While making predictions is always dicey, here’s one to take to the bank: If a proposed ballot question to legalize happy hour in Massachusetts makes it onto the ballot in 2022, it’ll pass. One recent poll showed a whopping 70 percent of Massachusetts residents favor relaxing the rule that prevents bars and restaurants from discounting alcoholic drinks, a prohibition that places Massachusetts out of step with most of the rest of the country and perpetuates the state’s enduring reputation as a bastion of Puritanical killjoys.
It would be better, though, for the Legislature to get ahead of the vote and legalize happy hour on its own, while building in whatever protections against drunk driving may be necessary. The ban does have a well-intended purpose. It dates to 1984, and was enacted after a high-profile drunk driving death was blamed on a free-drinks promotion at the Ground Round in Braintree. Such discounts, the thinking went at the time, created an incentive for people to guzzle as many cheap drinks as they could and then get behind the wheel.
While it may have made intuitive sense in 1984 that happy hours led to more drunk-driving deaths, there is actually not much evidence to support the link. Illinois and Kansas used to ban happy hours but, as The Washington Post reported, neither saw a meaningful uptick in drunk-driving fatalities after those rules were relaxed. If Massachusetts voters know this, a ballot initiative in this decade may well pass here. The other reason voters would support it is perhaps obvious: Lots of people like cheap drinks and don’t see why they should be punished because of other people’s irresponsibility. And for restaurants, which have been battered by the COVID-19 crisis, the opportunity to offer happy hour promotions could help them recover once the pandemic ends.
Still, any referendum can be a blunt instrument. Just consider another unpopular anti-fun measure that voters overturned in 2016 after the Legislature refused to budge: the prohibition on marijuana. Lawmakers then spent much of the next year smoothing out the defects in the law, an ordeal that could have been avoided if the Legislature had simply legalized marijuana on its own. After all, crafting legislation is its job.
That’s why state representative Mike Connolly’s approach to legalizing happy hour would be best. The Cambridge Democrat has added language into a larger piece of restaurant relief legislation that calls for the state to “bring stakeholders together to revisit the state’s ban on Happy Hour.” Learning from other states that have relaxed their laws and talking to the workers and businesses that would be affected should help avoid unintended consequences. If there are ways to mitigate any additional risk of drunk driving related to happy hours, or the potential extra challenges for restaurant staff, that would be good to work through now, instead of playing catch-up after voters force the issue by legalizing happy hour on their own.
Governor Baker, a self-described “old fuddy-duddy,” opposes changing the happy hour law, citing the tragedies that led to its passage. Legislative leaders are noncommittal. But it’s a different world than in 1984. Bar patrons have more options for getting home safely now, thanks to ubiquitous ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. We also know a lot more now about what works to prevent drunk driving deaths, including ignition locks for offenders and high-profile sobriety checkpoints. It’s telling that Mothers Against Drunk Driving isn’t against happy hours. Drunk driving remains a serious problem in Massachusetts, but the state’s happy hour ban has outlived its usefulness as a solution.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.
