Hey, there! Log in / Register
City opposed to Red Sox selling mixed drinks to the sort of people who can't afford luxury boxes
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Irrelevant Fact Award of the Day
from the Globe article:
The Globe fails to point out that this happened on an away-game day and therefore had absolutely nothing to do with alcohol sales inside the ballpark.
It's the old ploy of putting
It's the old ploy of putting two unrelated dots next to each other and allowing the reader to connect the two. Thank ancient lawyers for developing that 10,000 years ago.
While the anecdote as
While the anecdote as presented is misleading it doesn't have "nothing to do" with the larger argument. One could use this as evidence of how rowdy Sox fans are even without the team there and thus argue that allowing them to get even more inebriated at a home game poses the risk of violent confrontations like the one that led to Snelgrove's death.
No, actually, it really has nothing to do with the argument
These were college kids who just swarmed out of the dorms to go have a riot because it seemed cool. Were they "fans"? Maybe. I'm sure a lot of them bought or were issued regulation Sox caps on the first day of freshman year.
But in terms of incidents of people coming out of the venue and rioting en masse? Doesn't happen, at least not in Boston. Drunken stupidity, sure. But the big civil disturbances that happen have nothing to do with ticketholders.
What's with all the Globe
What's with all the Globe commenters bitching about people drinking and driving? Like someone DETERMINED to get hammered can't do it off beer, or at Cask before the game, or by sneaking in nips or something.
Also, I've had the mixed drinks, at least at the Garden. Probably not as much alcohol in those as in the 20 ounce beer.
NO DRINKING!
WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO DRINK TO HAVE A GOOD TIME. I HAVE NEVER DRANK AND I'M STILL FUN.
that pretty much sums up 75% of the comments on any story regarding drinking in Boston. Want more liquor licenses? No. Mixed drinks at fenway? No. People drink too much. As BR said, if I want to get drunk, I can do it off beer, or at the cask, etc. Let people choose, make decisions and if they make the wrong decisions, punish them. Same goes for the anti-happy hour/groupon laws. Last I checked people were still getting busted for drunk driving...yet we have these laws in place to "protect us". Guess what, they aren't working and the only people being punished are the law-abiding citizens who enjoy having cocktails with friends.
I enjoy a good drink but....
you are wrong that the laws put in place to protect us aren't working. In fact, it is well accepted, for example, that raising the drinking age to 21 significantly reduced DUI related deaths (see link below for example). I don't know if there are any studies out there on the impact of other "blue law" type laws (like no liquor before noon on sundays) but restricting people's access to alchahol actually does protect us.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-2...
Not well accepted
What you are saying isn't well accepted at all. Your very link says that "But this is the first time we've been able to tease out the real effect, free of the variables that had been used to question the validity of the evidence."
If this is the first time, then how can it be well accepted?
And indeed it is extremely tricky to be sure that the effect you are studying came about as a result of the age laws and not some other cause. There is no way to conduct a proper experiment at this level with a controlled study group. As they write in the blurb, there are many other significant factors.
And finally, your conclusion is not the same as the one in the article. The article says they think they found a link to an 11% decline in fatal accidents involving youths, not in general.
Protect me
So you're advocating a nanny state where Government makes all your decisions for you?
They're getting something
They're getting something like $8 for a pint of crappy light beer. I can't imagine how much they'll be charging the pink hats for apple-tinis.
Why limit booze when equally dangerous beer is everywhere?
"One 12-ounce beer has about the same amount of alcohol as one 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5-ounce shot of liquor. It is the amount of alcohol consumed that affects a person most, not the type of alcoholic drink." - Centers for Disease Control
-----
Based on the above, the city's argument to limit liquor while beer is served about every 10 feet at Fenway, is silly. Especially when there is no doubt that the cost-sensitive management would use "measured pours" or possibly even computerized pours that strictly regulate the amount of booze in each drink, not the "free hand" pouring one might enjoy at the neighborhood tavern. The ban on cocktails smacks of Puritanism and ignorance, not anything factually based.
Is this bizarro week?
It's snowing outside...and I've agreed with like the last 3 things O-FISH-L has posted lately...
Hug your children close, people. We're talking apocalyptical premonitions here...
I don't know... ask your guy
I don't know... ask your guy friends when they order them at the next game.
whatt. Not that I care if
whatt. Not that I care if there alcohol at Red Sox games are not. But only the so called "rich" who can afford luxury boxes can only get mixed drinks at games? That's not fair... Not everyone likes beer... well, at least I personally don't. I only like mixed drinks.