[Cyclone_]

That's probably aimed at reducing consumption.

[hunter2_]

I assume eliminating the "loss leader" concept is the main effect, since shops shouldn't otherwise price things as losses regardless? In which case it seems like it's meant to maintain some friction / overhead for people wanting to visit the stores, possibly reducing consumption at least for the price-sensitive.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

In Texas the law exists as well, phrased as cannot offer price below wholesale price for alcohol which in effect bans “bottomless/all you can drink” deals as well. It is indeed designed as a way to discourage consumption

[thefringthing]

Selling at a loss can also be a monopolistic practice: a firm with enough capital can sell at a loss to capture the market, and then buy out their now-flailing competition.

[gwbas1c]

There's a lot of old laws that special case alcohol in the US; mostly artifacts of prohibition and temperance movements.

[fsckboy]

>There's a lot of old laws that special case alcohol in the US

yes there are, but the anti happy hour laws are only from the 1970-80s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, raise the drinking age campaigns.

the previous round of laws like that were from the Temperance, Prohibition, lifting of Prohibition periods.

then before that, yes the Puritan Blue Laws.

[dylan604]

Can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday is one of my faves.

[fsckboy]

>That's probably aimed at reducing consumption.

it's aimed at not encouraging consumption which is slightly different. you can have a "hungry hour" where you entice people with food bargains and sell them alcohol, but you can't have a "happy hour" where you entice people with alcohol bargains.

it is also in keeping with other laws intended to create a competitive/collusion free market (not saying the crafting of those laws was not influenced by incumbents trying to maintain their share)