Three cheers for a happy-hour victory for Virginia restaurateurs

“What alcoholic drink starts offevolved with an F?”

That question nagged at me on a recent drive home. Virginia eventually made it legal for restaurants to apply innovative phrases to explain happy hours. The moment I discovered that, my brain despatched me a wordplay invitation. In my thoughts, abruptly, I turned into a restaurateur, writing my satisfied-hour signs and symptoms.

“Margarita Mondays” changed into smooth. “Tequila Tuesdays” became a no-brainer. Because I didn’t set the bar high, soon I had “Wine-ding down Wednesdays” and “On-Tap Thursdays.”

But what could work for Fridays?

Three cheers for a happy-hour victory for Virginia restaurateurs 15

It may also seem a ridiculous intellectual exercise, especially because I have no plans to open a restaurant. But extra preposterous is if I did own one in Virginia, I couldn’t have written any of that on a signal outdoor my business earlier than July 1.

The new “glad hour law” might also appear silly, but its significance goes beyond pastel-colored chalk on a blackboard. It is, at its middle, a First Amendment victory. It is ready for the government to subsequently recognize that grown-ups can take care of hearing the truth, at least when it comes to how we select to de-strain after work.

We must all enhance a glass to that, whether yours is full of a cocktail or a cocktail. The issue becomes laid naked in a lawsuit delivered forward with the aid of Washington-region chef Geoff Tracy, who determined to combat the regulation that became, in the long run, tossed aside by new legislation. As of July 1, the brand new law allows Virginia eating places and bars to use innovative phrases to explain satisfied hours and advertise what liquids will cost throughout those slots.

“Now, charges and puns are felonies in Virginia,” said Anastasia Boden, the lead lawyer in the Lawsuit filed on behalf of Tracy. The Lawsuit’s basis was the argument that hours have been legal, advertising the truth about this.

“The reason we introduced the lawsuit became to vindicate a deeper principle, and this is that the government can’t censor honest information for paternalistic motives,” Boden said. “All during the litigation, the government had argued, ‘We can do that. We can do that because we think this is good for you.'” Boden, who works for the Pacific Legal Foundation, described that as a dangerous stance while implementing it more extensively.

Some states ban satisfaction hours absolutely, and others restrict aspects of advertising them based on the argument that it will reduce alcohol consumption and drunken driving. Boden stated that the eviBoden indicated that it would be possible.

“If you support just across kingdom strains into Maryland and D.C., it’s now not as in case you see more traffic accidents due to alcohol,” she stated. And if decreasing drunken riding is the goal, she said, “I assume there’s a better manner to get at that than with the aid of banning speech.”

Tracy, who operates eating places in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, stated he is pleased the restriction is long gone.

“I just notion it turned into ridiculous you couldn’t inform human beings Budweisers had been three greenbacks,” he said. He also couldn’t describe glad hour beyond the one’s phrases. “I couldn’t say ‘delighted hour’ or ‘ultimately satisfied hour.'”

He stated that if an eating place allows puppies on a patio, it could advertise “yappy hour.”

“Virginia has continually been an honest top nation in which to do commercial enterprise,” Tracy stated. “Now, it became a touch bit higher.”

He stated he had heard from other eating place owners celebrating the trade. In his shared email, one wrote, “You don’t realize me. However, I am a restaurant/bar owner in Norfolk, Virginia. Thank you for your awesome efforts in supporting VA ABC to see the light on the satisfied hour!”

Boden stated that during the case, which lasted about a year in court, they heard from enterprise owners, a few of whom had been fined $500 for advertising their happy hours with the county’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority’s help.

She and Tracy each said they might have preferred to have visible the difficulty settled in court — in preference to through legislation — so they might have set a felony precedent; however, both expressed pleasure that Virginia ultimately did the right issue.

Tracy said it’s just unfortunate it didn’t come sooner. Ten days before the law was enacted, his Tysons restaurant, Chef Geoff’s, was named in the Lawsuit. The hire expired on that day, and he had determined in advance that he would no longer resume it.

“Tthat he would no longer be bittersweet,” Tracy stated. “If it was there, we might’ve had to have had some party.” Boden said that if the restaurant had remained open, she “would have cherished to have visible” the satisfied-hour description Tracy came up with. I would have, too. I have no doubt it’d been smarter and more purchaser-appealing than I had imagined in my vehicle.

Jay Hunter
I am a blogger and writer at SeoMedo. I have been writing about search engine optimization for over 5 years. I love blogging and learning new things every day.