Not long ago, Whitewater’s common council saw a proposal to regulate the drink specials that some taverns in Whitewater offer. After a half-hour discussion of the proposal, the matter was sent to an alcohol licensing committee for further consideration and recommendation to the common council. Not for unfettered consideration — for consideration to propose an ordinance more comprehensive than the one that council initially considered.
I’m not a bit surprised — Whitewater will regulate just about anything that moves, until through application of burdensome
regulation, it stops moving. If you’ve heard that small towns are less regulatory than big cities, then you’ve heard about small towns other than the City of Whitewater, Wisconsin.
Shortly after hearing about the proposal, I published a short cartoon, with an animated dog, teasing about the idea. See, The Debut of Dog X: On ‘Drink Specials.’ I published the cartoon with the idea that the regulation would pass. I’m sure that some version of the ordinance will pass.
(Some have asked about Dog X, and whether he’ll be back again. He will, I wouldn’t wonder. Right now, he’s hard at work on a study oftax incremental financing. He’s got books, papers, calculators, and used coffee cups all over the House of Dissenting Opinion.)
Proposals like regulation of drink specials offer a chance to show how flimsy is the basis for the proposal, how likely disingenuous is the motivation behind regulation, and how easily well-meaning people are swept into a regulation frenzy without any likelihood of solving problems through legislation.
A few quick points, before we begin. I’m not a big drinker, and among the range of those who drink, I would be considered only an occasional drinker. I’m not a particular advocate of alcohol, or a drinking culture. Drinking moderately is the most anyone should probably drink, and there’s nothing funny or interesting about a drunk. Sketch comedy about people pretending to be drunk is invariably dull and tired; there’s nothing humorous about a sloshed rumpot.
Special Pleaders. Take a look at this ordinance, and one finds some tavern owners, meeting with Whitewater’s police chief and city attorney, to talk about a problem. Does anyone really — really and truly — think that binge drinking is the only concern on these owners’ minds? They must also see, if they see anything at all, that a regulation against drink specials will prohibit tavern successful in the offering from out-competing unsuccessful taverns.
This ordinance allows those business that can’t keep up to use a health concern for a selfish business purpose — to use government to pressure more successful taverns.
It’s typical — and shameless — of Whitewater officials to meet a few owners, on the flimsy basis that there’s a health issue foremost in these tavern owners’ minds, and contend that this is all about public health.
That’s not the consequence of a proposed ordinance: that’s less competitive taverns leveraging government regulation so that more competitive taverns lose their advantage in the marketplace.
There’s an absurd argument that drink specials are money-losing anyway, so they should be regulated. That’s nonsense. If drink specials were truly money-losing for a business, the tavern would go under. They’re not money losing for all taverns; they’re just money losing for less competitive taverns.
A New Prohibition. If there’s nothing funny about over-drinking — and there isn’t — there’s also nothing efficacious about most drink regulations. At the least, those who advocate a regulation should be able to show that it will work. The burden should be on those proposing to restrict or prohibit adult activity to show that (1) the activity should be regulated, and that (2) the regulation will work.
America tried, and failed, to restrict alcohol for the supposed betterment of society. We neither stopped drinking nor improved society. Legislation does not make men better; if there were any hope that it would, Prohibition would have made America a better place. It didn’t; people still drank, cursed, showed up late for work, and all the while committed crime after crime in support of an underground drinking culture.
He’s what I’d say, to those who — well-meaning that they are — want to do something to stop binge drinking — this ordinance won’t get you what you legitimately want. Those who want to stop binge drinking will not stop the problem by regulating away drink specials – that small number of those patrons who are binge drinkers will gather privately for the same behavior.
Those who sincerely believe that this is a health issue are, I think, just being used by some businesses in a war against others.
Smearing Patrons. The world would be better off without binge drinkers, but not all of those who enjoy drink specials should be smeared as binge drinkers. These are adults engaging in lawful behavior, and our town has gone on just fine these many years without collapsing from the patronage at these taverns. It sounds like a public health matter, but it’s not — these patrons are not all fiends and scoundrels. Stop pretending that they are — the overwhelming majority are nothing of the kind, no matter how often one repeats the term binge drinking.
I’ve no doubt that this ordinance will pass, in one form or another.
Afterward, our town will be no safer or healthier. We will be, however, a good example of how some businesses use a health concern to legislate against competitors. The only consequence from this ordinance will be the triumph of some businesses against others. We’ll be less competitive and prosperous, but no safer.