Update, 5-13-10: All of what I write below rests on the idea that the all-you-can-drink ban would lead to some reduction in tavern drinking, as proponents certainly hope. If that’s not true, and their lack of confidence is an inability to reduce tavern drinking, then the ordinance is an exercise in futility, and an embarrassment for being so ineffectual. So there the possibilities before proponents: (1) effective at stopping tavern drinking, but at risk of shifting unmonitored drinking elsewhere, or (2) an ordinance easily circumvented in taverns. This ordinance was ill-considered and foolish, all the way around.
Here’s a bit more on banning all-you-can drink specials. Whitewater’s ordinance is notable for its flimsy justification, and we’re likely to find a similar flimsiness in other ordinances yet to be proposed.
I wrote about two aspects of Whitewater’s ban last week — its bad origins and the false empiricism used to justify the ordinance. See, Whitewater’s Ban on Drink Specials: Bad Origins and False Empiricism. (My two contentions: that the ordinance looks like a shield for the uncompetitive from the competitive, and comparisons of statutes to other statutes are a false empiricism, not assessing properly the relationship between legislation and public health.)
Here are four more points:
1. “Admitting” Harms. Over the weekend, a commenter by the name of For People Not Profit wrote that a bar owner in Whitewater admitted that alcohol kills. I had no idea what he or she meant, but I think I’ve found the supposed admission, from a Gazette story published online on Friday morning. Here’s the statement to which I think the commenter was referring:
Dave Bergman, owner of the Brass Rail, 130 W. Main St., said bars that offer such specials are being irresponsible and putting the community at risk.
“We’re supposed to be responsible servers,” he said. “But when you have $5 all-you-can-drink, and people get so intoxicated and possibly go out and kill themselves or somebody else (in an accident), that’s not responsible. I don’t believe in that.”
This is a remark about what other bar owners may have done, not what the speaker has done. It’s a reference to other owners (left unstated!), not to himself.
That’s not an admission, it’s a vague accusation.
It’s others, somewhere else … This is the kind of connection one makes, to a supposed harm, when one does not want to bother with the concrete, substantial, and verifiable. It’s easy, and as unsound as it is easy.
2. A speculative, inflammatory ordinance. Perhaps, one’s wondering if there was any serious public health research offered behind Whitewater’s ordinance. Stop wondering — there wasn’t. Here’s how the draft ordinance, from the Common Council packet, begins:
(a) Purpose. The City Council hereby recognizes that all you can drink specials and other offers that encourage excessive alcohol consumption can lead to alcohol abuse which causes dangerous and irresponsible behavior by persons, including operating motor vehicles while under the influence of intoxicants, domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and alcohol-related health problems, and therefore should be discouraged.
It’s all just a chain of what might happen, what could happen, with list of horrors that result from over-drinking. One doesn’t know how likely any of this will be, but it all might happen.
I’ll assume that these ill-consequences of over-drinking are more likely than an asteroid impact or a tsunami in Whitewater. How much more, to produce a concrete assessment of the scare-list provided, I don’t know. No one else in town does either, including those who drafted and those who voted for the ordinance.
I know some will contend that one shouldn’t be flippant about these harms. I’m not. On the contrary, I think the ordinance’s proponents have been cavalier, speculative, inflammatory, and ill-considerded by turns.
They want to discourage a bad thing, yet most people would prefer to discourage the bad, and encourage the good. One need not do it, and may not do it well, through legislation.
3. Ignoring the Consequences of Regulation. Note how proponents of this ordinance imply that there are only two consequences of it: reducing the ill effects of alcohol, or merely being symbolic, merely making a statement.
I will note also how much doubt this reveals. Proponents are hardly confident. It’s all
“There’s clear evidence that shows that all-you-can-drink specials and similar promotions tend to lead to overindulgence in alcohol, and that can result in public safety issues such as injuries and deaths from drunken driving and other crimes,” and
‘”It might help. I’m not saying it’s going to stop (binge drinking), but it’s a step in the right direction,” and making
“a statement.”
If proponents really feel that a statement is the most this ban may yield, then they’ve chosen the wrong method. Desire to make a statement does not justify an ordinance, but rather a resolution.
In any event, to the extent the ordinance reduces drinking in regulated, public taverns, proponents should ask themselves: Will this stop the behavior they seek to stop, or drive even some of it underground into unregulated, less safe environments?
4. Advocates of the ordinance are not sure that it will stop binge drinking, but if they’re not sure, where do they think that drinking might continue? If not taverns, then where?
Even if the amount of binge drinking in total is less, a small amount driven to a less open setting runs dangers in aggregate to public health health. These dangers of notice, access to services, and lack of licensed monitoring are real.
The ban is applied to a definite number of taverns; yet, for it all, it’s the behavior not of businesses but of individuals that presents danger. These individuals can walk or drive to darker and more dangerous venues. Ignoring as much is foolish and reckless, all for making a so-called statement.
That’s why regulations like this are no easy thing, no recourse quickly to be adopted (and certainly not the way this came about).
Note what’s telling — doubt about whether this will stop binge drinking comes from proponents themselves, and their own uncertainty fuels my contention that drinking may be driven underground. Their doubts bolster my position. If they were confident they might still be wrong; as it is, they’re not even confident.
One is reminded of the adage that one who asserts should prove. They’ve not done so, and their stated doubts act as evidence for a counter-argument.
This is more than regulatory over-reach: there’s foolishness to this approach to public heath that’s to no one’s credit.