NH law would set drink limit to 1 per hour in bars.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 12:47 PM

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/..._drink_an_hour

So there has been talk of setting a drink limit to one per hour in NH bars. The limit is increased to 2 per meal, if ordering food. The idea has been dismissed as nonsense prior, but now is gaining serious consderation in NH. What are your opinions on this subject, do you think it is a good idea, or a bad one? I personaly think it's very bad, as the main reason poeple go to bars is to get drunk. It will serverly limit the customers of bars, and may drive many out of buisness, makeing our econmic crisis even worse.

BreakTheWalls · 02-17-2009, 1:07 PM

1 drink an hour? If that happened in the UK where the pubs have been already hobbled by the smoking ban, this will downright cripple it. It's a stupid thing to fathom. Noone would benefit from this, apart from self-righteous fuckwits who thought this was a good idea to begin with.

We're already in a recession. This will just kill business in bars and pubs.

Jade · 02-17-2009, 1:08 PM

I think this is horrible because I live in New Hampshire and like to go to bars and get drunk. 1 drink per hour will not do this.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakTheWalls

1 drink an hour? If that happened in the UK where the pubs have been already hobbled by the smoking ban, this will downright cripple it. It's a stupid thing to fathom. Noone would benefit from this, apart from self-righteous fuckwits who thought this was a good idea to begin with.

We're already in a recession. This will just kill business in bars and pubs.

Well, I might have to agree with the smokeing ban. Second-hand smoke is harmfull to others, but there is no negtive effects to being near someone who is drunk, unless they themselves hurt you ( Not the beer's fualt).

Pencil · 02-17-2009, 1:13 PM

It would only increase the amount of people getting drunk at home and then going to pubs.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pencil

It would only increase the amount of people getting drunk at home and then going to pubs.

Or poeple buying 2 meals, and then throwing them away, to get 4 beers.

BreakTheWalls · 02-17-2009, 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmn47

Well, I might have to agree with the smokeing ban. Second-hand smoke is harmfull to others, but there is no negtive effects to being near someone who is drunk, unless they themselves hurt you ( Not the beer's fualt).

I wasn't disagreeing with the smoking ban at all. In fact, I support it 100%. I'm pointing out that since the ban went into effect in the UK, the amount of people going to pubs have lessened.

And Jade, you can always go to a different bar. Or better yet, rotate between a number of them. Soblem prolved should it ever go into effect.

Pencil · 02-17-2009, 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmn47

Or poeple buying 2 meals, and then throwing them away, to get 4 beers.

I'm not sure if that would happen, that would make your beers quite expensive.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakTheWalls

I wasn't disagreeing with the smoking ban at all. In fact, I support it 100%. I'm pointing out that since the ban went into effect in the UK, the amount of people going to pubs have lessened.

And Jade, you can always go to a different bar. Or better yet, rotate between a number of them. Soblem prolved should it ever go into effect.

It's going to be statewide if passed, and maybe US wide, if a bill is made by congress. Plus, that's a lot of work, and you would need to drive, after getting drunk, the bars are pretty far away.

Iceshade · 02-17-2009, 1:20 PM

Seeing how people are saying that drinkers will drink some at home and then go to the bar, or move around from bar to bar, doesn't it look to you like this law would encourage drunk driving?

beermonster256 · 02-17-2009, 1:23 PM

Solution = pub crawl. Simple.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beermonster256

Solution = pub crawl. Simple.

It's already illeagal to serve beer to someone that's drunk. So NH pretty much ruined one of thier main sources of tax dolars.

Jade · 02-17-2009, 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakTheWalls

And Jade, you can always go to a different bar. Or better yet, rotate between a number of them. Soblem prolved should it ever go into effect.

That's a huge pain in the ass if it's cold out. Good thing I live less than a mile from at least 15 bars.

WoeStorm · 02-17-2009, 1:42 PM

Why don't they go all the way and ban drinking altogether?

CnGy · 02-17-2009, 1:43 PM

And how the FUCK are they going to keep track of that even if it did happen?

Stupid inefficient bullshit.

Hey, here's an idea, let's let people make their OWN decisions, and suffer their OWN consequences.

BassBastard · 02-17-2009, 1:46 PM

Solution: Order 1 bottle of Johnny Walker Black and One shot glass.

Better Solution: Keep the stupid fucking law OUT.

We all know strict prohibition of chemical consumption completely keeps people from abusing substances.

Iceshade · 02-17-2009, 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoeStorm

Why don't they go all the way and ban drinking altogether?

They tried that.

It didn't go over very well.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassBastard

Solution: Order 1 bottle of Johnny Walker Black and One shot glass.

Better Solution: Keep the stupid fucking law OUT.

We all know strict prohibition of chemical consumption completely keeps people from abusing substances.

Well, 50ml of whiskey counts as a "Drink" so that would be a whole lot of drinks. You would have to stay 15 hours in a bar to finish a whiskey bottle 750ml/50ml=15. Also, this will make a weed a lot more expensive buecuase, when there's no alchol poeple will want weed, and commen sense ( and the laws of suppley and demand) dictates that when there is increased demand, and production remains the same, prices will go up.

OrdinaryCat · 02-17-2009, 2:05 PM

This is dangerous and stupid.
I know a lot of the kids I know would just get shitfaced before they go, which is even more dangerous.
Mostly it's just dumb. They wouldn't be able to keep track in any busier bar/club and it would kill business. In PA, not only did the smoking ban just go into effect, but here in the city a 10% poured drink tax was put into effect last year. Also, PA has a three strikes and you're out system for underages, with no regulation for how the place has to card them, so some places are also not serving anyone under 25 after 4pm when liquor stores are already required to close at 9 and beer distributors at 11, which is killing businesses even more.
And just fucking sucks.
I always thought PA was one of the worst states to live in in relation to the Liquor Control Boards.
But if this passes in NH, I might be incorrect.

Niki · 02-17-2009, 2:11 PM

Just go to a really crowded place and don't look too different from anyone else.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryCat

This is dangerous and stupid.
I know a lot of the kids I know would just get shitfaced before they go, which is even more dangerous.
Mostly it's just dumb. They wouldn't be able to keep track in any busier bar/club and it would kill business. In PA, not only did the smoking ban just go into effect, but here in the city a 10% poured drink tax was put into effect last year. Also, PA has a three strikes and you're out system for underages, with no regulation for how the place has to card them, so some places are also not serving anyone under 25 after 4pm when liquor stores are already required to close at 9 and beer distributors at 11, which is killing businesses even more.
And just fucking sucks.
I always thought PA was one of the worst states to live in in relation to the Liquor Control Boards.
But if this passes in NH, I might be incorrect.

There's a debate about makeing it country wide.

OrdinaryCat · 02-17-2009, 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmn47

There's a debate about makeing it country wide.

Well, I guess I strayed but that was originally what I meant to comment on. If it came to PA, it would pretty much fuck a lot of places, especially the small ones. There's already bars and stores closing, I can't even imagine what this would do, besides shoot poured drink prices up even more.

lolguy · 02-17-2009, 2:34 PM

It wouldn't matter anyways. A bar gets busy enough, they can't keep track of who's had a drink in the past hour.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolguy

It wouldn't matter anyways. A bar gets busy enough, they can't keep track of who's had a drink in the past hour.

They might do it miltary style. They put a big X on one hand, and for the second one they put another. In sharpie, the kind that takes hours to get off.

lolguy · 02-17-2009, 2:40 PM

Maybe, but I don't think they would go through all that hassle. A lot of bartenders will just say, "Fuck it," and give these people drinks.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolguy

Maybe, but I don't think they would go through all that hassle. A lot of bartenders will just say, "Fuck it," and give these people drinks.

Once again, a state crime, which can lead to the bar loseing their liquer licence, which is very expensive, and hard to get in the first place.

lolguy · 02-17-2009, 2:58 PM

Which leads to a riot, police showing up, more riots, police being overwhelmed, and then country-wide riots.
Proof right there that this would be the gayest law ever.

Prawnatron · 02-17-2009, 3:06 PM

Wouldn't Bartenders lose out alot through this? I think they'd be just as unhappy maybe even more, as everyone else.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prawnatron

Wouldn't Bartenders lose out alot through this? I think they'd be just as unhappy maybe even more, as everyone else.

Good point. Did anybody say they would be un-happy?

Niki · 02-17-2009, 3:40 PM

I don't understand the point of this law really. Is it to stop people from drinking? They have to know that bars aren't the only places people drink at.

Seattle_Steven · 02-17-2009, 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmn47

Well, I might have to agree with the smokeing ban. Second-hand smoke is harmfull to others, but there is no negtive effects to being near someone who is drunk, unless they themselves hurt you ( Not the beer's fualt).

If they wouldn't have done it had they not been drunk, then it is mostly the beers fault.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattle_Steven

If they wouldn't have done it had they not been drunk, then it is mostly the beers fault.

No it's whoever drank the beer's fualt. It's the same old is it mcdonalds fualt that poeple are fat debate. The awnser is NO.

OrdinaryCat · 02-17-2009, 4:23 PM

Quote:

Edwards' proposal says that operators can serve one drink per hour, four at a sitting. One drink is defined as 1 ounce of spirits, 5 ounces of wine or 12 ounces of beer.
"Here's the criteria — you can only consume so much alcohol," Edwards said. "If I give you four, five drinks an hour, you should know that this makes someone intoxicated."

What percentage of people do you think honestly drink alcohol for reasons other than to get drunk? I mean I enjoy a glass of red wine with dinner as much as the next person, but I'm typically not going to a loud, crowded bar to stay bone sober.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niki

I don't understand the point of this law really. Is it to stop people from drinking? They have to know that bars aren't the only places people drink at.

Quote:

Edwards said that since 2006, cases of overserving have dropped, which indicates not only a savings in costs from paying for counseling and administration, but also a saving of lives.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NEWS-902110371

Apparently someone sucked at writing the drinking laws in NH and people kept getting overserved and no one had any grounds to charge them on. In most states it is illegal to serve someone who is visibly drunk. I guess they're just trying to put a number on that.

Also, I was thinking about it and I'm pretty sure there's no danger of this going "country-wide". Each state controls its own liquor laws and even if it did eventually in some fucked up way get majority support in most states, it would take years for each state to get the support, draft the bill, and pass the bill, especially with a lot of support going the other way and pushing to lower the drinking age.

Actually, on that subject, when I was browsing for news of NH's law, I saw an interesting prospect for lowering the drinking age. Getting a "drinking license". Alcohol education to get it, and a sort of probation period until you're 21 with stricter rules and the loss of the license if you break them.
Any thoughts?

http://www.parade.com/articles/editi.../Teen_Drinking

Niki · 02-17-2009, 4:27 PM

Sure you shouldn't serve someone if they're obviously fucked up but one drink an hour is way too strict. They'll just go home and drink even more.

Mustache · 02-17-2009, 4:31 PM

I live in New Hampshire.... fuck

ultrasoundchick · 02-17-2009, 4:32 PM

I honestly cannot see how they would enforce this. Moreover, I can't see the bartenders and/or bar owners going out of thier way to enforce the law. It would severly limit thier income. The only ones that would be able to enforce it would be excise or undercover police. But I don't know how they would enforce it, unless the police themselves were getting caught doing it. It seems like a totally frivolous and useless law to me. What a waste of taxpayer money.

SODA · 02-17-2009, 4:35 PM

I live in New Hampshire, this is dumb as shit. Totally arbitrary. For someone my size and someone who weighs 80lbs two drinks are going to mean totally different things. Also who determines what a glass is?

I could see maybe setting a blood alcohol limit, with like a bar mounted Breathalyzer, but this is retarded.

Kashew · 02-17-2009, 4:40 PM

I like the Breathalyzer idea.

hmn47 · 02-17-2009, 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryCat

What percentage of people do you think honestly drink alcohol for reasons other than to get drunk? I mean I enjoy a glass of red wine with dinner as much as the next person, but I'm typically not going to a loud, crowded bar to stay bone sober.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NEWS-902110371

Apparently someone sucked at writing the drinking laws in NH and people kept getting overserved and no one had any grounds to charge them on. In most states it is illegal to serve someone who is visibly drunk. I guess they're just trying to put a number on that.

Also, I was thinking about it and I'm pretty sure there's no danger of this going "country-wide". Each state controls its own liquor laws and even if it did eventually in some fucked up way get majority support in most states, it would take years for each state to get the support, draft the bill, and pass the bill, especially with a lot of support going the other way and pushing to lower the drinking age.

Actually, on that subject, when I was browsing for news of NH's law, I saw an interesting prospect for lowering the drinking age. Getting a "drinking license". Alcohol education to get it, and a sort of probation period until you're 21 with stricter rules and the loss of the license if you break them.
Any thoughts?

http://www.parade.com/articles/editi.../Teen_Drinking

It's called Federal Laws. Heard of them? Also, if you want to start any new debate, start a new thread.

OrdinaryCat · 02-17-2009, 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmn47

It's called Federal Laws. Heard of them? Also, if you want to start any new debate, start a new thread.

You're right. There are Federal Laws.
If you're going to go that route, they would first have to get approval to hand over all of the states' Liquor Control to the Federal Government. There's no way in hell that will happen anytime soon.

And as far as I know there are at least two other threads that have discussed every known aspect of weed. Maybe you should go mod in those too. This is another aspect of state drinking laws, so it's still relevant.