Episode 222: The Unhappiest Hour

7/28/2022-- This week, a surprise amendment to the State Senate’s version of the economic development bill would give cities and towns the option of ending a decades-long ban on happy hour for their own municipalities. To talk about it more, Jenn and Steve are joined by the amendment's sponsor, Senator Julian Cyr.

Later, Jenn takes a closer look at the history behind the ban and the other attempts to revive happy hour in Massachusetts.

--

Full show transcript:

Steve Koczela: [00:00:27] Today on The Horse Race, we're taking a deep dive into the history and current status of happy hour in Massachusetts. So get a $16 cocktail ready. It's Thursday, July 28th. [00:00:37][10.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:00:49] Welcome back to The Horse Race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Jennifer Smith here with Steve Koczela. Lisa Kashinsky, our beloved co-host, is off this week. But I assume, Steve, you do, in fact, have a $16 cocktail at the ready at 11 in the morning on a Wednesday when we're recording this. [00:01:10][20.4]

Steve Koczela: [00:01:11] I mean, that's the kind of thing that a podcaster salary commands, so. No seriously, we are going to be looking a lot into happy hour today. I do not have a $16 cocktail at the ready because it is only 11:00 in the morning. But we have a lot to say about happy hour. Also this week, there is a new Suffolk poll. The Boston Globe and Suffolk University have put out a new poll with all kinds of good stuff in it. [00:01:32][21.2]

Jennifer Smith: [00:01:33] That's right, Steve. I love it when I get to do this, I get to just kind of set you up and T you up and let you go. Healey is in the lead. [00:01:41][8.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:01:42] Yes. And that is consistent with past polls. So not a huge surprise there. Of course, the poll was not a primary poll, which of course, the primary is the next election. That's coming up in September. This was a poll looking at the general election and matched up Democrat Maura Healey against both Chris Doughty and Jeff Diehl and found her about the same, performing about the same against both of them. So ahead of each of them, just over 30 points. The interesting thing there is that there was some talk about whether the Doughty campaign was more it was more palatable to general election voters. So Jeff Diehl, of course, is more of a Trumpist candidate. Chris Doughty has been positioning himself more as somebody who's not a Trumpist. He objects to the term moderate, but at least not, you know, sort of in the Trump wing of the party. But that doesn't seem to be breaking through, either because people don't know him very well or just because they're, you know, in the mood for a change of pace or think Maura Healey is the right one. But the margin between the two candidates and Maura Healey is really pretty much identical. [00:02:41][58.8]

Jennifer Smith: [00:02:42] Yeah. Getting to that kind of thirty point margin between either Maura Healey or either of these potential challengers. I mean, I am interested to get your read on this one because it does sort of look like people consider, unless they're looking at a literal Charlie Baker, they have almost no interest in a Republican of any stripes really in the corner office at this particular moment, especially when Maura Healey is now kind of a one woman show on the Democratic side and has been making an active effort not to alienate more moderate voters in the state. [00:03:17][34.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:03:18] Yeah, I think there's something to that for sure, Jenn. I mean, and it brings up the interesting follow up question, which is what is the future of the Republican Party's access to the governor's office? You know, they've held on to the governor's office almost exclusively for decades, with the exception, of course, of Deval Patrick. But is that over? You know, that's the real question is, has the partisan realignment that's happened ended that for good? Or if there is another version of Charlie Baker or someone similar to that and kind of in the model of past Massachusetts governors that comes along, you know, will that person be more palatable? Or is this just the end? Will Democrats now have every member of Congress, both senators, every constitutional office and supermajorities in both houses? You know that, we won't know that this year, of course. But, you know, looking 4, 8, 12 years ahead. That's that I think is really an interesting question. [00:04:10][52.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:04:12] And pivoting on up the ballot to the federal side, we also now know how Massachusetts feels about Joe Biden and it is way less rosey than they feel about Maura Healey. [00:04:22][9.8]

Steve Koczela: [00:04:22] Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, looking back to Joe Biden's, you know, early days in Massachusetts, you know, as part of the Obama-Biden administration, you know, back then, Barack Obama as a Democratic president was extremely popular. You know, often approval ratings in the high sixties, you know, very popular. Joe Biden, 41% approval in Massachusetts, 48% disapproval. Reflective, I think, of what we're seeing nationally, where his numbers are very, very low. There was an interesting poll that came out this week from CNN that showed 75% of Democrats don't even want Joe Biden to run again. So what is the future of, you know, the Biden administration of Joe Biden himself? If you're looking at those kinds of numbers in Massachusetts, it just says that, you know, you've got problems when it comes to your national political stature. [00:05:11][49.0]

Jennifer Smith: [00:05:13] And then I think, you know, pivoting right on along, we're going to do a little bit of a look back at a topic that you'd spent a segment chatting about with Sam Gross of the Boston Globe a few weeks ago, which is the licenses for immigrant drivers, where are people at right now on polling for the ballot question around repealing the existing law that would permit undocumented immigrants from having licenses? [00:05:40][26.4]

Steve Koczela: [00:05:41] Right. So the legislature recently passed this law, of course, and the Globe last did a poll right around then and found people pretty much divided on the topic with about the same number who support versus oppose the idea of passing the bill in the first place. But the question that we posed back then was, will this change once it becomes law? And it has changed. So now, you know, as opposed to then, when support and opposition was roughly even, we see 34% saying that they would support getting rid of the law. So repealing it. And 58% say that they would oppose that or that they want to keep the law. And there's a couple interesting reasons for that. One is partisanship. You know, so as we've seen many, many times in recent years, whatever the Democratic position is on an issue that becomes polarized, tends to be the one that wins in Massachusetts just because of, you know, the sheer advantage in registration and identification that Democrats have among voters. So, for instance, back then, 69% of Democrats supported passing the law in the first place. Now, 82% support keeping the law. You know, as this becomes partisan, as it becomes communicated about more and kind of becomes more of a thing in the political media, Republicans will oppose it more, Democrats appear to be on track to support it more. And that means that support is going to increase. So I think for the opponents of the repeal, that this movement is very good news. [00:07:09][88.0]

Jennifer Smith: [00:07:11] It does get to the kind of basic presumption that it's way harder to get rid of things than to create them in the first place. And once we have them, there is a lot of inertia that suggests we keep them, which is setting me up for my final pivot of this introduction, which is, what are we doing here today? Is there anything else that we've just kept for a really long time? [00:07:30][18.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:07:31] Well, today we're talking about either getting rid of something which is a ban or bringing something back, which is happy hour. This is something actually which we had been working on a deep dive issue for a very long time, many months now, and had just finished recording it literally hours before the state Senate that there was news about a state Senate amendment that was going to potentially bring back happy hour. So we're very, I don't know if were upset about that, but frustrated about the timing. Couldn't you have just told us a week ahead? But anyhow, we have State Senator Julian Cyr, who is the sponsor of that amendment, here to talk us through what that's about. And then later on, we'll be looking into some of the history and research about why this was put into place in the first place and why it stayed for so long. So, shall we ride? [00:08:14][43.7]

Jennifer Smith: [00:08:15] Let's go. [00:08:16][0.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:08:23] Happy Hour and other kinds of alcoholic drink specials have been banned in Massachusetts since the 1980s. This week, a surprise amendment to the state Senate's version of the economic development bill would give cities and towns the option of ending the ban for their own municipalities. Here to tell us more is the amendment sponsor, Senator Julian Cyr. Senator Cyr. Welcome back to The Horse Race. [00:08:43][20.1]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:08:44] Good to be with you. Cheers. [00:08:45][1.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:08:47] So give us the quick rundown of your amendment and how it differs from the language that Rep. Connolly proposed last year. [00:08:52][5.3]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:08:53] So this amendment is actually not an outright repeal of the happy hour ban, which has been in place in Massachusetts since 1984. So before my time. But what it does, is it enables municipalities to essentially have the ability to allow happy hour if they so choose. So this is about giving municipalities and cities and towns a sort of one more tool that they can use around getting people to downtown or back to Main Street, something that can help small businesses. I'm certainly very clear eyed, but, you know, look, happy hour probably isn't a fit for every community in Massachusetts. I get if you're you know, you're a big college town, you might not want happy hour. Right? And I guess there's different considerations, you know, town by town. I represent 20 communities, several of those communities on Martha's Vineyard, the island towns. They're dry towns. Those towns have decided not to you know, you can't get a drink up island right now and that's up to the municipalities. So the idea here is really, you know, empowering municipalities to to make this decision. I think it's part of a tradition or not a tradition, but it's an effort that we have, you know, underway to give cities and towns a bit more, say, in their liquor licenses. So I think this is a tool that can be helpful for placemaking, for economic development. Right. How do we get COVID 19 is just so, you know, kind of reshuffled our lives that people just aren't downtown the way they used to be. They aren't on Main Street in the way they used to be. And so anything we can do to figure out, to get people there if a community wants to pursue it. And then I think this is also just about trying to move Massachusetts away from our very puritanical approach when it comes to alcohol. And, you know, I think a part of that shift has been, you know, part and parcel with recreational cannabis, which started cautiously here in Massachusetts, up to cities and towns if they want to do it. More and more cities and towns are sort of seen as the sky hasn't fallen of recreational cannabis and and they're now moving to pursue it. And I think, you know, we've seen a similar shift with alcohol. You know, I remember, you know, look, I spent more years of my life waiting on tables than anything else. And I remember, you know, working that busy Sunday brunch. Right? And someone wants a Bloody Mary and having to be like, you know, I'm sorry, but under Massachusetts law, like, I can't serve this to you until 11:59. You know, those are the changes, right? We've been sort of shifting away from that. And so, you know, this this amendment, this proposal is part of that. But doing so in a way that empowers cities and towns that makes sure that public safety and public health is sort of table and figuring out how do we do this? And so that's that's what we did in the Senate Economic Development Bonneville. [00:11:32][158.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:11:33] So you mentioned the puritanical reputation of Massachusetts and also kind of ongoing efforts to make it just a little bit more fun here in broad strokes. So if you could kind of walk us through what was your understanding of the reasons the ban existed in the first place? Because it seems to be a combination of, you know, fear around drunk driving incidents. But then in recent years, any kind of proposal to change or address happy hour law specifically has actually gotten a lot of pushback for kind of more financial reasons. [00:12:05][31.7]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:12:06] So, you know, my understanding, you know, again, 1984 sort of predates certainly predates my service in the legislature and also on this planet. You know, that this was about responding to a real binge drinking problem that we had here in Massachusetts. And, you know, I think the happy hour ban, a number of other kind of policies and interventions were put in place. I probably would think actually that it's a lot of the, you know, good kind of grassroots kind of public health work that we've done in those intervening 38 years that has really helped us, you know, get to a point where, you know, we're, you know, first in the nation with the least severe drunk driving problem. We we do really well sort of on, you know, on a number of sort of these like nationally ranked metrics as far as impaired driving and even sort of our binge drinking rates have come down. You know, look, I'm if you know me, I'm a public health person, right? I'm all about public health. I'm all about sort of harm reduction. You know, let's be honest, alcohol is the most problematic abused drug in our communities, in our society. But I think we've got to you know, from my perspective, I think it's about having programs, interventions, services that help people not at the expense of sort of prohibiting this, you know, outright. And I think things have changed since the 1980s. I think particularly on the impaired driving piece. You know, the advent of ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft means that you do have an alternative way to get home. You know, we've got a lot of communities that are served by MBTA, which, you know, when it's not having sort of catastrophic fires, you know, it is a great service, right. That people can rely on. I think that's I also think the culture has changed on this. And again, we're saying, look, cities and towns can can sort of determine and decide. They could provide the guardrails. They could say, hey, look, you know, you can do discounted drinks, but you can't do two for one of three for one. The sort of things that really incentivize that, you know, uber binge drinking. Right, right before the happy hour ends. The other information that I found really helpful and interesting. So most recently, Illinois and Kansas repealed their bans on happy hour. Illinois was in 2015 and Kansas did so in 2012 and really kind of surprisingly promisingly. When you look at impaired driving rates, there was no effect on impaired driving rates and fatalities relating to alcohol involved car crashes haven't changed significantly in those states. So those are states where people drive, right? Those are big states that have like big rural kind of populations where people are getting in their cars. And so I think that as well, you know, for me as someone who really not only respects public health, but comes out of public health, makes me think that, hey, look, you know, we can probably have happy hour in some communities here in Massachusetts, you know, whilst kind of continuing to steward, you know, public health and safety. [00:14:49][162.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:14:50] So thinking about the people who would actually be implementing this kind of the bars and restaurants, the municipality would have to approve it, but then it would come down to whatever any individual bar or restaurant decides to do. What has the response been from trade organizations to this amendment? Obviously they've only had a few days to look at it again, but there was a lot of discussion during the Rep. Connolly kind of bill cycle. [00:15:15][25.8]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:15:17] You know. So I think the reception from trade groups, I think, has been mixed from, you know, folks representing the broader economic development. I think, you know, they're they're into things that get people downtown into Main Street that revitalization. Other sort of trade groups, the Mass Restaurant Association sort of seems cold on this. I would say this is as a restaurant kid, right? They you know, I respect them. I work with them. Right? But they they tend to represent sort of the big chain interest. Right. You know, your Legal Seafoods or T.G.I. Fridays. I get why some restaurants are going to look at this and say, we don't want to do happy hour, happy hour is sort of a race. They view it as a race to the bottom and they don't need to do it right. You know, we're basically just saying, you know, this isn't saying like thou shall have happy hour at every establishment in Massachusetts. It's saying cities and towns can have this as an option. And if you as a business owner want to do it, it'll help. And I have small businesses in my district, who are eager for this I was talking to my friends who own the Provincetown Brewing Company the other day and they're like, wow, like a happy hour would be like really helpful like on a Tuesday night, right? We're open Tuesdays or do you stay open on a Tuesday? Do you stay open on a Wednesday? You know, that's that's the kind of tool that it's designed to be for small businesses. But we're not, we're not forcing anyone to do this. So I'm a little perplexed by, you know, some of the sort of knee jerk operation that we've seen, at least from the sort of bigger industry folks. But, you know, from from my perspective, I tend to listen to the the truly sort of small business folks, you know, businesses like my family's restaurant was, where we weren't we weren't members of the Red Pass Restaurant Association. Right. We were just busy kind of trying to keep our business afloat. Right? In a seasonal economy. So, you know, again, this is about a tool that's going to be helpful in certain neighborhoods and certain communities and a fit for some businesses and not a fit for others. And that's what it's designed to be. [00:17:02][105.0]

Steve Koczela: [00:17:03] How about in terms of the public safety concerns? Because you certainly mentioned some of them in terms of what was happening in the eighties and how that situation has changed since then. Do you anticipate any added public safety concerns that we should be thinking about? And if so, how does the bill think about them or what should be done in response to how that might change? [00:17:23][20.6]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:17:24] So we always have to keep public safety and public health to the forefront here. And I specifically in the amendment, we direct the ABCC to convene a nine member advisory panel to really help actually craft the specifics of these regulation. That includes, you know, law enforcement, that includes, you know, public safety. We as this was moving, we did consult several, several folks that we rely on in public and public safety. And I think their their response was, you know, I think mixed as well. I think some people some communities are going to have significant concern on this. I can envision a police chief in a small town saying, hey, look, I don't want to sort of have this, you know, but if you're dealing with another kind of community, particularly one that's got more transportation options or is a real walking community. Right. I think in my neck of the woods and P-Town, you know, the great thing about Provincetown, right, is, is you're almost always on foot or maybe on a bicycle. And so, again, because this is being implemented at a local level, you really can get input from local police, from public safety. Public health officials. I also think we need to keep, regardless of what happens with this amendment, we need to keep up on our interventions related to alcohol use disorder, which is a big, big problem. Actually, in the Senate economic development bill, we funneled $1,000,000 to a pilot program to provide actually alcohol use disorder funding in correctional settings, which has never been done before here. So I'm clear eyed about some of those challenges. I just don't think the public health and safety concern should eliminate this option altogether. And I think we're in a very sort of different place than we were in 1984. Remember that back then is when we were just sort of coming out of, you know, used to have the 18 to drink then and now the drinking age, right? It's really 21, which I think has made a huge difference in really stopping underage drinking. Right? Which has been a huge concern. You know, when 18 year olds could purchase alcohol, 18 year olds know a lot of 14 year olds. Right. 21 year olds maybe know some 18 year olds. So I think that piece, too, has changed. But we need to be honest about those concerns and have a process to figure them out. And I think we do have that in this amendment. [00:19:25][120.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:19:26] And then pivoting over to sort of the political will involved here, one thing that we've been hearing a lot over the past few months while we've been looking at happy hour regulations, is the question of priority. So what kinds of conversations did you have either with your colleagues, with your staffers, any leadership that might suggest that this is either doomed to failure or might have a bit of a go in it? [00:19:51][25.1]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:19:52] So, you know, this I will say this is very popular with staff. I've heard from a number of staffers who I think are really delighted over this. And it's because, you know, many of us, especially for millennials or Gen Z, right? You've lived in different states that have had this right? I spent time in D.C. I lived in New York for six years. You know, Happy Hour was kind of part of the culture there and actually in a way that was kind of helpful in getting people to to socialize and to kind of get out. And so I think there's there's a real sort of desire sort of there as far as the amendment. I mean, this is an idea that I floated that, you know, just seemed to have caught a little energy. And that's what a lot of settings about. Right? Sometimes it takes years and years and years of a slog to get something done. And other times you propose something and people say, hey, wait a minute, this kind of make sense. Why don't we sort of do this? But I do think we've got a funness problem or a deficit of fun here in Massachusetts. Right? Boston should be, Greater Boston has all the ingredients to be one of the coolest cities in America. Right.? You've got this incredible sort of like brain trust. It's beautiful. It's by the coast and the sea. We've got all this art and culture and history. You would think Boston would be like a super fun place. You think Greater Boston, you would think Massachusetts would be a super fun place. And from people, I know who either visit here or who live here, we're just not that fun. I mean, I arguably am from like the funnest town, but what was down, you know, in the Commonwealth, I'm pretty biased, right? But you know, in Provincetown, right? Provincetown is a pretty cool place. You know what we all do in Provincetown? We do Tea dance. We have a Tea dance every day from 4 to 7. If you haven't gone to Tea dance, you got to go to Tea dance. And why is that so fabulous? Granted, the drinks aren't discounted. The drinks are like at this point, like $15. But, you know, people get out, you see one another, you go to Tea. You have you have kind of community. Right. And I think that for those of us who, you know, I think of my time in D.C. where, you know, happy hour is a real important part of culture where, you know, a lot of professional development and socializing would happen. Right. And it was just really helpful in the sense of of place. And as we really tried to figure out how is Massachusetts this, you know, competitive, dynamic place in the 21st century where we're competing against, you know, not only other states, but but other countries? This is just sort of one tool that some communities might want to have. Why can't we have that? [00:22:14][142.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:22:15] Yeah, just to build on that a little bit. We did a quick survey of recent articles about Boston and nightlife and found the words sedate, dull, never been a fun city, quiet and snooze fest were the words it's. [00:22:29][14.3]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:22:30] No, it is. I mean, it's you're 110%. Right. And you know, I was out the the night and I think we stayed out past like 11. You know, we're in the Back Bay and we realize we're like, oh, like we could we couldn't go anywhere we wanted. Like, I could you can't even get a pizza, right? And it's like, I don't know. I just think we, you know, and you're hearing voices who are wanting to kind of change that, right? Like Mayor Wu. And I think other folks, especially among millennials, are saying, hey, look like we have so many ingredients to be this dynamic, fun, social place. And look, we've got to always put public health and safety foremost in our mind. But how is it a way that we just make Massachusetts a little more of a dynamic social place, I don't think that happy hours a silver bullet here like whatsoever. But it's a tool. And I think it's a tool that might help sort of chip away at, you know, chip away at the sort of environment here. And I get why you know, look, this is a this is a hard state to live in, especially when it comes to the cost of housing. And you've got amazing employment opportunities and amazing educational opportunities, but the cost of living is really high and it's no fun. I understand why fellow millennials are, you know, not sort of staying here. Is happy hour going to change that outright? Hell, no. But it might help. [00:23:43][73.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:23:44] And you know, the other thing that's been floating around this discussion and of course, the reason that the question of public safety, drunk driving, all of this keeps coming up is, you know, depending on legislative will, it might be down to the governor or whoever the governor is at the moment. Governor Baker has said that, you know, he's remembering the eighties and it would take a lot to make him get on board with the change to happy hour rules. Maura Healey also hasn't been very enthusiastic about the idea. So what's your thinking about the future of this sort of legislation? Would you hope that the legislature would override a veto if it came down to that? [00:24:22][38.3]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:24:23] So in this scenario, right. We're probably not going to have the opportunity to override the veto. The bill is sort of the last thing we often get over the finish line on. This is really popular. Like 70% of I think MassINC had a poll that had 70% of respondents saying that they they wanted to have this option. So. [00:24:41][17.5]

[00:24:42] I can confirm that by way. I can confirm that they did. You can get that ragtag band over at MassINC. [00:24:47][5.0]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:24:47] Yeah. And, and the amount of kind of attention this has gotten right, this is something that we have we have not sort of ginned up attention on. Right. That this this happened. You know, it was an idea we put out there. It was accepted, we advanced it. And I think there's just a lot of interest in this. And I think a lot of people in Massachusetts are just interested in having more vibrant, dynamic downtowns and main streets and sort of more options. And so I think I think this is pretty darn popular. And so no, look, I'm not sure the outcome whether it'll be successful in sustaining this in conference, whether if it's in conference, you know, what does a governor do. But I think we really struck a chord here with people. And, you know, I think good public policy should be responsive to the needs and desires of its public right, within the confines of constraints of keeping people safe and taking into account health. And so, you know, that's that's what we're just trying to advance here. [00:25:38][50.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:25:39] All right. State Senator Julian Cyr, thank you so much for joining us and walking us through this. [00:25:43][3.4]

Sen. Julian Cyr: [00:25:43] Good to be with you again. And cheers. [00:25:45][1.8]

Jennifer Smith: [00:25:48] So now with the current state of things recapped with Senator Cyr and our eyes on the Senate and the governor, now let me walk you through some of the other elements we explored over the past few months, starting with what might seem like a really simple question why are we talking about drunk driving and happy hour? As we noted, Senator Cyr, drunk driving was the reason Happy Hour and other kinds of drink specials were banned in the first place. But that ban wasn't the only tool in the policy book. Nationally, the same year of the Massachusetts ban, the federal drinking age went up to 21 as Cyr noted. Some 700 new drunk driving laws were passed over the next few years in the eighties across the country. So Massachusetts rates of drunk driving went down, but so did all the other states. And the success of those changes really depends on your data of choice. What do I mean by that? Well, Massachusetts has among the lowest rates of drunk driving per capita in the nation. But when it comes to the percentage of drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of all driving fatalities, which is the metric the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration uses, we're actually right in the middle nationwide. Over the past decades, some people opposed to reconsidering the Massachusetts happy hour ban understandably bring up some really horrible incidents related to driving under the influence. But certain things have changed since then when it comes to getting home safe. We talked with BFF off of the pod, Katie Lannan now of GBH News about that. [00:27:15][87.0]

Katie Lannan: [00:27:16] People are worried about when they make this argument. They are talking about a string of deadly crashes that involved drunken driving. That involved people who who may have been overserved because alcohol was free or cheap and got behind the wheel. And a lot of those, I think, were were tragedies that people remember quite vividly. Now, the flip side of that is the argument you hear proponents of bringing back happy hour make is that services like Uber and Lyft and just kind of the changed public sentiment around drunk driving over time. Makes a different dynamic today. [00:28:01][45.7]

Jennifer Smith: [00:28:03] This was actually an interesting point of contrast between the governor and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Back when Rep. Connolly's bill was floating around. Governor Baker said he thought the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving would oppose happy hour changes. It turns out they don't really care. Quote, "We want people to choose a sober driver or other mode of transportation before drinking." They wrote in a statement. And for establishments to post information on cabs, Ubers, public transportation, etc. When it comes to their position on drink specials, MADD said overall that they don't get involved with the sale of alcohol. Their concern is that no matter what kind of social activities are happening, that preventative safety measures are put in place ahead of time. By the way, just to throw this out there, there are really good reasons to worry about the consequences of just more drinking in general. Senator Cyr mentioned kind of binge drinking as a big problem. And Dr. Victor Puac-Polanco, a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, and his team did a dive into the existing research and found, as you might expect, a correlation between behaviors we associate with drinking and more access to alcohol via drink specials. Now, there are two notes here. One, there are a lot of things aside from drunk driving, that can happen if people drink too much. You know, that might involve getting into fights. It might involve risky sexual behavior, all of this stuff. But also drink specials means all drink specials. That's like a two for one drink, special bar games, pictures of beer being sold to just one person. But there's shockingly little evidence looking at happy hour alone, unless you're good with one study from 1986 in Toronto. [00:29:45][102.9]

Dr. Victor Puac-Polanco: [00:29:47] So I think it's good to have new evidence, right, because we want to make sure. I think the argument against that is that all the evidence is so outdated. So let's look at the evidence. Let's see what the recent data is and if the recent data is telling us that, you know, they still are effective. I think, you know, we have to support those decisions. The policy makers have to make those decisions based on evidence. So it's definitely an urgent need, not just in Massachusetts, but new evidence in the US. [00:30:16][28.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:30:17] And if the point of the ban was actually to reduce alcohol consumption, generally, there are many forms state policy can take to do that. Like upping alcohol taxes or imposing obligations on bars, not to over serve, for instance. But there's no real consistency when it comes to Massachusetts policymakers and whether they think drink should be cheaper and easier to get. Since drink discounts were banned, the states actually made it possible to get alcohol free at a casino, as takeout at a restaurant, to refill the growlers at breweries and even for home delivery. Just last week, the legislature legalized direct winery to consumer shipping. So to be honest, it's clearly not that the state is against drinking as a matter of policy. And a happy hour also doesn't mean just one thing. Many states actually most states have some restrictions on when you can reduce prices and how you can advertise those reduced prices. Massachusetts' rule, basically says that the price of a drink over the week is the price of a drink over a week. If municipalities and then individual restaurants and bars could have flexibility, they might actually come out with different types of specials. Nia Grace, owner of Darryl's Corner Bar and Kitchen and the Underground Cafe and Lounge said they've compensated with reduced priced foods during quote unquote "appy hours", but could easily envision incorporating drinks. [00:31:34][77.6]

Nia Grace: [00:31:36] I mean, if I could have a happy hour that's right after work for 2 hours, that's how I would implement it. You know, that's that typically is a slower period for a lot of restaurants. We call that, you know, the time right before a prime time. Prime time is typically 630 to 930 where most people are dining. And so if I can offer a happy hour from 4 to 6 where you can, where in fact, yeah, you can dine with us and, you know, get this drink special and pair it with this food special. I don't think it makes people overindulge. I think the impetus is there. Well, now I can spend money. You know, I think that that's what we're talking about now. I can go out and enjoy this period. [00:32:18][42.3]

Jennifer Smith: [00:32:19] So why did Connolly's bill, which would have set up a commission to just look at the evidence and consider bringing back some form of happy hour, get such push back and ultimately perish in the graveyard of legislative study? Well, it wasn't because of the polling at the time. Steve is out for the segment, but his dear folks at Mass Inc did find that 70% of residents wanted to bring back happy hour at the time that Connolly's bill was being proposed. You may have noticed that Senator Cyr described his amendment as a first attempt to reconsider the question. But coming at it as a millennial and a lawmaker who looked at other states, saw that they had neither descended into lawlessness nor killed the local restaurant industry and said maybe we should let cities and towns decide. The reason this came up last year was because we were in the midst of a capital P pandemic, along with cocktails to go and outdoor dining changes. Loosening happy hour rules was a potential tool for helping the industry dig out from COVID. Rep Connolly told us that when the rubber hit the road, though, other considerations took priority. [00:33:21][61.6]

Rep. Mike Connolly: [00:33:23] I think for us as legislators and I'll start with myself, unfortunately it just hasn't been a top priority for me or for my colleagues, obviously, particularly with those secondary and the third wave of COVID. We've just had more pressing matters on our minds, whether it was the ARPA bill or redistricting or responding to the ongoing concerns with COVID. And so I think, you know, for a first time bill, obviously, it's rare for a bill that's filed for the first time to make it too far in the process. So, you know, it really was something of a trial balloon. [00:34:11][48.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:34:12] And, you know, this does come up every few years in discussions about happy hour. The voices we generally hear from aren't actually residents. Restaurant associations have been negative on the prospect before and still say it isn't a priority for them either. Katie recapped the 2011 to 2013 discussion around drinking in Massachusetts casinos. When we talked to her. [00:34:33][21.2]

Katie Lannan: [00:34:34] One of the biggest times that this has been debated was in 2011, when Massachusetts was pursuing the legalization of casino gambling and bringing casinos to Massachusetts. As part of that, there were decisions to be made about whether those casinos would be able to offer free drinks on the gaming floors like you see in other states. And the real question that came into play there was whether that would be fair to other restaurants that can't offer a half-off beer from 5 to 7 if it would put the existing local businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Ultimately, after some some pretty intense debate there, both in the legislature and in kind of the public realm, what happened is the lawmakers agreed to a study, a different kind of study, a review that involved public hearings and different efforts to examine the effects of policy there. The report that came out. Back to the idea of sticking with the ban, keeping it in place,. [00:35:49][74.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:35:51] And the rationale for that. And, you know, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but a lot of the rationale for that seemed to be coming from the restaurant associations, basically saying kind of like you mentioned, this is going to put them at a disadvantage. Were they the loudest voices in the room on that discussion? [00:36:08][17.3]

Katie Lannan: [00:36:09] One of the things that is interesting is one of the biggest proponents there was actually a sitting lawmaker, now the mayor of Weymouth, Robert Hedlund. He was really the champion of that in the legislature. And there hasn't really emerged this time around someone who's really passionate about that issue. And another thing that was interesting. Is that the restauranteurs were among the same people. Obviously different groups of people in the restaurant industry. But you did hear a lot of restaurant voices at those hearings. You know, back ten years ago talking about the public safety concerns that they had about bringing happy hour back. You know, a lot of them talked about remembering the the heavy drunk driving days in the eighties that prompted this ban to be put in place to begin with. So it seems at the time that there was not really a uniform voice speaking out from the restaurants. [00:37:11][62.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:37:12] So when Connolly's bill made it to a hearing in 2021, he also got pushback from package stores about potential competition. There was also, by the way, a brief attempt to bring it back by ballot question, though it never went anywhere. There were no big names or major political organizations involved with that and almost no money behind it at all. Just Nick Silveira, a trial attorney who thought our laws were kind of out of whack with our neighbors. [00:37:35][23.0]

Nick Silveira: [00:37:37] You know, the more you travel as an adult to other cities out of state, the more you sort of realize how refreshing it can be to go to have a, you know, 5 p.m. drink special. Or, you know, you realize, well, why can't responsible adults make these decisions on their own? And then you come back to Mass and you encounter sort of what I think are, you know, one of many draconian laws that that I think could use could use refreshing. [00:38:06][29.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:38:08] Nick's perspective ballot measure died on the vine, so to speak. The ballot question Nick proposed was pretty broad, too. It would have simply overturned the entire slate of drink special restrictions in Massachusetts, not just bring back happy hour, free drinks and bar games involving drinks as prizes would also have been back on the table. It wouldn't have been a happy hour specific rule. It would have just reversed all the restrictions that we currently have around drink specials. Now, a UMass Amherst poll in November asked registered voters how they might vote on that ballot measure, and 48% said yes, 26% said no, and 26% said they didn't know yet. Regardless, Nick wasn't able to gather the needed signatures to make the ballot. So while we wait to see what comes out of conference committee regarding Senator Cyr's amendment, let's kind of close out this chapter with the wise words of one Carrie Nation bar goer sipping a very expensive cocktail. [00:39:02][54.4]

Rep. Mike Connolly: [00:39:05] If it would be Happy hour? You know, I'd be happier, you know, I guess that's the name of it. [00:39:09][4.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:39:23] And that brings us to our final segment, which was a mailbag question we posed to you last week. We asked for your most impressive offensive or otherwise memorable recipes using Cheez-Its. This was, of course, in response to the big Axios scoop that Taco Bell had canceled the tostada Cheez-It. And boy, did you respond. [00:39:40][17.0]

Jennifer Smith: [00:39:41] We got to start off strong too, with Tom Bernard saying Cheez-Its, the duct tape of crackers. Just brutal. Brutal. And I mean, actually, is that an insult? I like duct tape. I don't like eating it. [00:39:52][11.5]

Steve Koczela: [00:39:53] Yeah I think it's it's meant to say that it's kind of like that it can be used for anything. And Rich Parr gave us another example. He talked about using Cheez-Its instead of Ritz crackers on baked cod. This is something that his wife is a food blogger did. Tom Bernard also said, speaking of next level, I've pulsed Cheez-Its in the blender and use them as a meatloaf binder when I've been out of regular bread crumbs. Oh, nightmare fuel. [00:40:17][24.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:40:18] Oh, my God. And then our guests on that very episode, Axios Mike Deehan suggested using the garlicky Cheez-Its as croutons. And our other guest, Katherine Carlock of the Globe, said that she was a big supporter of crumbling them up on baked mac and cheese and also did take the stance that I agree with, which is the white cheddar Cheez-It's are best. [00:40:38][20.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:40:39] Yeah, no, absolutely. I think we've done a poll about that at some point in the past. You'd have to dig through the archives for that. [00:40:44][4.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:40:46] A very official Twitter poll. But that is all the time we have for today. We hope you have enjoyed your expensive cocktails and whatever Cheez-Its you've crammed into your mouth this afternoon. I am Jennifer Smith signing off with Steve Koczela. Our producer is Libby Gormley. Please salute her as she leaves us. We are going to miss her dearly, but we are in good hands with our intern Elena Eberwein. Don't forget to give The Horse Race a review wherever you are hearing us now, subscribe to the Massachusetts Politico Playbook and reach out to the MassINC Polling Group if you need any polls done. Thank you all for listening. See you next week. [00:40:46][0.0]

[2324.6]