|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A bill that would allow local communities across California to extend alcohol sales hours past 2 a.m. is one step closer to becoming law.
On Wednesday, the State Assembly’s Governmental Organization Committee approved Senate Bill 384 by a vote of 15-4. The bill is now headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, its last stop before being considered by the full Assembly.
It was approved by the State Senate in May by a vote of 27-9. Local State Sen. Steve Glazer was among those to vote Yes.
The bill, introduced by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), is also known as the LOCAL Act, which stands for Let Our Communities Adjust Late Night.
If approved, it will establish a process involving local governments, law enforcement agencies, the public and the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control to extend hours of alcohol sales to a specified time between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. in bars, nightclubs and restaurants, but not liquor stores.
The extended hours could also be specified to include certain days of the week or holidays.
In a statement, Wiener said it would give local communities more control over nightlife, which he said plays a huge role in the state’s culture and economy.
“California is a large and diverse state, and this bill recognizes that a one-size-fits-all approach to nightlife doesn’t make sense,” Wiener said.
According to Wiener, California’s nighttime industry generates billions of dollars in consumer spending and employs well over a million people.
In 2014 alone, tourism in the state generated $117.5 billion, Wiener said.
Should the bill become law, California would join 20 other states, and a host of cities including Las Vegas, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans and New York, that allow alcohol sales past 2 a.m.
— Alex Kekauoha, Bay City News
New retail, dining options coming to Stoneridge Shopping Center later this yearApril 19, 2026 9:24 pm
This is totally, completely wrong. I have lived in a place with such a law. Fort Lauderdale, Fl is a tourist town with a crazy nightlife. This is not good for public safety, we already have a huge problem with DUIs, this just extends their hours. I am sure this is being pushed hard by the liquor industry, who will never stop until every day is a booze-filled holiday. Contact Catherine Baker, Assy, and Senator Steve Glazier to voice your opposition. Don’t let your town become a Party Town, look at the problems Walnut Creek has had.
I wonder if this law will get implemented in time for the wine stroll this weekend?
If revenue is the issue, let’s sell heroin across the counter and at all hours as well. Forget what alcohol and drugs do to our culture now.
Why catastrophize about this? It probably won’t make much of a difference in actual fact with DUIs, as it will merely shift a drunkard’s drive from 2am to 4am. And, as local cities will have control over it, if it does lead to problems, it can be pulled back. I don’t see why Pleasanton would have any hesitation to corral late night drinking in, if it even allows it. Often, zoning, permit restrictions, and other local rules prevent places from using the existing 2am law to its fullest.
Personally, I don’t see the charm in drinking after midnight, and I doubt most employed professionals do as well. So will it even make a difference in Pleasanton–if Pleasanton were to opt in in the first place, which I doubt.
Hmmmm, drunks on the road during the morning commute. What could go wrong?
Hmm, drunks on the road at any time. What could go wrong?
Chill out! This won’t affect Pleasanton at all since the whole town shuts down at 9:00 PM anyway. Zzzz…
What a sad insane idea…Yes, let’s put even more drunk drivers on the road. Let’s pass a bill that allows them to consume into the later morning hours and kill more people. What could possibly be the benefit of this except for money??? Makes me sick.
@K, the problem with that argument is that the point of selling anything is to, in large part, make money; therefore, your point applies just as strongly to the argument that alcohol should never be sold, and just as weakly to the argument that selling more alcohol causes more drunk drivers.
There is no good reason to think that selling alcohol over more hours makes more drunk drivers. So what’s left is the argument that it leaves drunk drivers on the road later. But why is a drunk driver more dangerous, say, in the light of day when everyone can see them, they can see the road, more police are present, heavy traffic slows down the maximum possible speed and thus the maximum possible injury (think traffic circles), and more witnesses are out to call police? I would imagine there’s a stronger argument to limit drinking to only commute hours than to exclude it.
Of course, we don’t have any data here, just various intuitions and gut instincts competing. That’s the good thing about local control. The city can test it out of there is a demand to–and that such demand should exist in itself seems unlikely here in Pleasanton where people need to work in the morning–and then scale it back if there’s any indiciation whatsoever of a problem.
I am no libertarian and don’t mind government rules to keep us safe. But I don’t see why we need to be so black and white about these issues. There’s room in the grey area, to test and react.
Do it, and add a 6x tax factor to alcohol sold during those hours
This is a really bad idea.
As of now, drunks get kicked out of bars and can no longer buy alcohol at retail outlets so the party is basically over at 2am. Extending the hours only encourages them to party longer and get even more drunk becoming even more of a danger.
Someone who drinks till 2am is a hazard. Someone who drinks to 4am is an even bigger hazard. Doesn’t take much data to figure that out.
Alcohol serving establishments will lose their license for serving to an obviously inebriated person. Since that’s the life blood of the busjness, they really do go out of their way to cut people off. That doesn’t mean that rising alcohol levels isn’t a problem, but it also doesn’t mean that more hours mean more drunkenness. Like most things in life, it depends on the individual and the circumstances. Not on gut feelings about how the world ought to work.
So there is actually no reason to believe, and you certainly didn’t offer any, that someone who drinks to 4am is a bigger hazard than someone who drinks to 2am. And that’s my point. It could be the case that extended hours leads to bigger trouble. So Pleasanton could run a local trial program to see, and do a slow rollout. Just because the state wants to allow local cities to decide doesn’t mean catastrophe is on its way. It just means that they want to let cities work it out for themselves rather than mission control tell them from a distance.
It’s always good to avoid catastophising when it comes to acting on one’s gut.
Don’t like it. It’s my opinion. Anyone who votes for this; needs to be voted out. With all the bloviating you can do, you won’t change my mind. Don’t like it.
Of course more hours mean more drunkenness…..what do you think they are going to be doing drinking till 4am ….getting more sober? Its always good to engage common sense in these matters. there’s not enough of that these days.
Why would more hours make people more drunk? If it takes an hour, say, for a person to get drunk, and alcohol can be served today from 6am to 2am, then there seems to be plenty of time for people to get drunk at a bar. And if they are home, they can drink 24/7. Why does changing the hours that alcohol may be bought change the amount of drinks per hour a person has?
My God man…..Do you really think people wont drink more if they can stay in the bars longer?
Obviously, some people know nothing of alcoholics.
Waste of time to debate with people who don’t understand.
You know, there are always those who make excuses for bad policy and minimize the effects at every opportunity. But then when the unintended consequences of their poor judgement comes to bare they just make excuses for it….those guys gotta knock it off. Really. Knock it off.
You do see the difference between drinking more in total and drinking more quickly, I’m sure. I don’t see, and I’m sure I’m not alone, how having more time to drink makes one drink more quickly.
It’s totally beside the point whether a person drinks more drinks in a night if they drink at or slower than the rate they metabolize it. It’s also a tenuous assumption at best that more hours means longer drinking rather than just later drinking. Budgets are still limited, especially at $10-$15 per drink. Maybe some percentage of people will drink more. And others will just drink later or more flexibly. What percentage is in each group is just guessing.
You are hopeless, I’m done here.
Feeling sensitive huh? Can’t stand when other people have good argumens and you don’t win?