Skip to content

New Hampshire to Propose a “One Drink Per Hour” Law?

February 16, 2009

 Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell

  Thanks to Ryan at Pro Patria for tipping me off on the following story that I somehow missed right here in my own backyard.

  New Hampshire Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, has introduced a bill in New Hampshire that would add the phrase “knowingly serve” to the state’s existing laws on bars and restaurants serving alcohol to either minors or people who are already drunk. This bill, which would help to protect bar and restaurant owners, has the support of both groups.

 But the New Hampshire state liquor enforcement czar, Eddie Edwards, doesn’t think that this bill goes far enough. He wants more, much more. He wants to create what he calls the “safe harbor” law.

 This law consists in the government regulating how many drinks a person can have while in a bar or restaurant.

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.

 This is outrageous! It was only a matter of time though, once the smoking ban went into place this was the next logical domino to fall. And it won’t be the last, what’s next? These nanny state, I know better than you what is good for you, who’s your daddy politicians want to control every aspect of our lives. Smoking, booze, trans-fats, and on and on it goes. This is government intrusion of the worst kind. The government is continuing to extend their vile tentacles into every aspect of a person’s private life. This has to end somewhere. The government should not be in the business of protecting a person from his or her own stupidity.

  I understand the dangers of drinking and driving, I understand that bars and restaurants have an obligation to make sure that people don’t become intoxicated in their places of business, I understand that it is not healthy to consume large amounts of alcohol, I understand that it is illegal to drink and drive, and I understand that this would be done for the public good.

  But I also understand that there comes a time and a place where the government oversteps it’s bounds and I understand that there are times when the government intrudes and invades on people and I understand that there are times the government tries to over-ride a person’s common sense, to become a person’s brain. These nanny state politicians trully believe that the state is smarter than the individual.

 This is just such case. This goes beyond protecting businesses and this goes beyond protecting the public, this is an invasion on person choices and private business rights. 

 Just look at this  statement from this condescending son of a bitch:

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

No shit, and that is why there are laws already in place that prohibit restaurants and bars from serving intoxicated people. We don’t need the government stepping in and actually putting a number on the glasses of wine or beer that a person is allowed to drink. This is insane, this is government intrusion, this is John Lynch’s New Hampshire.

 “Live Free or Die” my ass.

 The true spirit of New Hampshire is already dead.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

13 Comments leave one →
  1. February 16, 2009 12:48 pm

    When did Americans deem it necessary for one group of Americans to dictate to another how they should or should not live their lives? When did America become the land of the controlled versus the land of the free? Our founding fathers would die if they saw what has transpired.

    Like

  2. February 16, 2009 1:10 pm

    You said it, bud. Once you start down the path of the nanny state, it’s just a slippery slope that leads to more and more protectionist laws designed to protect people from themselves.

    You’re right though, there are already adequate laws in place to handle alcohol consumption. This is just another power grab to control the activities of private citizens.

    Sad. What is this counrty coming to?

    Like

  3. February 16, 2009 1:14 pm

    Mr. Pink Eyes – I thought THIS might just cheer you up. Not all Americans are taking these changes sitting down!

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/15/taxpayer-revolt-porkulus-protest-in-seattle/

    Like

  4. February 16, 2009 7:24 pm

    Sadly, I found out why this popped up on our local radar here… It seems that the Minneapolis city coucil is looking at putting an end to two-for-one drink specials – presumably because it encourages drinking two drinks… ugh!

    Like

  5. February 16, 2009 7:56 pm

    I don’t know when it happened, it started slowly before anyone realized what was going on and it has grown into what we have today. This idea that the government has to protect the people from themselves is insulting to me. It isn’t going to stop anytime soon.

    Ryan, Massachusetts and New Hampshire ended the two for one drink deals years ago, maybe that is where the whole nanny state thing began up here.
    A couple of years ago the family and I were in Florida on vacation and we went out to eat dinner. When we ordered drinks and were given two the wife and I couldn’t believe it. That is when I began to realize how strict this part of the country had become.

    Like

  6. February 16, 2009 7:58 pm

    I just checked out that link Dominique, I hope that people showed up for the protests! I love the idea of roasting the pigs.

    Like

  7. llabesab permalink
    February 16, 2009 9:46 pm

    Yeah!! But what’s the alcoholic content? Some beers are 3%; others are 6%; and some are 13%. Is there going to be a “narc” in every bar who will measure the alcoholic content of each drink?

    Don’t Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe come from somewhere around there? That would explain it.

    Like

  8. February 16, 2009 9:51 pm

    Al Capone had a solution for these kinds of nanny types. When will they get it through their skulls that these kinds of restrictions just create black markets?

    Like

  9. February 16, 2009 10:15 pm

    It doesn’t even matter to this clown what the alcohol content is. This is absurd.

    Mr Pink Eyes; bootlegger, that might be a plan rjjdg. These people really don’t consider the consequences of their actions.

    Like

  10. February 17, 2009 11:41 am

    Interesting. I guess I’ve never looked too much into drinking laws. Why would a state make a law to prevent a private business from serving 2 for 1 drinks? There is no logical rationale for it. We have drunk driving laws, we have laws against serving intoxicated people… So where is there any sort of justification for laws like this or the 2 for 1 laws??

    Like

  11. Alfie permalink
    February 17, 2009 11:53 am

    It would be pretty ironic if any stimulus $$ ended up going to rehabbing all the closed bars and restaurants that closed secondary to this line of thinking. In MA we don’t have Happy Hour anymore and certain establishments won’t serve you a “layered” drink like a B52. On the flip side you can almost always get a seat. Well until we get the Deval 25 + meals tax. Home dinners and a bottle of brew from my latest trip to NH. That’ll help the economy.

    Like

  12. Deb permalink
    February 18, 2009 7:02 pm

    I can’t imagine the restaurants are too happy about this. This goes beyond protection. People will not go out to eat anymore. A colleague of mine had two of her relatives with incidents in Salem, NH: a 27 year old woman was refused a third margerita in the chain restaurant by the same name. She was not intoxicated, she was not driving, the server said she was too small, she could not handle it. How the hell do they know what her tolerance is, petite or not? A 30 year old woman brought her 13 yr old niece food shopping with her in Super Walmart. She had a lot of food and some wine and beer. The cashier said she needed an ID from the 13 yr old to sell the 30 yr old the wine and beer. HUH? Sorry S., NH is turning into Nanny central.

    Like

  13. February 18, 2009 7:19 pm

    This is getting to be too much. Those two stories are exactly what is wrong here and all over the US. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: