Sherri Cavan's LIQUOR LICENSE - Introduction - The Public Drinking Place: An Overview

2. The Public Drinking Place: An Overview

In 1964 the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control listed about two thousand establishments in the city of San Francisco licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. The terms of licensing differentiate these establishments into "Public Premises," selling only alcoholic beverages (a total of 792), and "Public Eating Places." The latter category can be divided into restaurants serving beer and wine only and those serving beer, wine, and distilled beverages. Approximately 231 of the latter subcategory of Public Eating Places are listed in the classified section of the telephone book as cocktail lounges, taverns, or night clubs, or under all three headings. Thus, although licensed as public eating places, they advertise and are known as public drinking places, some serving only lunches or only enough food to comply with the terms of their license. These establishments, that are either licensed only for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises or function as establishments within which drinking alone may take place, will be treated here as public drinking places.
Based on the 1960 census figures for the resident population of San Francisco, there is approximately one public drinking place for every 717 members of the community, or one for every 515 members eligible to frequent such settings, which is to say, twenty-one years of age or over.

The Ecological Order

Most of the public drinking places in San Francisco are situated along thoroughfares that carry both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The location of the premises is usually made conspicuous by signs or symbols (typically a neon cocktail glass) [16] proclaiming the nature of the establishment. In addition to telephone directory listings, some establishments in the city are advertised in the entertainment sections of the large daily papers and the smaller district papers. Occasionally they are advertised in the classified section of the newspaper under headings such as "Special Notice" or "Personals." Their names and locations are sometimes advertised on billboards throughout the city and on the radio, as well as in a variety of other media, such as guidebooks to the city and tourist brochures.
But while the location of most public drinking places may be patent within the community, this is not true of all such establishments. Some are located on small alleyways or side streets that are little used by either pedestrians or vehicles. Others, located on more heavily used thoroughfares but unmarked by sign or symbol, may be unnoticed by and unknown to the passer-by. Some establishments, marked or unmarked, are situated above or below street level, outside the usual visual range of one going past. The telephone directory does not provide a definitive listing of all the public drinking places in the city. Thus the total number of settings existing in the community and the number of settings commonly known and easily accessible may not be the same.
Most Of the public drinking places in San Francisco are clearly demarcated as separate from and independent of the area surrounding them. They are free-standing or self-con-

tained structures existing independently of any other behavior setting. Some, however, are sub settings within some larger setting.[17] Their physical milieu can be found enclosed within the milieu of other settings, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, transportation terminals, bowling alleys, sports arenas, and even retail department stores. When the public drinking place is a sub setting, it is usually exposed to a larger segment of the community--for example, those persons present in the larger setting who have not attained their majority, those who do not drink, or those who do not choose to enter the bar for any reason.
The nature of the encompassing setting may of course play an important part in whether or not a public drinking place will exist as a sub setting within it. When the Mount San Jacinto Winter Park Authority requested permission to sell alcoholic beverages in the restaurant that was opening there, the chief of the California State Park Commission stated, "If the intent of the Winter Park Authority is to provide access to an area of outstanding natural beauty and outdoor recreation, sale of liquor at the mountain station will not enhance this experience." He noted that, according to the commission's established policy, liquor sale within the state parks "as a general rule is not compatible with park use."[18] There are, of course, a variety of other behavior settings that would be in the same sense incongruous with a sub setting of a public drinking place.
When the public drinking place is a sub setting, its physical milieu may still be clearly demarcated from that of the larger selling by full walls. The association between the bar and the larger setting may thus be controlled by the connecting door. left open, the relationship between the two settings is easily apparent; closed, the bar may be perceived as an independent

milieu. In other cases where the bar is contained within a larger setting, its physical milieu may be marked off only by partial walls, low partitions, or some other device like plantings or hangings, conventionally setting off the smaller unit although its physical area may be in part coterminous with the physical area of the encompassing setting. In some contained bars, however, there may be no features at all that could either structurally or conventionally function to define the area of the public drinking place, and the standing behavior patterns of both settings may be found to be equally distributed throughout the physical area which they share.
Even where the milieu of the public drinking place is enclosed or contained in a larger behavioral setting, entrance into the bar may still be direct. Bars structurally demarcated from the larger setting in which they exist may and frequently do have a separate street entrance not shared by the larger setting. Where the milieu of the contained bar is only conventionally defined, its area is often located immediately following the main entrance. Here patrons enter the bar directly, while those who intend to patronize only the larger setting are required to move through the sub setting of the public drinking place first. In other cases, the entrances and exits of contained bars require the patrons to move through some part of the larger setting first. Thus in some hotel bars and in most transportation terminal bars, the entrance to the bar opens only onto the lobby area of the larger setting. In some restaurant bars it is necessary for persons who intend to use the bar first or exclusively to weave their way through the tables of the dining area before they can reach the bar itself.
The location of public drinking places in the city is restricted both by state law (which may deny the issuance of licenses in the general vicinity of churches, public playgrounds, hospitals, and public work camps) [19] and city ordinances (which

Ecological Distribution of Public Drinking Places in San Francisco, California, 1965

may prohibit establishments from areas not zoned for commercial purposes). Even within the permitted areas, their distribution is uneven: there are a few areas with a number of establishments and a number of areas with few establishments or none at all.
Almost one-third of the total number of public drinking places in San Francisco (see map) are situated in two general areas of the city, The first area is composed of four contiguous

census tracts which more or less comprise the downtown section of the city.[20] These four census tracts include, in addition to the central business and commercial district, the greater part of both the skid row area and the tenderloin. Of the two hundred twenty-four bars in this area, 26 per cent are in the central business and commercial tract, 41 per cent are in the two tenderloin tracts, and 33 per cent are in the skid row tract.
The second area of high concentration, comprised of two adjacent census tracts, is known and characterized by the ninety-one public drinking places located there. This is the night-life section of the city, where one finds the greatest number of bars featuring some form of programed entertainment.
In addition to these two areas of high concentration, 28 per cent of the public drinking places in San Francisco are found in fifteen other census tracts, each of which has between fifteen and twenty-nine establishments. Of these additional tracts, (which contain 11 per cent of the resident population of the city twenty-one years of age or older), six are in the general vicinity of the two areas of highest concentration. Partially adjacent to both the downtown business and commercial district and the nightlife section of the city are two tracts extending east and north along the waterfront area, an area characterized mainly by industrial and commercial use, as well as by restaurants, theaters, and other commercial and civic facilities for leisure pursuits. The remaining tracts are partially adjacent to the tenderloin tracts and are essentially residential areas, containing apartment houses, resident clubs, and hotels that cater to a relatively permanent clientele.

Of the remaining nine census tracts with fifteen to twenty-nine public drinking places, two adjacent tracts to the south of the downtown section of the city comprise an area mainly characterized by light industry. The rest are characterized. by commercial enclaves of various sizes within residential areas. Five of these seven tracts are adjoining and run through one of the older residential areas in the city, in many respects an area typical of what Burgess has described as the "zone of working men's homes."[21] Of the remaining two, one borders the main entrance of a military base and the other is in the general vicinity of the sports arena.
Although there is an average of eight public drinking places per census tract, of the 125 tracts in the city (excluding the two that comprise the Presidio and Golden Gate Park) eighteen (or 14 per cent of the total number) contain no bars. Another 46 tracts (37 per cent of the total number) have fewer than five bars in each. Of these sixty-four tracts, nearly two-thirds are outside the northeast quadrant of the city; but of the 20 census tracts which have ten or more public drinking places, only eight are outside the northeast quadrant.
In general, the ecological distribution of public drinking places is closely associated with the ecological distribution of potential patrons. In the sixty-three census tracts comprising the northeast quadrant of the city, not only is there the greatest concentration of bars (70 per cent of the total number of establishments) but also the greatest concentration of potential patrons. Although this quadrant has only 39 per cent of the total resident population, it contains 50 per cent of the single resident population of the city and 52 per cent of the single male resident population, two categories that are most likely to contribute patrons to such settings.[22] In addition to residents,

the local transient hotels, business and commercial establishments, and a variety of recreational facilities draw a substantial number of potential patrons to the area on a day-to-day basis.
As one moves out from the northeast quadrant of the city, there are fewer stores, offices, hotels, theaters, and restaurants that might bring potential patrons to local bars. Also, the demographic composition of the residents of these other areas becomes much more characteristic of non patrons. Thus, while one-fourth of the population of the city resides in the twenty-three census tracts that form the southwest quadrant of the city, only 20 per cent of the single population and only 18 per cent of the single male population reside there. Only six per cent of the public drinking places in the city are in this quadrant. Compared with the northeast quadrant, where there is one public drinking place for every 308 residents twenty-one years of age or older, in the southwest quadrant there is only one public drinking place for every 1,952 residents of legal drinking age.

The Legal Order

Jurisdiction over permissible locations is only one aspect of the public drinking place that is governed by law, Much of the ostensible character of the public drinking place is a matter of legal statute. Establishments whose character deviates from this legal prescription become unlawful settings subject to

penalty of some kind, including closure, if and when the infractions are discovered.[23]
Implicit in the laws concerning liquor sale is that unregulated public drinking can be a source of trouble in society and, thus, public drinking places must be legally regulated for the protection of society. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is the official California agency which has the responsibility to

exercise the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the state, to eliminate the evils of unlicensed and unlawful manufacture, selling and disposing of alcoholic beverages, and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages.[24]

Unlike most retail businesses, biographical character is a relevant variable in the decision as to whether or not a prospective entrepeneur will be legally qualified to open or purchase a public drinking place. He is required to provide a statement that he has not been convicted of any felony or violated any of the requirements of the Department, and that he Will not "cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of this division or any rule of the department applicable to the applicant or pertaining to the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages,".[25] Similarly, if the licensee is to employ a manager, he must not knowingly employ one who does not have the same qualification required of the holder of the license.[26]

Once the license has been granted, the licensee must continue to maintain his moral stature, for failure to do so will result in revocation of his license. The license can be revoked not only if the ABC codes are violated but also if the licensee is convicted of a felony or of any offense involving moral turpitude.[27] The operator of a public drinking place must in effect be a person whose moral character cannot be called into question.
In California, the number of licenses issued in any county is limited by the total population of that county. At present there can be only one new license issued for each 2,500 inhabitants, although in the past this ratio has been as low as one license for every 1,000 inhabitants of a county.[28] The manifest reason for this limitation is that the restriction of the number of public drinking places will reduce the competition among existing establishments and hence eliminate the need for " cutthroat competition." This in turn "promises temperance and deters violation of the liquor control and other penal laws."[29] But the restriction also implies that the fewer establishments available, the less the possible patronage. At the same time, the limitation of the number of establishments presumably facilitates the problem of surveillance and thus allows for moire effective enforcement of the ABC statutes.
While the hours of operation of most business establishments remain a matter for private determination, this is not completely the case for the public drinking place. Both the time of day and the days Of the week that they are permitted to operate are again a matter of law, which varies from state to state. In California, no public drinking place may "sell, furnish or give away" any alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2 A.M. and 6 A.M. of the same day.[30] Nor is any

public drinking place in California permitted to be open for business on Election Day during the hours that the polls are open for voting.
Even the way the business may be organized is subject to restrictions. For example, for most business establishments whether or not credit will be extended to customers is a decision solely under the jurisdiction of the entrepreneur; but in all states (with the exception of Ohio and Texas), sales in public drinking places must be, by law, for cash.[31] In some states there are even legal restrictions concerning the physical premises. A bar may be restricted in length or be required to have stools so that patrons may be seated. In New York, the physical bar must not be the predominant fixture in the establishment. In Chicago, public drinking places must have a window facing the street so that the interior of the establishment is visible from the outside. Some states stipulate that establishments licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises must not have swinging doors. New Hampshire public drinking places are not allowed to have window displays and illuminated signs above the premises. In California, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act stipulates that

no sign using the words "bar, " "barroom," "saloon" or words of like or similar import except the word "tavern" and the words "cocktail lounge" shall be maintained, erected, used or placed upon or adjacent to the outside of any building and in connection with any premises therein licensed to sell alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on the premises.[32]

Although defined by law as "public premises," the public character of bars is restricted by the fact that they are lawfully accessible only to those members of the community who have reached legal drinking age (which again varies from state to

state).[33] And of those who are of legal age, some Persons--such as the visibly intoxicated, the habitual drunkard or Person of "notoriously intemperate habits."[34] the Indian who is a ward of the government or on reservation land (defined as the "uncivilized" in Minnesota)--may be barred from the premises. In some states, although not in California, the insane are similarly excluded.
In nineteen states (excluding California), "interdicted" persons may be denied the right to patronize public drinking places. The operating personnel of a bar may be notified by a member of the prospective patron's family or dependents, by public officials, the state liquor authority, or certain courts, that an individual is not to be allowed to patronize the establishment, and this notification is legally binding upon the establishment. A person can be so interdicted on grounds of being "addicted to excessive drinking, a spendthrift, on relief, neglectful of his family, or an idle person."[35]
Just as the law defines who may or may not drink in public places, so too does it specify who may or may not be employed in such establishments. In aft states, the minimum age limit that defines lawful patronage of public drinking places also defines the minimum age of those who can be employees. Thus in California, persons under the age of 21 are barred from working in bars "during business hours, which are primarily designed and used for the sale and service of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises."[36] although such persons may engage in housekeeping and janitorial duties during nonoperative hours,

The Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) statutes of eleven states categorically deny females the right to work in liquor establishments. In California, women are permitted to work in public drinking places, but the tasks they are lawfully permitted to carry out are limited. Unless a woman is the licensee or the wife of the licensee of the establishment, she is prohibited from working behind the bar unless she restricts her activities to serving beer and soft drinks. The statute reads:

Every person who uses the services of a female in dispensing wine or distilled spirits from behind any permanently affixed fixture which is used for the preparation or concoction of alcoholic beverages containing distilled spirits, on any premises used for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or any female who renders such services on such premises, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.[37]

The way in which the tasks involved in running a public bar to customers seated away from the bar are also restricted by law, for, although a female employee of a public drinking place may lawfully pour beer from the bottle for the customer, she cannot pour wine.[38]
The way in which the tasks involved in running a public drinking place are to be distributed among available personnel is also under ABC control. Thus a female employee in California may entreat a customer to purchase a drink if she is employed by the establishment to distribute drinks, that is, if she is employed as a waitress. But to employ someone only to encourage patrons to purchase drinks on the premises is

unlawful. Thus by law the public drinking place is to be a setting where there is neither hustling nor soliciting.[39]
Furthermore, all employees in public drinking places are expected to be of good moral character; the establishment is held directly responsible for the immoral behavior of its employees, In California, a license for a public drinking place can be revoked if the employees sell narcotics on the premises, if they make book on the premises (even if this is only one single act), or if female employees mingle and drink with the patrons or accept a drink from them (even if this is a nonalcoholic drink and even if the licensee had no knowledge of his employee's activities). Specifically, the statute reads:

In order to find a violation of 24200(b) it is not necessary for the accused to have knowledge of the violation or that he was negligent in not discovering the violation; the licensee can be held to have permitted the violation by showing that the acts themselves took place.[40]

The licensee of a public drinking place is held responsible for all those who are on his premises, whether they are present in the capacity of employee or patron. In the same way that the character and activities of employees can provide grounds for the revocation of the license of an establishment, so too can the character and activities of patrons provide grounds for revocation. The licensee of a public drinking place in California has by law "an active duty" to prevent minors from drinking alcoholic beverages on his premises, as well as to prevent his premises from becoming a "resort" for illegal possessors or users of narcotics, prostitutes, pimps, panders, or sexual perverts.[41]

In general, and unlike houses of prostitution and opium dens, bars in America are not, by law, as much deviant settings as they are places of potential deviant activity. Since the repeal of prohibition, the public drinking place has been reinstated as a legitimate retail business establishment, serving a legitimate demand for a legitimate commodity. But unlike the majority of other retail businesses, unlike grocery stores, clothing stores, cafeterias, movie theaters, or bowling alleys, the restrictions placed on bars by the official agencies of social control both implicitly and explicitly attribute to it a precarious status. The official control exerted by the state over who may be licensed to conduct a public drinking place, who may be employed in such an establishment, who may patronize the premises, as well as how many establishments are to be permitted in a given locality, where they may be located, when they may be open for business, and the way in which the business may be run--all these restrictions serve to define a setting of a particular kind, a setting in which, from the standpoint of the conventional order, social trouble is apt to ensue.

The Moral Order

The precarious status attributed to the public drinking place by law presumably reflects the judgment of the conventional community. historically, the patterns of behavior taken for granted in such settings as a matter of course have often been viewed not only as the antithesis of the general standards of propriety of polite society, but as destructive to the moral fiber of those engaged in them and ultimately to

society as a whole.[42] The following example of this view comes from a tract written in the eighteenth century as a guide for innkeepers:

Public-Houses, though very useful when no more in Number than necessary and well managed, yet when made subservient to Idleness, Drunkenness, Profanation of the Lord's Day, Lewdness, and Debauchery, or any Vice and Immorality, may in such Case be called poisonous Sinks of Iniquity, and fatal Consequence to the great Annoyance of the Neighborhood, the Corruption of Morals, the Waste of Substance, the Destruction of the Body, and the eternal Ruin of the Soul.[43]

In the same vein, Booth writes of the public houses of England,

The standard of propriety in these public places should not only be set as high as possible, but should everywhere be at least equal, and in the poorer neighborhoods rise above that ordinarily obtaining in the

homes. Respectability must rule. . . . This is no extravagant ideal. It is not only expected, but is practically attained in all other places of public resort: in the streets and parks, in theaters and music-halls, in markets and shops, in tea-rooms and refreshment houses of every class. . . . Everywhere we find order and propriety of behavior. Misconduct is admittedly out of place. Nor is exhilaration connected with the consumption of alcohol incompatible with order in public places any more than in the home. What would be thought of a railway company which permitted any of its refreshment rooms to be the scene of conduct which is accepted as a matter of course in half the public-houses in London on a Saturday.[44]

If the nature of the patterns of conduct associated with the public drinking place was dubious, so too was the nature of those who frequented such settings. As far back as early Greece the public drinking place has been associated with social outcasts and those of little or no social worth.[45] Firebaugh writes of the taverns of the Middle Ages,

In addition to the vagabond, ribald strumpets, jugglers, and the like, the tavern rout was swelled by great numbers of errant minstrels, peripatetic fiddlers, clamorous and frowsy singers, of both sexes or of neither, who thronged these places for lack of welcome elsewhere. Here they could forget themselves in the maze of the dance, cadge drinks and meals and, if the forelock of opportunity was long enough, pick the pockets of patrons, to the accompaniment of picaresque recitals, folk songs and the like.[46]

The most striking discovery is that over four-fifths of all respondents were in agreement with statements that would place the tavern in a position diametrically opposed to some of the most important values in contemporary American life, such as children and the home. . . . About four-fifths believe that the tavern provides contacts and associations which lead to crime, and attribute to the tavern much drunkenness and disorderly conduct. It seems paradoxical that such a large proportion of respondents agree that the tavern is related to these forms of social disorganization and yet over three-fifths of all respondents patronize the tavern either irregularly (27%) or regularly (35%).[49]

Attitudes toward public drinking places are intimately bound up with attitudes toward alcoholic beverages and drinking, which are in themselves ambivalent.[50] In American society, although a sizable majority of the adult population drink[51] (and to a certain extent the non adult population as well),[52] alcohol and drinking occupy a position that is both sacred and profane. On the one hand, alcohol and drinking are associated with such sacred rituals as christenings, weddings, communions, and funerals; more secular rites such as celebrations of birthdays, engagements, and anniversaries; and a variety of other special occasions of friendship, solidarity, and success, such as social parties, dinners and promotions. On the other hand, alcohol and drinking are also associated with an assortment of social evils: destitution, crime, vice, licentiousness, and mental and physical illness.
In part, this ambivalence may result from the nature of the physiological effects attributed to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. To the extent that alcohol acts as a depressant upon the central nervous system, drinking can, and

is generally expected to, diminish inculcated social inhibitions of reserve and restraint, allowing the participants to act with whatever heightened ecstasy, increased elan, or degree of freedom is proper and fitting for the occasion at band. But while this diminution of inhibitions may allow the participants to engage more fully or more appropriately in an occasion, care must be exercised by those present not to drink beyond the point where they will completely lose control of themselves--that point where the broader obligations required in the setting and ' by the occasion are disregarded. Those present are expected at least to show that they are both aware and capable of meeting the demands that may be made of them while they are in a given situation. Those drinkers who disregard these broader situational obligations are relegated to a morally debauched state of "being drunk," and they are typically accorded a variety of attitudes appropriate to their debased position: disgust, scorn, fear, loss of respect.[53] At best, then, drinking even on the most sacred of occasions can be a risky activity, for, as reserve and restraint are diminished, the possibility always exists that the participants may lose complete situational control of themselves.
If drinking is a precarious activity in any setting, the risk associated with drinking in public drinking places may be even greater. In most private settings in which drinking takes place in American society, the persons present are typically either known to one another directly or known to at least one other participant who can vouch for them to the others present; if the need arises, one is or can be assured that he is in the presence of trustworthy social persons. Hence he can assume that his right to diminished reserve and restraint will be treated with respect, first, because of the kind of people that the partici-

pants are known to be, and second, because the existing relationships that transcend the particular setting and occasion require the participants to exercise care not to damage those relationships beyond repair. But the public drinking place, being by definition open to the public, is typically populated by persons about whose character one may have no information whatsoever and with whom there exists no relationship transcending the immediate setting and governing in part the activities of the moment.[54] As strangers, they should be treated with the reserve and restraint that drinking is at the same time expected to diminish. The following statements made by men in response to the question, "How does liquor affect you?" are indicative, particularly the last:

"I want to be friends with everybody. I have no enemies when I am drinking. Normally, I am the shy type. But when I have a few drinks in me, I become everybody's pal."
"It does make me a little more talkative than I usually am. When I am not drinking, I tend to be a quiet sort of guy."
"Drinking makes me relaxed, friendly and talkative. I become uninhibited."
"Usually I have a reserved attitude toward strangers, but when I am drinking I'll talk with anybody."[55]

Thus, added to the risk of completely losing situational control in a public drinking place, is the further risk of leaving oneself open to possible exploitation on the part of those with whom one is unacquainted[56] and whose trustworthiness is

neither vouched for in the present setting nor expected as a feature of a broader system of obligations.
A further potential risk is attached to engagement in social hypocrisy. The reduced reserve and restraint that may be proper and fitting in other drinking settings may be valued in part because it provides tangible evidence of the kind of special occasion which is occurring or the kind of special relationships shared by those present. In the public drinking place, there is usually no particular occasion that might "legitimize" the activity occurring in the setting and no special relationships to be proclaimed or reaffirmed among those present. Thus the same forms of behavior that may be valued in other drinking settings may be, in the public drinking place, only shams, symbols without a referent of a particular kind of occasion or relationship behind them. Those who engage in such social hypocrisy may run the risk of having any claims they make about knowing and respecting the true nature of the social order doubted, and they may find themselves accorded a kind of moral censure similar to that accorded other social charlatans, such as confidence men and gigolos.
Thus behavior in the setting of the public drinking place may be empty, standing as a symbol without a referent of a particular kind of relationship behind it; and it may call forth further sanction insofar as it suggests the possibility that freedom of behavior need not imply that intimate relationships exist. If the character of the behavior is to be taken as evidence of the nature of the relationships underlying it, and if the same behavior can be evinced without corresponding relationships, then whether these relationships are in fact as they are said to be is put in doubt. In this sense, the bar setting may give false witness to the commonsense expectation that the character of relationships may be inferred from the nature of the behavior of the participants, and a whole section of taken-for- granted knowledge can be discredited.
In summary, while the public drinking place as conven-

tional. setting is relatively abundant and available to the members of the community, its moral character is by no means unquestionable. Both the legal statutes governing such settings and the historical and contemporary characterization of the nature of the public drinking place define the setting as one that is, for a number of reasons, if not beyond the pale of respectability in American society, at least on its fringes.

[16] Of the 116 public drinking places situated along two main thoroughfares in the city, 64 had neon cocktail glasses posted outside the entrance and another 11 had cocktail glasses which were unlit.

[17] By "sub setting" is meant a behavior setting that is included within the physical boundaries of some larger setting. Thus the waiting room would be a sub setting of a doctor's office. See Roger Barker and Herbert F. Wright, Midwest and Its Children, (Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson and Company, n.d.), pp. 48-50.

[18] San Francisco Chronicle, June 20, 1963.

[19] Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (California State Printing Office, September, 1961), pp. 68-69. In other states, restriction of the location of public drinking places may include the vicinity of prisons, homes for the aged, the poor, the insane, military installations, public buildings, fair grounds, and auctions. See Bertram M. Bernard, Liquor Laws (New York; Oceana Publications, 1949), p. 58.

[20] The Concentration of public drinking places in the central business district of Providence, R.I., was even greater. Approximately 20 per cent of the public drinking places in that city were located in the one tract which essentially comprised the central business district, while the Similar tract in San Francisco has only 6 Per cent of the total Number of such establishments. Cf. M. W. Pfautz and R. W. Hyde "The Ecology of Alcohol in the Local Community," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 21 (1960). D. 451

[21] E. W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City," in R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925).

[22] Of 961 respondents classified as "drinkers" in a sample of the resident San Francisco population, 56 per cent indicated that they either never attend a public drinking place or attend only once a year. However, only 36 per cent of the never-married respondents and 35 per cent of the unmarried males stated that they "virtually never" frequent such settings. These data were collected by the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center of the California State Department of Public Health, I am indebted to the Center for graciously making them available to me and particularly to Walter B. Clark and Robin Room for their assistance in tabulation. Detailed analysis of the differences between patrons and non patrons can be found in Sherri Cavan, Social Interaction in Public Drinking Places (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1965), pp. 58-67.

[23] There are a number of settings, often called "after-hours places," where drinks can be obtained but which are not licensed by the state for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. While there may be a great deal of similarity between such settings and licensed settings, I am here concerned only with the latter.

[24] Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, op. cit., p. 16. There are no states where the control of liquor and liquor dispensation is not a matter of official concern. Cf. Bernard? op. cit.

[25] ABC, op. cit., p. 75.

[26] Ibid., p. 68

[27] Ibid., p. 94.

[28] Ibid., p. 72.

[29] Bernard, op. cit., p. 15.

[30] ABC, op. cit., pp. 138-139. To comply with this law, bar clocks are typically set ten minutes ahead, thus producing what is referred to as "bar time."

[31] Bernard, op. cit., p. 61.

[32] ABC, op. cit., p. 136.

[33] In New York, for example, the age is eighteen; in California, twenty-one.

[34] Bernard, op. cit., p. 59.

[35] Ibid., p. 60. The roll of those who have at one time or another been barred from drinking in public drinking places has include4t in various times and various places~ townsmen (in contradistinction to travelers. or strangers), indentured servants, slaves, and women.

[36] ABC, op. Cit., pp. 143-144.

[37] Ibid., p. 140.

[38] Conversation, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, March, 13~ 1963.

[39] ABC, op. cit., pp. 140-141.

[40] Ibid., p. 96.

[41] Ibid., pp. 94-95. This section has a long history of legal proceedings, especially with respect to the use of such settings as "resorts" by homosexuals, the problem being whether it is to be unlawful for such people merely to patronize an establishment regularly or whether it is necessary to provide evidence that unlawful acts were committed by them on the premises. Cf. Vallerga v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 53 Cal. 2nd 313.

[42] An excellent summary of the historical position of the public drinking place can be found in Simon Dinitz, The Relation of The Tavern to Drinking Phases of Alcoholics (unpublished Pb.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1951) and in Mass Observation, The Pub and the People (London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1943). Descriptions for specific historical eras and geographical locals can be found in: George Ade, The Old Time Saloon (New York: Ray Long and Richard Smith, Inc., 1931); E. Field, The Colonial Tavern (Providence, R.I.: Preston and Rounds, 1897); W. C. Firebaugh, The Inns of Greece and Rome (Chicago: Pascal Covici, 1924); W. C. Firebaugh, The Inns of the Middle Ages (Chicago: Pascal Covici, 1924); V. Efron, "The Tavern and the Saloon in Old Russia," in R. McCarthy (ed.), Drinking and Intoxication (New York: The Free Press, 1959); and F. W. Hackwood Inns, Ales and Drinking Customs of Old England (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1909). The Prohibitionist literature also provides an abundance of material On the disrepute of the saloon. Cf. Raymond Catkins, Substitution for the Saloon (New York: Houghton Mifflin & Co. 1901) and Charles Stelzle, Why Prohibition (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1918).

[43] The Public Housekeeper's Monitor (London: C. E Rivington, 1793),pp. 10-11.

[44] Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People of London (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1903), v. 8, p. 112.

[45] See, for example: The Inns of Greece and Rome, op. cit., pp. 57-58 et passim; Hackwood, op. cit., p. 68 et passim; Ade, op. cit., pp. 12-13 et passim. This is not to say that the exclusive clientele of the public drinking place is of this nature, but, rather, that the socially nefarious have formed a prominent group of historical patrons.

[46] The Inns of the Middle Ages, op. cit., p. 69.

[47] The Public Housekeeper's Monitor, op. cit., pp. 48-49.

[48] See, for example, The Inns of Greece and Rome, op. cit., pp. 57-58; Stelzle, op. cit., p. 112; Henry Mayhew, German Life and Manners (London: Wm. H. Allen & Co., 1864), v. 1, pp. 288-289; and Byron Kirby, "The Logic of Prohibition," in McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 383-388.

[49] B. E. Macrory, "The Tavern and the Community," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 13 (1952), p. 622.

[50] Cf. A. Meyerson, "Alcoholism: The Role of Social Ambivalence," in McCarthy, op. cit.

[51] While the way in which "abstainers" is defined varies from study to study, it appears that between three-fifths and three-fourths of the adult population in America drink alcoholic beverages to some extent. See: Genevieve Knupfer and Robin Room, "Age, Sex and Social Class as Factors in Amount of Drinking in a Metropolitan Community," Social Problems, 12 (1964), P. 226; Genevieve Knupfer et al., California Drinking Practices Study, Report No. 6, California State Department of Public Health, April, 1963, p. 8; Harold A. Mulford and Donald E. Miller, "Drinking in Iowa: 11. The Extent of Drinking and Selected Sociocultural Categories," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 21 (1960), pp. 26-39; John W. Riley and Charles F. Marden, "Who, What and How Often?," in McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 182-198.

[52] See: Raymond G. McCarthy, "In High School," ibid., pp. 205211; Arthur D. Slater, "A Study of the Use of Alcoholic Beverages among High School Students in Utah," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 13 (1952), pp. 78-86; M. M. McCluggage et al., "Summary from Attitudes of High School Students Toward Alcoholic Beverages," in McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 211-218; and Robert Strauss and Seldon D. Bacon, Drinking in College (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953).

[53] Cf. J. J. Lawrence and M. A. Maxwell "Drinking and Socioeconomic Status," in D. J. Pittman and C. R. Snyder (eds.). Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), P. 144.

[54] Cf. Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, (Kurt H. Wolff, ed. and trans ) (New York: The Free Press, 1950), pp. 402408; and Alfred Schutz, "The Stranger," American Journal of Sociology, 59 (1958), pp. 409-507.

[55] The Question Man, "How Does Liquor Affect you?," San Francisco Chronicle, August 29, 1963.

[56] Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (New York: The Free Press, 1963), p- 124-

Contents | Index | Prev | Next