text:
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to Susan Harvey as a board member of PRO Water Equity. Harvey supports the PRO Water Equity group but is president of North County Watch.
Editor's note: This is the third installment in a five-part series. Coming Wednesday: For years, Paso Robles leaders thought their city sat on an endless reservoir of water. The past three decades have revealed a harsh reality: Its just not true.
With its miles of vineyard-covered hills, Paso Robles is a wine enthusiasts dream and a boon to the local economy. Wine and its related businesses generate thousands of jobs, from the workers who tend the vines to those who design the wine labels, and it has helped spawn a booming tourism industry.
Although the wine industrys growth over the past 30 years has been one of the key economic drivers for San Luis Obispo County, it has come at a high price. The Paso Robles groundwater basin has suffered declining water levels, and that has fueled grave concern about whether there will be enough water to sustain North County residents and businesses as well as the wine industry.
Wine-grape growers have been at the center of the debate over the basin because agriculture primarily vineyards pumps more water from the aquifer than any other user, about 67 percent, according to the latest basin study in 2006.
Although growers are improving their water conservation methods, critics say its not enough to stop the precipitous drop in water levels, mainly because demand is outpacing the aquifers supply. Some are urging the county to adopt a variety of regulations, much to the dismay of local wine-grape growers who believe compromises must be found to ensure the industrys economic viability.
Wine has been a wonderful industry for our economy, but it could be short-lived if nothing is done, said Laura Edwards, of the Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District and a member of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Blue Ribbon Steering Committee tasked with developing solutions to replenish the groundwater basin.
The power of grapes
Whether its visitors hiking through vineyards, sipping wine in tasting rooms or attending annual festivals such as Sunset Savor the Central Coast, wine touches many facets of local tourism. As the countys top economic driver, tourism generated $1.2 billion in visitor spending in 2011, according to the latest information available from Visit San Luis Obispo County, the countys visitors and conference bureau, and the U.S. Travel Association.
Tourism employs nearly 16,000 people in the county in jobs ranging from hotel and food service to arts and entertainment, retail and transportation, according to the bureau. Paring back wine-grape growth could have a ripple effect on the countys overall economy, cautioned Jordan Levine, an economist with Beacon Economics, a Los Angeles-based firm that keeps track of the regions economic health.
It would mean fewer jobs at wineries, in the vineyards and in other sectors that help to support the industry, including the harvesting of wine grapes, processing and production. It could impact utility providers, people who produce fertilizers, agri-business stuff that forms the supply chain for the wineries, he said.
Moreover, if grape growers and wineries arent as successful, it could have an adverse effect on county tourism.
Lots of people go to San Luis Obispo County for the climate, the cities and the beaches, but alongside of that, theres that wine-tourist element, he said. If you mitigate that incentive, then there might be more competitive pressure from other parts of California for those tourists.
Tourism engine
The current economic impact of the countys wine industry is unknown because no recent studies have been done. The latest study, released in 2007 by MKF Research LLC, found that wine and its related products and services generated nearly $1.8 billion in economic value for the Paso Robles American Viticultural Area and greater San Luis Obispo County wine and wine-grape industries, including more than 8,000 full-time jobs with wages of more than $240 million, more than $86 million in state and local taxes and 1.2 million winery tourist visits.
Although there is no current data the MKF study was based on 2006 data a visit to North County wine country, with its rows of vineyards and wineries tucked into the hills, is proof that viticulture reigns.
Wine gives another dimension to the tourism market in SLO County, Levine said. Its what differentiates it from Santa Barbara or even someplace like Monterey. In SLO, it goes hand in hand. Its part of the package that makes tourism in SLO attractive.
Since wine grapes were first planted in the 1970s and 1980s in the North County, they have steadily replaced traditional nonirrigated field crops such as barley, wheat and oat hay as well as almond and walnut orchards. County officials attribute the move toward wine-grape production to economics, as property owners discovered they could get a greater return per acre on wine-grape crops.
Wine grapes now exceed every other agricultural crop in the county in cash value except one strawberries, grown in the South County. Last year, the countys wine grapes set a new record for value at more than $197 million. Total production of wine grapes increased 31 percent in 2012, largely because the crop rebounded from the previous years April frost.
Grape acreage continues to grow as wineries expand and plant new varietals.
In 1972, wine-grape acreage stood at 540 acres. By 1989, it had increased to 7,649 acres, and by 1998 to 11,897. As of last year, county agriculture officials reported that there are 36,550 bearing acres of wine grapes and more than 38,000 planted acres in the county, with the majority of them about 32,000 in the North County.
No one knows for sure how many acres of North County wine grapes will be planted in the future or which property owners are planting because there are no land-use permitting requirements for crop production, and the countys agriculture officials do not track vineyard plantings outside of pesticide use.
Last year, though, planted wine-grape acreage expanded by 3 percent, again mostly in the North County. It has been estimated that an additional 3,000 to 8,000 acres will be planted this year. Thats a jump of 8 to 21 percent.
Paso Robles well understands the impact.
Nearly 40 years ago, many buildings downtown sat empty, and on a Saturday in July, you could have driven to the city park at 6 p.m. and had any parking space you wanted, recalled Gary Eberle, one of the North Countys early wine pioneers.
Now, you drive to the city park at 5 or 6 and you have to go blocks to find a parking space, he said.
Wineries water use
Like many wine-grape growers, Eberle argues that wine grapes use less water than other crops such as alfalfa, and contends that those outside the industry have a misconception about how much water it takes to grow wine grapes. The less water used on the vine, the better quality the grape, and its the quality that helps them to remain competitive, growers say.
Vineyards have gotten a bum rap, Eberle said. Grapes at maturity on drip irrigation are not using that much water.
Regardless of whether wine grapes are an efficient crop, the fundamental issue is whether the industry is consuming enough to make the groundwater table drop, said Mark Battany, who conducted a study measuring annual irrigation over a three-year period at 84 vineyards in an area of the basin that experienced significant declines in water levels.
If you look at an individual vineyard, the chances are that the vineyard itself isnt using that much water, said Battany, a viticulture farm adviser with UC Cooperative Extension. If anything, it might be using too little. But what we have to look at is the totality of all the vineyards, which is a large number of water users.
If total acreage expands and the average amount of water use per acre remains the same, then yes, the vineyard acreage as a whole will consume more groundwater and thus place increased stress on the groundwater basin, Battany said.
Sue Harvey, president of North County Watch and a supporter of PRO Water Equity, a group of rural landowners seeking the equitable allocation of groundwater, believes the county has mismanaged the basin.
She and others want an urgent moratorium on all agricultural overhead irrigation, including frost protection measures, as well as a moratorium banning construction of all reservoirs for the storage of water for irrigation purposes.
Aside from the harm of dropping water levels for homeowners, vineyard owners likely to suffer most are those small, family-owned operations that wont have the financial ability to dig deeper wells, she said.
Nat Sherrill, vice president of the PRO Water Equity group and a former winery owner in the Santa Cruz Mountains, agreed.
Its a politically charged thing, and I think the smaller growers are much more in fear of whats going on than the large growers, who have enough money behind them and will be able to take their investment and amortize it over a short period of time, he said. If water runs out, they can walk away and do something else.
Small farmers dont have that option, he said. They have got problems, and I know some that are scared to death they will run out of water.
Sherrill added: I think its fair to say there are a number of growers that are very responsible about water use, and a number of them that have used far more than they needed to.
There was a time, Eberle acknowledged, when people said water from the basin could never be depleted.
But theres broad agreement among growers now that dropping water levels are a problem, water is expensive and that it pays to use less, said Eberle, noting that paying for water is about a third of his budget. Eberle is using a quarter of what he used to.
When you get to a point where water is so expensive that you cant compete, it (vineyards and wineries) will go away, he said.
Seeking compromise
From an economic standpoint, the community cannot afford to run out of water or lose vineyards, said Dana Merrill, a blue ribbon steering committee member, owner of Pomar Junction Vineyard and Winery in Templeton and Mesa Vineyard Management, a firm that manages thousands of North County vineyard acres.
Merrill isnt in favor of broad restrictions for wineries, but he is open to a solution that balances the needs of citizens with that of agriculture.
You cant stop everything, said Merrill, also a member of a new agriculture group pushing for the development of a water management district. To me, we need a viable sustainable economy, and wine grapes are the key component of this whole thing.
Battany of UC Extension said putting limits on vineyard development would create winners and losers.
Winners being those with established vineyards and access to water; losers being those with undeveloped land that they paid a high price for expecting to be able to plant a vineyard, but were later denied the ability to do so, he said. That will be a very difficult issue to deal with. The expectation of some future limit on vineyard plantings may be in part driving the current vineyard planting boom in the Paso Robles area.
Lowell Zelinski, owner of Precision Ag, a vineyard management and consulting firm, believes the wine industry would survive, even if there were big changes in the law that forced growers to pump less groundwater or transition to dry farming.
If you could only pump half of what youve been pumping, it wouldnt cut yields in half, maybe 30 percent or so, he said. It would make a vineyard less profitable, but it wouldnt put many out of business.
The solution, say many on both sides of the issue, might call for obtaining supplemental water from an outside source such as Lake Nacimiento or the State Water Project, which could be costly and unreliable. Another action would be to create a local agency that would have the authority to manage groundwater resources.
Whatever the outcome, there will be no perfect fix, said Merrill, who has spent thousands of dollars digging new wells to support his own operation. Like many players on both sides of the issue, he would rather not see the matter adjudicated, which means that one aggrieved party has filed a lawsuit over water rights.
We need water to be in the wine-grape business, Merrill said. But were all going to have to solve the problem, and were all going to have some discomfort. Water has been cheap and easy to find, and we took it all for granted. Now, we have to wake up, and each person has to understand the other persons perspective, and build a consensus. We dont want to wind up in a courtroom.


text:
Business Booming for Lobbying Law Firms
Posted Apr 23, 2007 10:32 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Business is booming at lobbying law firms in Washington, D.C., as clients seek help reaching out to the new Democratic-controlled Congress, the Washington Post reports.
Patton Boggs says 75 clients are new or are seeking increased work from the law firm. "There's an increase in business across the board," Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs' deputy managing partner, told the newspaper.
Business also is up for Democratic lobbyists at law firm Williams & Jensen.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy. Flag comment for moderator.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In Konstantinos Antonopoulos's "C-Minor"Posted: February 8th, 2011 | Author: joanna | Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »
A few pictures from Kostas' short film, tentatively titled "C-Minor," coming soon. A Columbia MFA project.
I'm mulling over a guitar purchase:
Living with some consequences (we shot this live in the street– that woman on the lower left came up to me and tried to help– very sweet!):


text:
Getting Flagged at a Bar
I sat by myself at the bar in a restarant reading a book and playing scrabble on my iphone. I had three martini's in about an hour and a half. I ordered my fourth and the bartender said "haven't you had enough?" Somewhat embrassed I then asked for a Coor's light. She said "that really isn't much better." So I paid and left.
Now keep in mind, I was alone and had not moved (except for the bathroom) and did not utter a single word to anyone the enitre time I was there. So my behavior was not the issue. The bartender just thought that three was enough. They do not a drink limit policy.
BTW, my wife was picking me up which of course the bartender did not know.
Should she have minded her own business?
Absolutely she should have! I'm kind of taken aback by reading this. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've had more than 3 drinks in a bar (I live in the bar district, so I'm not driving like this) and nobody has said a word to me. You were far more polite than I would have been. I think my answer would have been "No I have not, so if you will kindly fix me another...".
Anyone's amount of alcohol consumption at a bar is their business alone if they are not acting sloppy.
re: alliegator
It's really not, though. The bartender is completely liable for overserving patrons. You could've asked for another drink, but the bartender has the right to shut anyone off, with the blessing of the establishment's owners.
This is coming from someone who has worked in bars and restaurants for 15 years and taken many alcohol service classes. If a bartender doesn't want to serve a customer anymore, for any reason, it's basically tough shit.
For better or for worse, a bar can be held liable for your actions as a result of overservice. Maybe the bar was recently sued and is overcompensating as a result.
re: lavaca
After 3 drinks in an hour and a half, though? What bars have you ever been to that even think of cutting someone off at that point?
A bar can't afford to be so worried about being sued that they won't serve more than 3 drinks to a well-behaved individual. That is how they make their money in the first place.
I'm wondering if the bartender mistook the OP for someone she's had problems with before, or for some other reason just didn't like him. Or maybe he looked like he was dozing off or something.
re: cowboyardee
re: invinotheresverde
re: cowboyardee
Martini glasses range in size from 4 to 12 oz. Going with the low end of 4 - hell, let's say it's only filled 3/4 of the way - you're still looking at 9 shots in 1 1/2 hours. Or something equal to 5 beers and 4 shots of... Gin? Vodka? I'm a big guy (250 lbs) and am not a lightweight drinker but, 3 martinis in 1 1/2 hours? I'm pretty buzzed and probably legally drunk. I don't think the bartender, when taking the witness stand, will get far with the defense that the "intoxicated" patron promised he would not be driving.
I remember quite vividly, 30 years ago tending bar in NY. Served several drinks to a woman who appeared to be handling it quite well (she "did not utter a single word to anyone the enitre time "she" was there. So "her" behavior was not the issue". She left for the bathroom. Next I heard of her was from the manager asking me what I knew about the woman on the bathroom floor with no pants on who had "soiled" herself and was calling my name. After 2 martinis, drink a soda or water before having the third. After the third, stop drinking for a while altogether. The bartender was doing her job and doing it well
re: bobbert
A shot is 1.5 ounces. By your reckoning and mine, the OP conservatively had 9 ounces. Or 6 shots.
I suspect some of you guys are intentionally being a little obtuse. I haven't drank in every corner of this country, but I have been around, and I have yet to find a bar scene where everyone goes home clear headed and sober, where no one is served to excess, where everyone blows below 0.8 on the breathalyzer before walking out the door. Must be a nice, clean little scene you guys where you guys drink.
Likewise, while I know that bartenders CAN legally be held responsible for serving someone to excess, I know quite a few bartenders and none have EVER been cited, much less prosecuted (unless the person served was also a minor). It doesn't happen as often as you'd have others believe.
Finally, I haven't attacked the bartender - it is her prerogative to cut someone off. I just said it was odd, given what the OP has told us. Maybe it makes more sense in your clean, sober, responsible bar scene. Even the bar scene I'm used to (where patrons sometimes drink to excess and bars make money) has a line beyond which they'll cut you off, hazy though that line may be. By the OP's description, he hadn't crossed that line.
re: cowboyardee
If the OP had been part of a group having drinks and dinner the bartender would have had no idea who much each person is drinking and that's often true when a bar is crowded and busy. But when one person is sitting at the bar ordering stiff drinks by themselves without ever speaking to anyone, well that might be noticeable. If that bartender got puled into court--or even got pulled in by the owner of the place--to explain why she made him that 4th martini, she'd be hard pressed to plead ignorance of how much he drank. Just a thought.
re: cowboyardee
Just for giggles, I just poured 2 shots into a small martini glass - I'd probably send itt back so, even though a shot might be 1 1/2 oz, I'll stick with about 9 shots in an hour and a half as conservative. I have been served hundreds of times in my life where legally I shouldn"t have been served and I served thousands in night clubs that I should not have (30 years ago) but, these days we live in are different. Thousands and thousands are killed each year in DUI accidents. If they got drunk in a bar, there will be a lawsuit. Period.
Only time in my life that I was cut off? A hotel restaurant after several martinis (yeah, we were pretty trashed). Telling the server that we were only driving an elevator didn't help. Maybe the bartender could have been more tactful and she might not have noticed if it was a crowded party night but, in the end, she and the bar are responsible and when one's livelyhood might be at stake, you play it safe.
re: bobbert
You're still miscalculating. Vermouth is 18% alcohol, not 40%. Then you have water melted from the ice (strained out of the drink before serving). Maybe a little bit of olive brine. Oh, and the olive itself - all of that adds volume. A small, 4 ounce martini glass filled pretty much to the very top will have 2 shots. So I'll stick with 6 shots.
"these days we live in are different. Thousands and thousands are killed each year in DUI accidents."
This was always the case. Am I supposed to believe that back in the good ol days people really knew how to keep a car in their own lane with 15 drinks in their bloodstream?
"If they got drunk in a bar, there will be a lawsuit. Period."
No. Not so. Again you overstate your case. Go talk to some bartenders and see how many of them have been named in a lawsuit. It happens rarely at most. And I'm talking about bartenders who think nothing much of serving an average sized male 6-12 drinks or more (or 3+ martinis).
re: cowboyardee
I stand corrected yet again. The "splash" of vermouth and the water that melted off the ice cubes in 15 seconds really does turn a 4 (6, 8, 10?) Oz martini into a glass of Hawaiin Punch. You miss the point. Three average size martinis in 90 minutes is a good amount of alcohol and, although many, if not most, bartenders would serve the 4th, cutting someone off is probably not unreasonable.
As for lawsuits, maybe you should limit the questioning of whether or not they've been named in a lawsuit to those bartenders who had customers who then went out and killed themself or someone else. I'm willing to bet that percentage would be pretty high. Of course, such bartenders would be difficult to find as they are most likely not working in the business any more. Just google something about lawsuits and oui's and see how really rare they are.
re: bobbert
"The "splash" of vermouth and the water that melted off the ice cubes in 15 seconds really does turn a 4 (6, 8, 10?) Oz martini into a glass of Hawaiin Punch."
Look, here are two perfectly good reasons a 4 ounce martini doesn't have 3 shots:
A) Filled two the brim, a 4 oz martini with 2 shots in it would be 3/4 hard liquor. That last 1/4 would be reserved for space taken by water, olive brine, the olive[s] themselves which are often fairly large. 1 ounce. We're still talkin a respectably stiff martini. Not Hawaiian punch.
B) Even if a martini was 100% unadulterated hard liquor, 3 shots is 4.5 ounces.
You stand corrected again because you keep on correcting me incorrectly. At this point, I should probably just let it go - it's really not that important. But dude- it's frustrating.
As for the rest:
Bobbert: "You miss the point.... although many, if not most, bartenders would serve the 4th, cutting someone off is probably not unreasonable."
Me, in a post right above you: "I haven't attacked the bartender - it is her prerogative to cut someone off. I just said it was odd, given what the OP has told us."
re: cowboyardee
We appear to suffer from the same "unable to let it go" illness. I promise to after this post. I don't think we're far off on the meat of this – we've gotten stuck on semantics. Even if we're talking 2 shots per martini (and we don't know if they're being served in a 4 or an 8? oz glass), we're still averaging 4 shots of stiff alcohol per hour so, by the most conservative estimate, I "think" we could agree that we're talking about a pretty good amount of booze. That's all I've been trying to say with the caveat that it could have been even more alcohol.
As far as numbers of lawsuits are concerned, I'll stick with my vague answer of "a lot". It's interesting that with any Google search regarding DUI's and deaths, almost every ad that pops up is from a law firm soliciting business. I don't believe it's coincidence. Certainly the fear of a lawsuit has influenced the way bars act. Can you give me that one?
For those posters who say that the whole bar scene would change if establishments adopted these type of policies, my response is that the bar scene has changed a great deal already. I worked in bars through college and for a couple of years after (1977-1982) - some were dives with a couple of nice places thrown in. I now go out a couple of times a month with friends and I don't restrict myself to "old people" places (no, I'm not bumping and grinding on the dance floor but it's not unusual to tip a pint with people half my age). Most of these places are tame in comparison to what they might have been 30 years ago. Some can still get pretty wild, but generally speaking, the times have already changed. It's definitely not only the threat of lawsuits - education (yes, it works) and fear of getting busted play a huge role. My kids and their friends switch off as designated driver (the phrase didn't exist 30 years ago) and there are taxi's lined up in the bar district each night.
Back to the OP. I think the biggest, most legit part is the lack of tactfulness on the part of the bartender. I've cut off hundreds in the day and yes, depending on venue and individual, I might have just run my hand across my neck as a signal but, when I was working in a nicer place with someone just hanging out peacefully having a few cocktails, the conversation would have been way more diplomatic and discreet like "...you know, I've been making those pretty stiff, maybe a soda before the next one so I don't get in trouble with my boss…". There's no excuse for serving someone who's minding his own business and then, without warning or reason, to become offensive. Reminds me of someone I was once married to. Done :)
re: bobbert
Paragraph 1: Agreed.
Paragraph 2: disagreed, generally. Or maybe just disagreed on the extent to which lawsuits have/should alter[ed] the bar scene.
Paragraph 3: I'll take your word for it. As long as you'll cede that people still get drunk in bars.
Paragraph 4: agreed
Have a good one.
re: bobbert
re: cowboyardee
re: cowboyardee
Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it's not the correct thing to do.
I'm one of those drunks that you'd never suspect was hammered. I'm polite, don't get loud, my mannerisms don't change much, don't get emotional, etc., even when I'm waaaaasted. People who know me well have a hard time telling I'm even buzzed when I'm totally schnockered. Just because I don't act drunk doesn't mean I'm not. It's a bartender's job to err on the side of caution. Would you really want someone who's drank 4 martinis in two hours behind the wheel? No, the OP wasn't going to be driving, but the bartender has no way of knowing that.
I've been bartending/managing/etc. for a looooong time. I may have served the OP one more drink, as sometimes I'm a bit more lax than I should be, but I would've kept an eye on him the whole time, and he certainly wouldn't have received a fifth.
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
You've described most of the alcoholics and problem drinkers I know. They can drink way more than the rest of us while appearing not to be drunk. But they're still impaired and I make sure I leave the party before they do, because I don't want to be on the road with them. I never have more than one drink if I'm driving because I'm a lightweight.
I don't know what the bartender was thinking, but maybe her logic ran like this: "hey, it's a lone drinker drinking sequential martinis, wonder if he's got a problem, if he doesn't look hammered now, maybe he was hammered when he came in, I'm not taking a chance that he'll drive off and kill someone and the victim's family will name me in their suit....."
I'm not saying she was correct, or that the OP has a drinking problem, only that she erred on the side of caution. Drinking is usually regarded as a social activity in most cultures, so a person unwinding with 3 drinks after work does cause a person to look twice.
In any case, I probably wouldn't want to go back to that bar again.
re: Isolda
re: Isolda
re: Isolda
re: Isolda
I'll say that I'm imagining a scene in which the OP (I assume a large man if he claims to be lucid and not utterly trolleyed after 3 martinis in 1.5 hours) sits at the end of a bar, methodically putting away drink after drink, breathing heavily and staring intently at his mobile. It may also be that in his walk to the toilet, he bumped up against chairs, swayed, or what have you. The OP may not have noticed what with the drink in him, or what with his being a large man-- many of whom are unaware of the space they take in a room.
In response, I see a bartender trying to check in on what could be someone readying himself for a rage or for a vomit. Perhaps a pause and some water were the recommendations-- and yes, leaping for a Coors Light makes me question the taste of the OP not to mention what exactly is going on: seems a search for a drunk more than a savouring of an experience. Not that there's anything wrong with a search for drunk but it is something more alarming than someone who happens to get there whilst enjoying leisurely drinks and a game, a book, or a conversation with friends.
(Also, not to be a dick, but as a solo drinker/reader I have never been cut off or questioned, possibly because there is a personal limit that comes with the third drink, but also perhaps due to my occasional social interaction with a bartender-- even if it's to thank him/her for stopping others from interrupting me with a 'It looks like you're really into that book, now I'm going to stop you from reading it by asking a bunch of questions that you don't seem to want to answer'. That is, I'm not completely isolated even if enjoying alone time so the bartender can check that I'm ok in a more casual way.)
re: cowboyardee
"Overcompensating" is the key word here. I don't think most bars or bartenders are going to care about a well-behaved tipsy patron, but I also know that the fear of lawsuits gets bigger as pockets get deeper. My previous employer, for example, adopted very strict overservice policies in response to having to pay out $25M to the family of a girl paralyzed in a car accident.
I am also aware of several smaller places that were temporarily or permanently shut down after patrons were involved in drunken accidents on the way home. That isn't to say that it's common for bars to get in trouble for this (I can think of plenty examples to the contrary), just that it has happened.
re: cowboyardee
Well, there are many aspects, to which we are not privy.
Considering liability, the servers should have the option to at least question. We do not know how the OP was acting, or interacting. There could be many other aspects, that we just do not know about.
And, a bar CAN mostly certainly be worried about being sued. That is life today, and if you are not aware, maybe you should be. It kind of cuts into the lunch traffic, if one has a picket from MADD, plus lawyers, three-deep, outside the restaurant/bar. Throw in a few local TV news crews, and things can get very ugly, and in a big hurry.
re: Bill Hunt
I said above (long ago, btw), in absence of more information, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP's account. If he looked or acted like he was smashed, then that changes things. But I see no reason to automatically make that assumption.
A bar CAN have just about any policy it wants. I just question the wisdom of that policy. And I hold that such a policy is far from common. As I've said many times in this thread, I've seen countless people be served more than 3 (standard sized) martinis in a bar, and unless they've appeared quite drunk or belligerent or made obvious overtures about their intention to drive a car, I've never seen someone cut off that early.
But thanks for 'splaining the ways of the modern world to me.
The only understandable explanation for the bartender's attitude/behavior, was that she wanted your seat at the bar vacated, and for you to be replaced by a more interactive patron. Some bars, despite how much you might spend on a tab, may consider a quiet patron, with their head down in a book or device, as a poor posterchild for a vibe-conscious environment. In other words, with too many bookish or quiet types populating the bar, other possibly fun-seeking patrons who pop their head in and perceive a lack of energy rippling thru the bar, might just make a hasty retreat and search for an environment where someone will chat them up and engage in more superficial (but energized) banter... Maybe I'm misreading the scenario, but I think that your reading and scrabble playing relegated you to the stereotyped siberia of public solitude. If it's any comfort, I used to enjoy a good book and martini at a chill bar myself. Keep representing the thoughtful bookish inebriates, you are not alone :-)
To play devil's advocate, maybe the bartender was trying to look out for your best interest (and the bar's liability, of course). People are equating 3 martinis with 3 "drinks," but it should be pointed out that EACH martini is typically equivalent to 3 drinks (i.e., has 3 shots of alcohol). Out of curiosity, I entered 3 martinis in 90 minutes into a BAC calculator online and came up with .178...this is very, very drunk--over twice the legal limit for DUI in my state (in contrast, 3 beers would be a mere .051). You may not have thought your behavior was an issue, but you have no idea how slurred your speech may have been when you asked for that 4th drink, or what your walking looked like during those trips to the bathroom. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge the bartender, she may not have been out of line.
re: Nicole
I agree with Nicole kind of. Most martinis now adays are huge and three in an hour and a half might be more than the bartender was comfortable with or maybe the owner has set a limit on how much to serve a person within a given length of time. And since you were alone, she couldn't assume you wouldn't be driving. And as to the idea that the bar doesn't have a "drink limit policy" well I would bet every bar in the US sometimes limits how many drinks people can have if they want to avoid lawsuits, but it's not something they have to post since it varies from drinker to drinker.
I think even if there's some part of the story we are missing, there are more discreet wats a bartender can cut off a customer who needs it.
That said, I can't imagine patronizing a bar that has a three-drink max for customers. It's hard to imagine such a place, actually.
re: LeoLioness
Out of curiosity, what should the bartender have said instead?
A blanket 3 drink max would be ridiculous, and I agree that such a bar would not be successful. But it totally depends on the drink, the time period, and the person. 3 beers in 3 hours for a 200-pound man is nothing. 3 martinis in 1 hour for a 110 pound woman is a problem (handy BAC calculator says BAC of .314...you're probably unconscious at that level). Bars have to take steps to protect customers' safety and their own liability, even if that means that people are sometimes offended.
I don't know why this person was trying to scrape you off your bar stool, but it sure sounds like bad behavior on her part, unless you're leaving out the part about spitting your olives at the other patrons while singing "Friday" at the top of your lungs.
If the bartender misjudged your level of intoxication and was truly just looking out for you, there are, as LeoLioness notes, more gracious ways to convey that. "Would you like a spacer first?" comes immediately to mind.
re: small h
re: invinotheresverde
re: small h
re: purple bot
The original poster did not say the bartender embarrassed him. She did not say he was cut off. She offered a suggestion that "haven't you had enough." At that moment, the OP could have said "I understand your concern but my wife will be coming in to pick me up" but he didn't. I say the bartender made the right call.
re: escondido123
You're right -- those specific things didn't happen to the OP, I was speaking generally about shutting someone off. Which the bartender did, however she said it. Also, it doesn't matter if the person is driving or not. If that person comes to harm due to intoxication the restaurant/bar is liable. Even if he/she falls on their face and smashes their head open, or falls into the subway tracks, etc. At least in MA this is true. A little side note: if I walk into a bar already buzzed and am served a single drink, then come to harm/harm someone else, that last bar is still liable, even though they only served me one drink.
And yes, I agree, the bartender made the right call. And I don't think it had the slightest bit to do with wanting someone more engaging at the bar. Pshaw.
re: purple bot
re: escondido123
re: vanierstudent
re: vanierstudent
re: Nicole
depending what "average size" means. 180 pounds is the American average.
So if OP is taller, or weight more than the average, has a faster metabolism etc, he could be at .08-.10, which isn't shitfaced, but just impared.
the average weight for an American man was 193 LB in 2002 if I recall correctly.
Edit: DAMN, 3 shot a Martini? It's closer to 2 shots and 1 finger of vermouth.
re: vanierstudent
I'm not going by my own estimates, like you are, I'm going with unbiased BAC calculators I found online (search yourself). I'm also not putting in the number of shots, which we could debate, I am putting in the drink (martinis). Even if we go with a higher weight estimate of 200 pounds, you still get a BAC of .14, which is pretty drunk. It's a little concerning to me that people are so apt to underestimate how much they are drinking.
re: Nicole
I used the CAA website, this is why i am asking about the size of the drink, because it seems that the American average size and the Canadian average size seems quite different due to the difference in our results.
Even tough I do understand why the Bartender cut OP's off, since he was over the legal limit to drive and was alone, I dissagree with the fact that he actually did it in that manner.
re: escondido123
re: invinotheresverde
>>"It is illegal to serve someone to the point of intoxication"<<
Whoa, whoa, whoa. In the first place, liquor sales are regulated at the state and local level. And many of those laws limit liability to situations where the patron isn't just over the legal limit to drive, but is absolutely shitfaced.
Most states only impose liability if the patron is "visibly intoxicated" or "obviously intoxicated," and others go further - for example, a Missouri barkeeper only breaks the law by serving someone who exhibits "significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction." In Texas, a patron must cut off when he is so obviously intoxicated that he "presents a clear danger to himself and others."
A 200-pound guy who drinks three 4-ounce martinis in 90 minutes is going to blow around a .10. That's going to cause reduced reaction time, slower reflexes, and slightly reduced gross motor control. In other words, he's lightly buzzed and shouldn't be driving a car or operating heavy machinery, but is far, far, far from "obviously intoxicated."
Any bar that cuts off its patrons once their BAC exceeds .08 doesn't deserve to be in business. And any bartender who claims that it's okay to do so is reaching for a justification. I don't know what the OP's circumstances were, but if they were similar to those I described, the cutoff was purely pretextual.
Which leaves the next question - what was it a pretext for?
re: alanbarnes
re: alanbarnes
Sorry it's taken me so long to write back. I was having a kid. ;)
Interesting WRT different state service laws. I'm a bit leery of their legitimacy, though. I've sat TIPS, Barcode and Servsafe in a few different states and they've all had the same policy: if you serve someone to the point of intoxication (which, in almost every state in the US is .08, max), YOU, the bartender, are liable. I can't imagine I've only lived in uber conservative states.
I've personally drank many, many 6 oz+ martinis in my day. That's a lot of booze. That's going to put a dude well over .10.
Your next to last paragraph is opinion. You definitely don't want to come to MA, where bartenders are fired if they overserve. Bars follow the rules here, generally. It's not worth the ABC busting you and the legal liabilities. No one seems to have a major problem with it.
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
>>"if you serve someone to the point of intoxication (which, in almost every state in the US is .08, max), YOU, the bartender, are liable."<<
Sorry, that's just incorrect. Courts around the country have held that the definition of intoxication you're using is relevant only to drunk driving laws, and has no bearing on dram shop liability. If the law were what you claim it is, it would be illegal to serve martinis to women under 120 pounds. And those 6-oz+ monsters you're talking about? Unless you're on the wide side of 220, you're not allowed to have 'em.
My last paragraph isn't just opinion, it's based on decades of observation. People get buzzed (BAC .08+) in bars all the time. I've seen it in Massachusetts, I've seen it in California, and I've seen it in plenty of places in between. Are you really claiming that they don't?
BTW, congratulations on the new addition! Hope you both are doing well.
re: alanbarnes
re: alanbarnes
re: invinotheresverde
If you want an answer to a legal question, the best place to start is by asking a lawyer. They're not. And they're wrong. Of course, it never hurts to err on the side of caution.
A girl, even. Outstanding. Agreed about being the best thing ever. I remember when mine were cute little babies. How quickly things change...
re: invinotheresverde
re: invinotheresverde
re: LeoLioness
re: LeoLioness
re: invinotheresverde
re: LeoLioness
I've been following this all week, because I, too, love a stiff martini. Years ago, in my early 30's, my wife was away at a business function. At our usual Sunday evening restaurant, the bartender started to chill my Bombay as we exited the car! This particular Sunday, our favorite server asked "you want another, sir?" as I drained my usual second Bombay, up, with extra olives. Sure, I was by myself, only the server and I knew. Three was way too many, maybe 5-6 ounces each. I 'm 6'1" and a solid 220 lbs. I gotta say to the shoeman (OP); I was hammered! This was way before we've become a litiguious (sp?) society. I'd have to agree with the barkeep.
re: invinotheresverde
re: small h
Old thread, but revived by Helena's column. I'm with Leo and smallh—it's the way it was handled that irks me. "Haven't you've had enough?" is so smug and condescending...Obviously, if I thought I'd had enough, I wouldn't have ordered another. If *you* think I've had enough, I'd just as soon as you said so in a kind but honest, concerned-for-the-safety-of-all manner.
re: small h
I think that you might be reading more into this, than exists.
Let's say that the OP has had the drinks outlined, and wants more. Why would the bartender wish to "scrape" this person? A person, heavily under the influence is more likely to not notice an up-charge on a bill, and is quite likely to tip above the "going rate," because of the service.
I just do not buy your points, given the info in the post.
re: Bill Hunt
Upthread, you wrote: "And, a bar CAN mostly certainly be worried about being sued." Now you're claiming not to understand why a bartender would want to stop serving a customer - who might be drunk enough to get the bar in legal trouble - when said bartender has a golden opportunity to make a few extra bucks off the lush.
So do you think that bartenders should cover their asses and protect their place of employ from lawsuits? Or do you think that bartenders should grab for any bit of coin they can, even if it comes from an impaired person? Because you have written a comment in support of both positions (or maybe you wrote the first comment and then immediately changed your mind).
And in case you hadn't noticed, you're responding to a post I wrote over ten months ago. What made you suddenly take an interest?
re: small h
Sorry. I either did not make myself clear, or mis-communicated. The potential of being sued is very high, at least in the US.
As far as the date of the post, this thread just showed up on my list for this board. Not sure if someone dug out a "zombie," or something else. Do you now, not feel the same, as you espoused then, or is there something else bothering you?
Sorry for any confusion,
The average person metabolizes an average drink in about 45 minutes to an hour. An average martini has a higher alcohol content than an average drink. On top of this, it is absolutely the bartenders job to cut you off. It is illegal in most states to overserve, and overserve means to allow a patron to be intoxicated. Yes, it sounds dumb that a bar is not allowed to let it's customers choose to get drunk, but legally they can't. At one martini every 30 minutes, there seems little doubt that you were above the legal definition of intoxicated. She probably could have cut you off after the second drink, but decided to cut you some slack. Since you continued to guzzle the booze, she made the right decision.
re: KaimukiMan
You're conflating the definition of "intoxication" used for determining whether someone is legal to drive with the definition of "intoxication" used to determine liability under a dram shop law. Maybe they're the same in some states, but in most places they are two completely different standards.
re: alanbarnes
yes, i probably was. but at 280 pounds and a not infrequent drinker i know that 3 martinis in 90 minutes is borderline drunk for most people, but often not to the point where they themselves are aware of it. I doubt there is much real difference in our opinions overall on this one. Too bad the bartender isn't here to offer the other side of the story.
I don't disagree that it's a bartender's right not to overserve, for their own protection and the protection of the establishment. I do think there's perhaps a more sensitive way to address this than by saying "haven't you had enough?" That's something I expect to hear from a nagging spounse, not someone in the service industry. Something like, "I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable making you another drink containing alcohol. Can I offer you an orange juice/coffee/soda/ instead?"
While the bartender could have put it in more gentle terms, I do believe that they were in the right to cut you off. They know how much is in those drinks and they see people drink them day in and day out and generally have a good feel for their potency.
You could have mentioned that your wife would be picking you up, but the bartender still may have been uncomfortable serving you another drink without some water first since there's still the risk of belligerence or accidents.
Issues related to serving alcohol are the domain of the States and will vary from one State to another. Although there are potential civil liabilities that may be incurred by a bar/restaurant when a bartender serves too much alcohol to a patron, I am aware of no State that has enacted a flat prohibition against serving alcohol to the point of intoxication. It would be impossible to enforce and would act as a de facto prohibition against the sale of alcohol.
It is true that for some legal purposes, the BAC level is the determiner of intoxication. This is due to the fact that it was deemed impossible to determine on a case by case basis whether or not a driver was "drunk" for the purposes of the spate of laws enacted in the 1980s. Consequently, that limit is a legal assumption, if you will, enforceable based upon the nature of the driving privilege. For many people, a BAC of .08 does not mean intoxicated in the colloquial sense of the word.
I note all of this, in part, to contribute to the existing discussion, but more importantly to lament the loss of the ability to sit quietly and while away the afternoon in a bar - a simultaneously brilliant and miserable pastime that should remain a part of our social heritage. Sure, maybe you shouldn't drive, might want to eat something, switch to beer, or even down a seltzer, but damn, a man should be able to get good and pissed in a saloon at least once or twice in his life.
I prefer to think of this episode as having spring out of the OP's conduct. Three vodka martinis, followed by a request for a Coors Light, simply exhibited such bad taste that the bartender just preferred that he leave. The Scrabble thing probably just made it worse.
re: MGZ
>>"I am aware of no State that has enacted a flat prohibition against serving alcohol to the point of intoxication. "<<
Section 25602(a) of the California Bus & Prof Code provides that "Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor."
re: alanbarnes
As you made fundamentally the same point above, alan, I'm a bit confused by the point of your citation. I assume that you are not equating "to the point of intoxication" with "obviously intoxicated." The former being a necessary antecedent to the latter.
Thus, I suppose I stand corrected that there is a prohibition against serving a first drink or two to someone who is a known "drunk" (the caselaw must be entertaining on that one). One cannot help but wonder how a bartender knows the guy who stops in after work each night becomes a "habitual drunkard." I assume it is not often enforced; it has got to be hard arresting someone for serving a drink to a regular.
re: MGZ
The "habitual drunkard" language just stayed in because I was too lazy to replace it with an ellipsis. My point had to do with the prohibition on serving an "obviously intoxicated person." I was trying to reconcile two extreme positions: (1) that it's illegal to serve alcohol to anybody who's unfit to drive, and (2) that there are no legal prohibitions on selling alcohol to someone based on how drunk they are. On re-reading your post, I'm pretty sure your point was more nuanced than that second position, but just figured I'd point it out.
re: alanbarnes
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but it seems to me that the key this law hinges on is the phrase, "any habitual or common drunkard," - but is the 'tender supposed to have some knowledge of the patron's arrest or citation record? Or of the drinker's personal life and habits, for that matter?
I do think it comes down to that fine line - what the buzzed person thinks about his/her behavior maybe far afield from what's observable by another, presumably sober person. And in this case, specifically, it sounds like the bartender erred on this side of caution, which isn't a bad thing - frustrating and difficult, but perhaps life and job saving in the end. But, I can see the other side. If a patron was known to me, and was loading a pretty good buzz, I'd have a horribly hard time cutting them off unless I knew with certainty that the person was planning to drive, (which I would ascertain beforehand) in which case, No Problem Cutting You Off Whatsoever, Buddy.
Quite honestly, no matter what the intentions of bartender, I would be mortified and would likely not return easily. Her delivery is also a problem, if there is a policy, she should have stated that, because she came across as snide (obviously I wasn't there). I keep getting an image of church lady a la SNL.
The difference here is, I suppose, that this is a restaurant, not a bar. I can speak for myself though, that I've been out for celebration dinners and possibly drank close to that much over the course of an evening (in a restaurant / casual / bar type setting - not fine dining). And as a big group, we were likely a bit more rambunctious than the OP. I wonder too if this would have been noticed if OP were in a group.
And speaking from the perspective of posts here that have detailed rude, loud and over-the-top behavior from drunken patrons in restaurants, the OP's situation seems like certainly the lesser of two evils. Oddly enough, it appears that the restaurants do NOT always intervene in those situations.
I am OP. I beg you to watch this video:
I guess you have to cut and paste.
I'm overwhemed by the different number or posts. Please watch the vid.
re: shoeman
re: linguafood
No. I'm not from MADD or any other anti-drinking group. In an unrelated way, someone sent me the vid and I thought it was perfect to share.
I really thought more people would have taken the position "this is america, where is the day a responsible person can't go into a bar and get pissed if they wish." As the thread progressed it turned into a drinking driving / alcohol legal liability topic. I think someone called the bartender "god"?
re: shoeman
As a non-drinker and the son of an alcoholic, I applaud your use of this thread to bring awareness to drunk driving and the consequences it has on the innocent. It is clear from some of the responses on this thread that the "the amount I drink is my decision, not yours" mentality is alive and well, with people daily making decisions that can forever change the lives of so many. Know when to say when, and if you are unsure err on the side of caution.
re: joe777cool
re: joe777cool
re: alanbarnes
re: alanbarnes
alanbarnes, serious question here: I've always wondered about the issue of public intoxication, having seen a (non-querolous, quiet) drunk guy pulled off the street. He was drunk in public, but not disturbing the peace in any way; basically just staggering along and minding his own business. I stood back to listen ('cause I just love to mind other people's bizness AND the cops around here are super-overzealous in some areas) and the guy got cited - not for public drunkenness, but for disturbing the peace! He wasn't taken in. And I have always wondered why the officer chose to make one citation instead of the other or both. (?)
re: mamachef
Penal Code 647(f) is California's "drunk in public" law. (Not to be confused with "Punk in Drublic," the classic NOFX album.) It provides that a person is guilty of "disorderly conduct" if s/he is so intoxicated that "he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others" or "interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way." So you can be guilty of "disorderly conduct" by staggering around quietly, or even by passing out on the sidewalk (not recommended).
'reading a book and playing scrabble on my iphone'...'and did not utter a single word to anyone the enitre time I was there. So my behavior was not the issue'
IMHO, that was the issue..you didn't utter a word to the bartender?
I felt that you set yourself up for her cutting you off...if she knew your wife was picking you up and you weren't driving, would of given her more leeway to keep the drinks flowing.
I think she was totally justified in what she did.
Wishing you all the best shoeman!
re: Beach Chick
The incident happened at 6 pm. It was happy hour and I had a meal served by the bartender. The bar was mostly empty. I just can't imagine how sitting peacefully set me up to be flagged? Staring up in the sky for two hrs is a problem. Driving is not an issue, I wasn't and I could walk home from the rest.. The bartender could of asked if she was concerned. After that, I believe I should have been judged by my behavior. I'm pretty sure my behavior had nothing to do with this. I'm a big guy and moderate drinker. Three martini's is a breeze. My wife drove me back to work afterward. I assume the bartender figured she'd be wasted and therefore so must I.
re: shoeman
I don't have an issue with the 3 martini's..I think it was you not uttering a word to the bartender..usually, there is some banter that goes on and I feel that if she got a little something verbally from you, things would of been different.
I do feel that she was somewhat flippant toward you and I totally get where your coming from.
; )
re: shoeman
sorry, but did you just say you had 3 martinis and went "back to work". . . ?
incidentally many people on the "how dare (the bt)" side seem to be oblivious to what she said-- which is legal language/phrasing, duh, not emily post's etiquette. when a bt states to a patron "i think you've had *enough*" or "don't you think you've had *enough*" this (the word ENOUGH rather than too much/plenty/more than you needed) is a legal hedge. a bt is trained never to say "i think you've had too much" or similar phrase, which is legally the same as saying "i think i/the establishment has overserved you" and opens the door to a lawsuit on that end. bts are trained to use clear, non-ambivalent, non-incriminating language when it is time to cut someone off, without going into pointing out behaviors/intoxication markers the bt may have observed but the drinker may be oblivious to. the bt will simply say a relatively mild but non-ambivalent "sorry, you've had *enough* for tonight," or similar phrase.
many habitual drunks are a bit like toddlers, and so a bt's/server's "nice," weak, coddling phrasing of a cut off can sometimes be interpreted as an invitation for the customer to argue her/his case. nope, once you've been cut off, you are done at this bar. don't try to argue w the bartender or claim that the vomit was there before you came in or that you won't be driving yourself back to work-- the bt has decided to cut you off and there is no going back on that decision once it's been made. . . if your desire for another drink is that strong, move along to the next bar down the street. if you want to finish playing cellphone games and sitting at this particular bar, nothing is stopping you from ordering a nonalcoholic beverage and chilling out for a while.
re: soupkitten
The question is whether a bt can flag you based solely on how much you drink and not how you act. Doing it based mainly on the number of drinks has far more legal complications. By imposing that rule, they assume the responsiblity of keeping track of how much EACH patron drinks. You need to be consistant with your policy or the courts count it as no policy at all. They absolutely do not count drinks. They do not have a drink maximim. That same bt on a busy night has no prob cranking out those martini. I've had more to drink both at the bar and at table with friends many times. They could not count if they wanted too. And yes I own my own business, enjoy a few pops, go back to work and finish paperwork. If a group of five come in with a coke drinking designated driver, I know of no place that would flag them if they are perfectly behaved. I should have been treated the same way. I had three or more martini in more bars and rest then I could count. I've never had a prob
re: shoeman
re: shoeman
the bt/establishment has the right to refuse service at any time. a customer is never entitled to unlimited alcohol service. once intoxication markers have been noted by the bt, the bt's prerogative is to perform a cut-off before a problem occurs, not after. you are assuming that the bt was counting drinks and not intoxication markers.
a martini is a good, strong drink where a person can go from vertical to not-so-much sometime between #3 and #4, particularly when they're being slammed quite quickly at happy hour. there is nothing morally or legally wrong with anything the bt did in this scenario, in fact if you were argumentative/belligerent with her at the time, she probably made the right call. you as the customer have the choice to never go back, of course, but i don't get the impulse to argue your case to some kind of higher power, as it won't change the establishment's legal right/responsibility to not knowingly overserve its customers.
btw i do agree with you that if you had been engaging in social drinking behaviors the bt may have anticipated less of a problem and given you more leeway. solitary, antisocial drinking behaviors will attract scrutiny from well-trained barstaff and security. a relatively small # of drinkers consume over half the alcohol consumed in this country, and bar people generally have a good handle on problem behaviors to look out for.
re: shoeman
"The question is whether a bt can flag you based solely on how much you drink and not how you act."
In my experience, people who've had 3 martinis in 90 minutes aren't necessarily the most accurate reporters of how they acted in that situation. Now, I'm sure you would remember if you were picking fights and the like, but I don't think you'd have any idea if you were all over the place when walking to the bathroom, or slurring your speech when asking for that 4th martini. You likely appeared drunker than you felt you were.
re: Nicole
The only really objective way of deciding to cut someone off is by how much they've had to drink. Iive seen some very cool, very drunk people and I've seen a lot of assholes who have had nothing to drink. You might throw the ass out for being an ass but that's not necessarily a legit reason to not serve him a drink. Yeah, being an asshole is legit. Nevermind.
re: soupkitten
Body language can be a very effective deterrent, especially if you know your bt. Many years ago I was with friends at a bar where we were known to the bartender. I was knocking back double Greyhounds, and doing it fast. (Nope, we weren't driving ourselves, and the bt knew we never did/would.) Right before last call, I tapped the bar for one more, and she came up and said, "one more?" I said, "yes." She said, "A double?" And then I caught it - while she said it, she was steadily looking me in the eye and shaking her head in the universal "no", very subtly and gently. It wasn't a cut-off; it was a gesture of concern and a recommendation, and I appreciated it and just had a single and then water after that. My point is, she did it in a very classy way that made her point and embarrassed neither of us.
And frankly, I don't care who you are or how much you weigh; all issues of driving and liability aside. Even if you had dinner, 3 martinis in an hour and a half is going to produce a buzz in any living creature, and if the bartender said you'd had enough, whether you agreed or not, you'd had enough, end of story. Right or wrong, her prerogative.
re: shoeman
Agree that it is the bar's prerogative to cut you off at any time. If they serve a visibly intoxicated person they (even when driving is not an issue) open themselves up to liability and even their license to serve being threatened. Some of you just don't get the blood-alcohol equations.
My only problem was with the bartender's approach. She was highly unprofessional. If she truly believed OP had "had enough" she should have simply assertively yet politely stated (not asked!) "I'm sorry but I am not able to serve you any more alcohol". No wishy-washy questions, just the facts ma'am.
re: shoeman
re: RosePearl
re: RosePearl
OP stated that he owns his own business and frequently has a few drinks and then goes back to his paperwork (possibly, at home). His wife gave him a lift back... If he was in the music or entertainment industry, he might as well have a few drinks with clients or at a venue whilst having a business meeting...
Unfortunately bartenders are facing lawsuits so how much she serves you has become her business.
I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of the lawsuits or personal responsibility but I know if I were in her shoes I couldn't afford a lawsuit - even if they don't go to court it costs me money/time/reputation.
re: maplesugar
I find it somewhat sad when we're talking about liability over injury. I like to drink as much as the next guy--except maybe three martinis in 90 minutes though that would mean I couldn't get from the bar to my car so that would be a good thing--but cracking jokes about drunk driving just seems to go too far. Lucky for me, the best restaurant in town is within walking distance, so we can get home without a car.
re: escondido123
I know I abhor drunk driving. I don't see how it's so hard if you've had a few to call a friend/parent or take a cab. Drunk driving and the potential/real harm it can cause is just plain wrong.
The OP was asking about getting flagged by the bartender though so I just meant to suggest the increase in lawsuits naming the bartender or the bar might be why they're being more cautious about over serving.
Jumping in way late on this thread. The average martini contains 1.5 oz. of gin/vodka, and the vermouth is around 1/4 to 1/2 oz. max .At low proof it doesn't really add much alcohol.
In 1 1/2 hours a 220 lb. male (the OP) would have a blood alcohol of 0.030
210 = 0.033
200 = 0.035
190 lb. = 0.039
180 = 0.042
170 = 0.046
160 = 0.051
150 = 0.056
140 = 0.062
130 = 0.068
120 = 0.076
110 = 0.085
So if the OP weighed 110 lbs. then they would be legally drunk.
I have just read this thread with interest and can't quite believe what I am reading. It makes me so thankful to not live in an area where drinking in a bar is so tightly regulated (and in all honestly I thought we DID have super tight regulations). Seriously, if I was cut off after three cocktails in 90 minutes I would not return to that bar. While you may not be legally fit to drive in that circumstance (and fair enough too, there is NO excuse for drink driving!) I can't understand the need to cut someone off so soon. Understanding what your drink sizes are, you might want to slow up after five or six, but only three? I know we have a different attitude to alcohol and drinking than to the US (but I suppose it explains A LOT!), but cutting someone off so soon is just laughable. How on earth do bars make money if patrons can't drink? Doesn't make sense to me.
re: TheHuntress
The more posh USA drinking establishments ostensibly make a profit by offering high-end cocktails ($22 langoustine martini, etc.). And by staying open long past midnight, instead of closing for part of the afternoon or by mid-evening.
And beginning to "slow up" after 6 drinks?? Yeah, I guess I was twenty-five once, for a year.
re: silence9
Well, I'm no longer 25 (as much as I would like to be!), but the interest for me is more of the difference between Australian and US drinking cultures. Australia is heavily influenced by the US in many ways (and sadly seem to be following the litigious culture), however the only rules in relation to cutting someone off in Australia is if they're VISIBLY drunk. If the patron is unable to keep their balance, slurring their speech or making a drunken nuisance of themselves to other patrons, then they can be cut off. This is to be interpreted by the bar staff. It's at a bars discretion to what time they open and close, but I can't see a bar that closes before midnight being particularly successful here.
re: TheHuntress
re: joe777cool
Yet most bars do. What baffles me about this conversation isn't that people think the bartender was in the right (as I said months ago, she can cut off whoever she wants at her discretion), but that so many posters seem unwilling to admit that most bars in America will and do serve a well-behaved, moderate-to-large sized fella more than 3 martinis. Are the bars I've been to really that different from the bars all the other chowhounds are hitting? Are you guys drinking in cop bars? Airport bars maybe? Strange.
re: joe777cool
Never had even similar.
Often, I have lunch, or maybe dinner, solo, as wife is in meetings, and often with meals. I usually go through a half-dozen wines, B-T-G. Not one server/bartender has ever questioned, though I will admit that I have sometimes mentioned that I am walking, or have a limo picking me up. When doing this, I never think about driving.
Sorry that you had this problem.


text: My family and I are from Dallas, TX, and we cannot say enough nice things about our experience! Guides Tommy and Fred took us on a bike ride across the Golden Gate Bridge, and provided a delicious picnic in Sausalito filled with seasonal items from the area. They were both prepared, energetic, and full of interesting stories about the city... More