Out of Control Policy Blog RSS

Out of Control Policy Blog Archives: 4.14.13–4.20.13

Question Remains in California “Last Call” Law Debate: Why Have a Law At All?

A new proposal would allow California bars to serve alcohol later into the night. If approved, barkeeps in the state will be able to yell out “last call” at 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m., as the AP reports: 

The last call for drinks is 2 a.m. in California, but one lawmaker believes that's just too early to set down the shot glasses and beer steins.

State Sen. Mark Leno's proposal to let the liquor flow until 4 a.m. as a way to draw more tourists — and with them more revenue and jobs — is already spawning a sharp debate from Sacramento to watering holes in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Leno said the measure would make the state more competitive with other hotspots like New York, Las Vegas and Miami that serve alcohol later into the wee hours of the morning or 24 hours a day.

Night-spot owners say a later last call will be good for business, but law enforcement officials argue that it increases the chances that cities will see more public drunkenness, violence, drunken driving and possibly fatalities.

There are cities in the US which allow citizens to drink 24 hours a day, such as Miami, Memphis, New Orleans, and Las Vegas. But every top 10 most car- accident-prone city but one has a last call law. 

  • Washington, DC: 2 a.m.; 3 a.m. Friday and Saturday night
  • Baltimore, MD: 2 a.m.
  • Providence, RI: 1 a.m.; 2 a.m. Friday and Saturday night
  • Hialeah, FL: 12 a.m.
  • Glendale, CA: 2 a.m.
  • Philadelphia, PA: 2 a.m.
  • Alexandria, VA.: 1:30 a.m.
  • Newark, NJ: 3 a.m.
  • Miami, FL: none
  • San Francisco, CA: 2 a.m.

Two of the top 5 most expensive cities to insure your car are 24-hour drinking cities:  New Orleans and Miami.

A writer for the Torontoist, Patrick Metzger, claims that in the first four months after the U.K. moved last call hours back, and did away with other liquor laws, “serious violent crime fell by 21% nationwide, and much more in some areas.”

The San Francisco Late Night Association claims that data from the U.S. National Traffic Safety Administration shows that “states with last call laws of later than 2 a.m. have fewer driving deaths related to alcohol than states which require patrons to leave establishments at 2 a.m. or earlier.”

As one blogger points out, last call laws can have unintended consequences and create situations where: 

Patrons have two options. They can drink as much as possible in the remaining half-hour, or they can get in their cars, already inebriated, and drive to the nearest store to buy more booze to continue the night elsewhere.

Nevertheless, a site called Alcohol Justice, which calls itself a watchdog against “Big Alcohol,” makes several arguments against moving last call back two hours in California, including:

  • There are few if any mass transportation options in California from 2- 4:30 am.
  • State Highway Patrol and police will have to monitor DUIs and drunk driving much later into the night.

Bars and other businesses don’t, and shouldn’t, have to set their hours around a city’s mass transit schedules. And as Radley Balko has written, law enforcement agencies should focus on reckless driving, not having big enough staffs to set up DUI checkpoints across cities: 

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.

bar

Photo by liber

Print This

Spectrum allocation: Time to get on with it

My new policy brief urges the Federal Communications Commission to get on with the business of allocating the necessary spectrum to meet the burgeoning demand for wireless services.

 

The paper was finished before Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his resignation last month. At the risk of sounding harsh, that might be addition by subtraction. One of the big disappointments of Genachowski's tenure was the lack of significant movement to get spectrum freed up and auctioned. In fairness, there were the interests a number of powerful constituencies to be balanced: the wireless companies, the broadcasters, and the federal government itself, which is sitting on chunks of prime spectrum and refuses to budge.

 

But that's the job Congress specifically delegated to the FCC. We'd be closer to a resolution--and the public would have been better served--had the FCC put its energies into crafting a viable plan for spectrum trading and re-assignment instead of hand-wringing over how to handicap bidders with neutrality conditions and giving regulatory favors to developers of unproven technologies such as Super WiFi. Instead of managing the spectrum process, the FCC got sidetracked trying to to pick winners and losers.

 

A new chairman brings an opportunity for a new direction. Spectrum relief should go to the top of the agenda. And as I say in the policy brief, just do it.

Print This

Latest Articles on Reason Foundation

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in Federal Government Privatization

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Federal Government Privatization section—authored by Reason's Adam Summers, Anthony Randazzo, Steven Titch and Victor Nava—which offers an overview of the latest on postal service reform, space privatization, financial regulation, telecommunications and more. Topics include:

  • BCFC Outlines $795 Billion in Federal Budget Savings
  • Congress Takes on Postal Service Reform—Again
  • Space Privatization Update
  • ANALYSIS: Google, Facebook, Antitrust and the “Public Good”
  • ANALYSIS: Private Sector is Best-Positioned to Lead Cybersecurity Policy
  • ANALYSIS: Privatization of Financial Regulation is Not Impossible

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Federal Government Privatization
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This



Out of Control Policy Archives