the table would mean casinos have to rely on patrons who are in their right mind, and that, apparently, is the last thing the gambling moguls and their State House sponsors want.

--MICHAEL JONAS

BEACON HILL

Speaking of casinos, Greg Bialecki, the state’s top economic development official, bought stock last year in two casino companies while he was pushing for expanded gambling here. Bialecki sold the stocks last week following questions about the investments from the Globe.

Hedlund's Ethics Questioned

What a disappointment from Senator Hedlund!


Election opponent questions Hedlund’s ethics
Election opponent seeks opinion from state on casino amendment

By Dennis Tatz
The Patriot Ledger


BOSTON — A legislative amendment to let bars and restaurants offer free or discounted drinks as part of the casino bill has become fodder for a Hull man challenging state Sen. Robert Hedlund in next year’s election.

Democrat Stephen May, who announced a few months ago his campaign to unseat Hedlund, wants the state Ethics Commission to investigate the Weymouth Republican.

May is calling into question Hedlund’s advocacy of the amendment to the casino bill that was passed Thursday by the state Senate. It now goes to a conference committee to work out differences with the House version of the bill, which does not include Hedlund’s amendment.

May said Hedlund’s amendment represents a conflict because Hedlund is co-owner of Four Square, a 60-seat restaurant on the Braintree side of Weymouth Landing. The business obtained approval from the town of Braintree this summer for a full liquor license.

“This episode demonstrates his (Hedlund’s) willingness to trade on his position and the public trust,” May said Thursday. “His offering and championing of this measure, which benefits him personally and professionally, represents a clear violation of Massachusetts ethics law.”

In a letter this week to the ethics panel, May alleged that Hedlund’s acting as the amendment’s principal supporter was a violation of ethics rules and should be reviewed.

Hedlund, who was at the State House on Thursday but did not cast a vote on the final Senate version of the gambling bill, released a statement saying he had filed a disclosure with the Ethics Commission and consulted Senate counsel about being a non-managing partner of Four Square Restaurant before offering the amendment.

“I do not blame Mr. May for seeking publicity for his fledgling campaign, but it is clear that as someone with no private-sector background he was confused by this non-issue,” Hedlund argued. “The bottom line is that Mr. May’s complaint is self-serving and frivolous. It should be dismissed.”

Hedlund said the amendment does not lift the ban on so-called “happy hours,” but instead allows businesses and casinos to operate under the same rules.

Even if the amendment wins approval, Hedlund said he has gone on record that his restaurant would not be giving away drinks.

Hedlund’s record has included tough stances on drunken driving.

A bill he sponsors would require drivers with a first-time conviction for drunken driving to have an ignition interlock device installed when their license is reinstated. The devices test drivers’ blood alcohol content before they can start the car.

Hedlund was also a supporter of Melanie’s Law, which increased penalties for repeat drunken drivers.

Tough stances of Drunken Driving don't negate the damage this amendment will cause.

Ethics Commission spokesman David Giannotti said Thursday that confidentiality regulations prohibit the agency from confirming or denying an investigation.

Hedlund represents the Plymouth-Norfolk Senate District, which includes Duxbury, Hingham, Hull, Marshfield, Norwell, Scituate, Cohasset and Weymouth.

Massachusetts: Questionable conduct knows no party

Surrounded by scandals, indictments, cronyism and the appearance of questionable conduct, Beacon Hill continued to conduct secret meetings, backroom deals and has refused to prioritize Ethics Reform or extending the Open Meeting Law to cover their own meetings.

This simply 'takes the cake' !

Please note that Senator Hedlund is a Republican, proving questionable conduct knows no party affiliation.

Why would anyone defend adding more drunks to our roads?

Author Of Happy Hour Amendment Accused Of Having Conflict Of Interest

BOSTON (CBS) – The sponsor of the bill that includes a provision to restore “happy hour” to bars across Massachusetts is facing criticism because he’s the part-owner of a restaurant that may benefit from the new law.

Democrat Steve May, who is challenging Republican Robert Hedlund of Weymouth for his State Senate seat, said Hedlund is in a conflict of interest by sponsoring the bill because he is part-owner of a restaurant and bar in Braintree.

Hedlund said May just doesn’t get it.

“But the fact is, we got a full-time legislature here dominated by lawyers. We don’t have diversity here. We don’t have enough small business people that know what it’s like to create jobs. My opponent’s never been in the private sector in his entire life, so he wouldn’t understand these things,” said Hedlund.

Hedlund said he disclosed his ownership in the bar to the proper people and on the floor of the Senate when he introduced his bill, addressing the potential conflict head-on at the outset.

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.