Meddling Nanny State Dickbiscuit of the Week
PORTSMOUTH — The state's top liquor law enforcer suggests a one-drink-per-hour law is a better way to revise state law than a bill supported by a group of local restaurant and bar owners and workers.
The local group wants to add the phrase "knowingly serve" to the law concerning responsibility in serving alcohol to underage and intoxicated customers.
Eddie Edwards, the state liquor law enforcement chief, said the bar and restaurant owners have a legitimate point. But he offered an alternative he called a "safe harbor" law.
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.
How does one even figure out where to begin blowing holes through this craptastic idea?
Should we start with the fact that a lot of bars and restaurants serve their draft beer in 14 and 16-oz. glasses?
Will glass size standards be next?
Will actual pints of Guinness be outlawed?
Or will they just have to do away with draft beer service, altogether, and all those "high-capacity" assault glasses?
Will bar patrons be assigned stopwatches to wear around their necks so the bartenders can keep track of every customer in the establishment to make sure they get served at appropriate intervals?
Will measuring cups and calculators be provided to parties that order a couple bottles of wine to share over dinner?
What about the alcohol content of different beer styles? It doesn't take a professional zymurgist to know that 12 ounces of Coors Light and 12 ounces of Dogfish Head 120-minute IPA don't even come remotely close to packing the same punch.
Or, should we talk about the idiotic nature of such a proposal as it applies to a 92-pound woman vs. a 360-pound man?
Would that woman be able to sue the state for ordering her drinks in accordance with the government's "common sense" guidelines, getting lit up like a Christmas tree, and then plowing into a telephone pole on her way home?
Maybe we should talk about the fact that a LOT of bar patrons have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of getting behind the wheel of a car following their beverage consumption activities?
Ooh, wait...I know!
How about, WE'RE ADULTS LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY! GET OFF OUR F***ING BACKS and stop trying to save us from ourselves, you meddling asshat!
Why are we even having this conversation???
This kind of nanny state edict (population control disguised as a common sense safety measure) be it gun laws, smoking laws, fast food laws, whatever, are all based on the default supposition that we, as grown adults and American citizens, lack the basic skills needed to live our lives in a safe, responsible, and free manner without having Big Brother Government holding our hands.
Though, I do appreciate it when they make their desire to control our lives known. It helps identify the enemy. Better to see 'em coming than get ambushed when your back is turned.
Note: Mr. Edwards' ass-numbingly idiotic proposal is not, in fact, the bill going before a senate committee for a hearing next month, as WBZ had erroneously reported earlier.