Bill to Ban Bargains on Drinks Dies in First Vote

A measure to ban “happy hours” and other drink promotions--the key element in a package of drunk-driving bills unveiled recently amid great fanfare--died unceremoniously Tuesday, garnering only two votes in its first legislative hearing.

Several hours of testimony from supporters failed to overcome opposition from the restaurant industry and what was described as a general apathy among lawmakers as the Senate Governmental Organization Committee rejected the bill by a 2-2 margin. Four members abstained.

The lack of support caught its authors by surprise, particularly since several members appeared incredulous at times with the testimony offered by the chief opponent, the California Restaurant Assn.

‘Seems to Defy Logic’

The lawmakers chuckled openly at one point when an association lawyer said she saw no direct link between cheap drinks, increased alcohol consumption and drunk driving. “It seems to defy logic,” Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), one of the bill’s two supporters, said after the testimony.

Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale), co-author of the happy hours bill, said he was confused by the outcome and promised to seek reconsideration. Russell said the committee seemed to have had its mind made up in advance and perceived no groundswell of public support.

“The red hot poker just wasn’t hot enough,” Russell added.

Although the committee turned down the happy hours bill, it narrowly approved a $20 surcharge on liquor licenses to finance a crackdown on the sale of alcohol to teen-agers.

It is expected to run into trouble, however, since license fees already generate a $15-million surplus that is shifted into the state’s general fund. Committee members said they want that money spent first and vowed to raise the issue when the measure comes before the Appropriations Committee.

Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), who sponsored the bill, said it is unlikely that he can generate enough political support to free the money.

The two bills and several related measures are the latest in a continuing effort to reduce alcohol-related injuries and deaths.

The happy hours bill sought to ban discounted prices, two-for-one specials and any other discount offer for alcohol during limited periods of the day. It did not propose to stop bars from offering free food or other inducements.

At least 14 states already have adopted limitations on happy hours.

Jim Mosier, a researcher who has done extensive studies on drinking drivers, told the committee that alcohol is extremely price sensitive, and if the price is lowered, consumption will increase.

But in testimony that brought chuckles from the committee and hisses from the audience, Jo-Linda Thompson, chief counsel for the California Restaurant Assn., said, “We could not find any nexus between a discounted price and an increase in drunk-driving incidents.”

Asked if she thought happy hour discounts cause people to drink more, Thompson replied: “I don’t have any evidence that it does.” She also said the measure is confusing and could put waiters in jeopardy if they simply serve an oversized drink.

Russell branded Thompson’s testimony an attempt to obscure the issue. “This bill does send out a message that bars and restaurant owners and the people of California are concerned about overconsumption of alcoholic beverages and that they encourage the elimination of promotional gimmicks that work to the contrary.”

Senators voting for the measure were Robbins and Barry Keene (D-Benicia). Voting against were Robert G. Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach) and John F. Foran (D-San Francisco). Democrats Ralph C. Dills of Gardena, Alfred E. Alquist of San Jose, Paul B. Carpenter of Cypress and Bill Greene of Los Angeles were present but abstained.