Crackdown On Happy -- Only Unhappy Hours From Now On

[Beetlejuice]

Spoke earlier with my wife`s nephew who is part of the police team that oversees the bars and adult entertainment venues in Chiang Mai.

There is no complete ban on Happy Hour as such, only a couple of bars have had warnings for not abiding by the rules and serving cut priced drinks when drinking hour restrictions have been in force by the police during certain times and events when the concern has been this may encourage under age and young people on low budgets to buy alcohol. It was reported that many young drinkers were seen in the bars during cut price drinking hours and the authorities are under the impression that the purpose of this is to attract the younger clientele. These bar owners were probably grassed upon by other bar owners competing for business.

All rather cutthroat and nasty, isn’t it?

Providing the bars that have a happy hour policy conduct their business in a manner that does not try to over step the mark, perhaps check the IDs of customers that appear underage and Happy hour really means one hour at the appropriate times and not two or more hours or on several times per day, than this practice should be allowed to continue, but will in future be under the watchful eye of the police.

So in other words, those bar owners that try to bend the rules in a hope that no one will notice, will end up messing things up for everyone else. The solution is; just play the game, even if you don`t agree with it, or <deleted> and bust as the wise man says.

This does't add up. So why would an establishment like Olde Bell, which gets exclusively ancient Farangs as their clientele (ok, almost) be warned against having a happy hour? Furthermore, the bigger law here is of course to prevent underage kids to drink *AT ALL* at any hour, happy, unhappy, day, night, in between, in bars, anywhere. Wouldn't the more sane policy by far be to come down like a ton of bricks on any bar that serves underage kids, but leave them to conduct their pricing policies for adults as they see fit?

Eroding adult entertainment also doesn't make sense, because these policies apply to common restaurants and pubs just the same. Because at the point where you're hitting restaurants like Riverside, or pubs like the Irish Pub or Old Belle then you're eroding tourism and eroding adult citizen's freedoms more than anything else.

Didn't these thoughts and questions come up with you when discussing the topic? Is their understanding of the term 'happy hour' really that it factually means ONE hour? ( ) Fortunately a policy only lasts as long as the people currently in charge, and the main person on borrowed time could be the governor himself, who is pretty much due to be reshuffled elsewhere anyway.

You’re talking logic, this is Thailand and logic doesn’t come into it.

I’m only a farang peasant on retirement, same as many others and only know what I’m told and hear, I don’t make the rules and what I think is irrelevant and not going to change anything.

My son and his cousin are policemen in Chiang Mai and I suppose that does give me an advantage whereas I get to hear of what’s going on, but as for why, I don`t understand these policies either. The police are like monkeys is harness, they just do what they’re told and theirs is not the reason why, so to speak. Maybe the Chiang Mai Governor just doesn’t like farangs? Who knows?

As for restaurants I did mention what’s happening in Lamphun and guess that the police are also giving restaurants in other areas a hard time as well, especially those that sell alcoholic drinks.

As I said; I am retired here. I am a foreigner and would not go into business in Thailand if one were handed to me for free, no siree.

[dasy]

Happy ending?

[CMNightRider]

Chiang Mai, has the music police, condo police, and now the happy hour police. I sure hope they consider traffic police before I end up as road kill.

[TommoPhysicist]

Chiang Mai, has the music police, condo police, and now the happy hour police. I sure hope they consider traffic police before I end up as road kill.

You forgot the helmet police!

[CMNightRider]

Chiang Mai, has the music police, condo police, and now the happy hour police. I sure hope they consider traffic police before I end up as road kill.

You forgot the helmet police!

I sure hope they don't stop the happy ending massages.

[moonbarman]

("Cheerful Time 4pm-9pm", "Enjoy Hours 4pm-9pm") They could call it "Gay Time" lol

could be a good one that might make the police reluctant to enter

[moonbarman]

The government (such as in Europe and in North America) should focus more on encouraging people not to drive after drinking - having a designated driver. This campaign (along with stiff penalities, and lost of driving rights) has worked in the USA. But trying to get the police in LOS to enforce anything is a challenge (with bribes), so I guess it is easier to punish everyone with NO happy hours.

People that drink and drive don't give a toss about the law anyway and most just go back on the road with no licence or insurance until they are caught again.

[Mapguy]

Over ten thousand views and nearly 100 responses in less than 36 hours !!!! About cracking down on "Happy Hour!" What does that tell you about readers of this forum?

Deep into the puke that spewed forth after OP's "news" I finally found the news article/news release (Chiang Mai Mail rarely posts anything but news releases) on the governor's announcement.

In trying to remember all of the posts (only one time through, however!) I can't recall any that said that a person couldn't have a drink if he or she wished one early in the evening. I understand that some "happy hours" extend further into the day and night. That, certainly, is simply marketing. The result, unfortunately, can be unfortunate.

More generally, it appears to me that the governor, although he seems a bit too publicity-conscious from time to time, has got in right on a larger point. And he isn't alone, aesthetically or commercially.

The general ambiance of Chiang Mai and its attraction to tourists need not, and should not, be cheap booze and cheap women. He apparently has begun his campaign with attacking cheap booze. Although the man may seem rather puritanical from time to time, I hope he stays on.

By the way, I am neither a teetotaler nor a monk, but I am enough of an historian to know that outlawing drinking has never proved effective. Some seem to think that it is a God-given right. Perhaps they haven't progressed much further than their first catechisms or other such precepts. Or they are unreconstructed revolutionaries (i.e, adolescents) who believe that their individual rights are being trampled and desire instant and cheap gratification. Remember this is about "Happy Hour!" I join those who bid them adieu to the friendlier precincts of Bangkok or Pattaya or other such friendlier climes. I am told the booze is always cheap, as are the women. The first no doubt watered down; the other painted up.

Tourism in Chiang Mai will not seriously suffer for lack of Chiang Mai happy hours. Nor will it suffer for lack of closing down locales (say, Spice) or any number of LOUD karaoke bars at reasonable hours. Quite the opposite!

Happy hours may generally keep barkeepers happy, but I doubt it. Competition is difficult. But intemperate drinkers can definitely be a problem. Happy hours encourage that; not in everyone, but in probably too many people. It is not that you can successfully deny access to booze to those who wish to get frizzled, but why encourage too much of it?

I, for one (?), favor temperate drinking at "reasonable" hours. Am I alone? Or, as I have oft heard, are voices like mine too shy to speak?

[heybruce]

Happy hour has been outlawed in many parts of the US for decades now.

Not sure where these areas are I have worked and travelled from Alaska, Colorado, Texas, to Florida and in between. Never heard of such a dumb law. Prohibition worked just as well. Every attempt at dry counties except some villages in Alaska you fly in have not been successful as liquor stores and clubs spring up on the borders. My father told me always to live in a town that had an equal number of bars and churches. I do not drink but know those that do will.

Clearly your father wanted you to live in the Bible Belt. What did you do to piss him off?

[realthaideal]

10,000 + views on this ? Impressed.

And yeah, this crackdown involves selective temporary application of law and I wouldn't try to think much logic into it other than some eager folks trying to prove themselves/ make a show for awhile.

[Mapguy]

10,000 + views on this ? Impressed.

And yeah, this crackdown involves selective temporary application of law and I wouldn't try to think much logic into it other than some eager folks trying to prove themselves/ make a show for awhile.

Disagree.

Generally, I believe your arguments are cheap and not relevant to the issue at hand. Which establishments specifically has been slectively closed and which haven't? What justifies your assertions?

Unless there is a sizeable increase in the number of BIB and their official cousins, then enforcement will always be selective.

One can always bitch and moan about paying for protection here and lack of it there, officials on the take, et cetera. Such is pointless except that it would be useful to pay the BIB more than just enough to tailor their uniforms!

Edited July 25, 2012 by Mapguy

[PoodMaiDai]

I prefer Happy Endings myself.

Thank heavens those are still legal.

Well, not legal, but tolerated. And the day they are no longer tolerated, I have a feeling you'll see a mass exodus from the land of smiles.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I, for one (?), favor temperate drinking at "reasonable" hours. Am I alone? Or, as I have oft heard, are voices like mine too shy to speak?

Not sure what an unreasonable hour would be to be honest to consume just about anything. People have different preferences; some actually like to have a beer or wine during the day in a temperate amount, but don't like to party hard at night.

Or even if it wasn't temperate, is a government nanny really necessary to tell people when, what and how much an adult is allowed to consume?

[uptheos]

I, for one (?), favor temperate drinking at "reasonable" hours. Am I alone? Or, as I have oft heard, are voices like mine too shy to speak?

Not sure what an unreasonable hour would be to be honest to consume just about anything. People have different preferences; some actually like to have a beer or wine during the day in a temperate amount, but don't like to party hard at night.

Or even if it wasn't temperate, is a government nanny really necessary to tell people when, what and how much an adult is allowed to consume?

Like this? (sorry CMTVBIB not CM related)

A quarter of premises with late licences are expected to curb their opening hours to avoid having to pay a new levy designed to help tackle alcohol-fuelled disorder, according to Home Office estimates.

Under a new power that comes in to force in Autumn, local authorities will be able to impose an annual “late night” levy of up to £4,440 on pubs and clubs that open after midnight.

http://www.telegraph...ening-late.html

Edited July 26, 2012 by uptheos

[CMX]

Happy hour has been banned in the U.S. in very few places, ever. Even the state of Kansas, which can socially be equated to Victorian pretensions writ large, is considering stopping the practice. Boston does it, but that city is historically backward as a major city can get. (Book banning, racist, etc.)

This does relate, however, to Thailand, in that the reasons for banning such a commercial practice (and the U.S. is about nothing if it is not commerce and money) is societal. Members of Thai society might be different from western societies in their response to such a law, drinking even less. We must note that Scandinavian nations tax alcohol passionately for some reason. Perhaps price has an effect.

On the other hand, yes, our gov sometimes makes me puzzled. I recall an interview regarding a hotel....

[Mapguy]

I, for one (?), favor temperate drinking at "reasonable" hours. Am I alone? Or, as I have oft heard, are voices like mine too shy to speak?

Not sure what an unreasonable hour would be to be honest to consume just about anything. People have different preferences; some actually like to have a beer or wine during the day in a temperate amount, but don't like to party hard at night.

Or even if it wasn't temperate, is a government nanny really necessary to tell people when, what and how much an adult is allowed to consume?

"Reasonable" is in quotes. Intemperate drinking is really the problem. But back to "reasonable hours:" Well, I'd say a beer or wine at lunch, quaffing a couple after a golf game, pre-dinner cocktails, dinner and after-dinner drinks, sitting round the pub for an evening's conviviality are all reasonable. But I have trouble with the notion of highballs for breakfast and very late-night drinking and full moon parties away from one's crib.

This leads me to the second question about the desirability of government nannies. Maybe, unfortunately, there is some necessity for governmental intervention for the common good. That's one thing governments are supposed to do. Take the relatively benign problem of loud karaokes and late-night clubs like Spice. It seems reasonable that governmental limits should be imposed to limit their imposition on others. More seriously, late night alcohol consumption often fuels behavior that threatens the drinker and can endanger others. Overindulgence and bingeing (as reflected in the news article posted above) lead to reckless and dangerous behavior: fights, traffic accidents, other accidents (e.g., recently a fellow fell to his death trying to climb up the outside of a building to an apartment above after returning from an evening of clubbing), and so on. I do not claim to have the statistics at hand to nail the point down, but what would be your best guess at the major cause of traffic accident injuries and death and their frequency at night?

Nothing new about what I am saying. Isn't it reasonable that some direct or indirect restraint on individual behavior is necessary for the public good? Closing pubs and karaoke joints at some "reasonable" hour hardly seems extreme. And publicans --- as well as the neighbors --- might get some decent sleep and the emergency rooms of hospitals would hopefully get less late-night business!

[uptheos]

"Reasonable" is in quotes. Intemperate drinking is really the problem. But back to "reasonable hours:" Well, I'd say a beer or wine at lunch, quaffing a couple after a golf game, pre-dinner cocktails, dinner and after-dinner drinks, sitting round the pub for an evening's conviviality are all reasonable. But I have trouble with the notion of highballs for breakfast and very late-night drinking and full moon parties away from one's crib.

What about the non sale of alcohol during the afternoon?

[Mapguy]

I like many have been occasionally inconvenienced and mildly annoyed at times by the afternoon hours restriction on sales when booze generally can't be bought except in large quantities (10ltr+). I haven't, however, found the restriction particularly onerous.

How effective is this restriction? That, for me, is an open question. A boozer thirsty for a half pint for immediate consumption is what must be perceived as the problem, not people shopping to stock their cupboards. Some say that mom and pop stores aren't really affected.

[Mestizo]

"Reasonable" is in quotes. Intemperate drinking is really the problem. But back to "reasonable hours:" Well, I'd say a beer or wine at lunch, quaffing a couple after a golf game, pre-dinner cocktails, dinner and after-dinner drinks, sitting round the pub for an evening's conviviality are all reasonable. But I have trouble with the notion of highballs for breakfast and very late-night drinking and full moon parties away from one's crib.

Wow! Anything other than late night drinking, I feel is *unreasonable*.

If there is not a party type atmosphere, with music, women, etc, I really have no desire to drink. Certainly can't imagine drinking as early as lunch or before dinner. And definitely would never sit in my own home and drink..... Those things have "hardcore alcoholic" written all over them.

Back home, people don't usually go out until about 10 or 11pm at night. And then stay out until 3am, when the bars close. This is "reasonable" in the US.

-Mestizo

[Mestizo]

On the topic of Spicy, I stopped at the food shop across the street for a late night meal last night. I noticed that Spicy has done a fantastic job of baffling the sound and blacking out all the windows. Other than the small amount of people standing outside and the large amounts of parked motorbikes, its somewhat difficult to even tell there is a club there now. And the security guards were doing their best to ensure groups of people didn't congregate outside.

After eating, I did walk over and take a peek inside. (Purely for research purposes only!). The upstairs area was very full of people dancing and having a good time. And the music was cranked way up loud. Very impressed with how quiet it was outside the building. Spicy definitely appears to be doing their part to keep the nuisance level down. Perhaps thats why the police are giving them a pass now and letting them stay open late again.

-Mestizo

[heybruce]

"Nobody minds a man having a morning eye-opener and it's OK to have a bracer about 10 A.M. and a couple of drinks before lunch. A few beers on a hot afternoon keeps a man healthy, or at least happy. And, of course everyone drinks at a cocktail hour. A man can't be criticized for having wine with his dinner, a liqueur afterwards, and a highball or two during the evening. But this business of sip, sip, sip, all day long has got to stop!"

Sometimes attributed to W.C. Fields, but original source unknown.

Edited July 26, 2012 by heybruce

[Mousehound]

I don't drink or smoke, but all this telling me what I can and can't do makes me feel I should get a life and start!

[dave2]

re .. On the topic of Spicy,

can anyone explain the logic of changing .. the spice .. signs which were all put up last august

to the old name .. spicy .. a few days ago !

also can someone translate this sign hanging on the door ?

just curious ... dave2

[uptheos]

re .. On the topic of Spicy,

can anyone explain the logic of changing .. the spice .. signs which were all put up last august

to the old name .. spicy .. a few days ago !

also can someone translate this sign hanging on the door ?

just curious ... dave2

Basically, I think it's saying that the business is for sale lock stock and barrel, but not the premises.

Just buy the business, everything supplied no need to add anything.

Or something like that.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It's says "Business to lease"

[dave2]

re ..

Basically, I think it's saying that the business is for sale lock stock and barrel, but not the premises.

Just buy the business,

ut and wtk thanks for the reply but that makes it even more illogical : (

who spends money taking down perfectly good signs

to spend money on new signs of a buisiness your trying to lease / sell or whatever

dave2 .. even more baffled than before : (

ps .. the old tiger bar in soi 2 opend as paris bar / french r r on wednesday : )

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Well, everyone still calls it Spicy, and it's the name that's most widely known. The name change makes sense regardless of future plans.

[heybruce]

re .. On the topic of Spicy,

can anyone explain the logic of changing .. the spice .. signs which were all put up last august

to the old name .. spicy .. a few days ago !

also can someone translate this sign hanging on the door ?

just curious ... dave2

Basically, I think it's saying that the business is for sale lock stock and barrel, but not the premises.

Just buy the business, everything supplied no need to add anything.

Or something like that.

Does this mean the nightmare on Thanon Chiang Moi is over?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

re .. On the topic of Spicy,

can anyone explain the logic of changing .. the spice .. signs which were all put up last august

to the old name .. spicy .. a few days ago !

also can someone translate this sign hanging on the door ?

just curious ... dave2

Basically, I think it's saying that the business is for sale lock stock and barrel, but not the premises.

Just buy the business, everything supplied no need to add anything.

Or something like that.

Does this mean the nightmare on Thanon Chiang Moi is over?

Or does it mean that a reasonable attempt is made by someone to be seen to divest. Either way I'm not sure it matters, as the demand clearly remains. The CM Half Moon party in Hang Dong also was a huge success; I hope that continues. Perhaps police over there is more receptive to people's needs. (Was held at the 'Des Gourmet' restaurant, that so far hasn't seemed overly successful as a restaurant, but it looks like it kicks ass as a party venue!)

[Mestizo]

Or does it mean that a reasonable attempt is made by someone to be seen to divest. Either way I'm not sure it matters, as the demand clearly remains. The CM Half Moon party in Hang Dong also was a huge success; I hope that continues. Perhaps police over there is more receptive to people's needs. (Was held at the 'Des Gourmet' restaurant, that so far hasn't seemed overly successful as a restaurant, but it looks like it kicks ass as a party venue!)

From around the reggae bar area, the reports I heard from people who had gone out there and decided to return, was that it sucked pretty bad. Additionally, know of a few people who decided against going based on the reports coming back from people who had gone to check it out.

Would be surprised if they did it again.

-Mestizo