The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not inherently against any particular in this bill, but it does seem like an awful lot of regulation - and that's coming from me. Lean support - unless I can be convinced otherwise.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the honourable junior member from the glorious state of Geogia. Pare out what you think could be cut from the bill, and I'll support that motion.

I can agree with striking out Sections 4 & 8, and in addition I believe Section 12 could be scrapped as long as there are pans that prevent animals from defecating or urinating upon one another. I also think that since Section 2 effectively limits the size of the breeding operation, Section 12 would not be a huge concern.

[Adam Griffin]

As of now, this is the current draft of the proposed bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Pardon my interruption everyone, but I just wanted to inform all that, given the change in power and the amount of time passed, I am giving an additional 48 hours to all regions to formally request a portion of the $8 billion from the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act for the "repair, expansion, or construction of rapid bus lines in metropolitan areas", or to modify the request which was made of the former SoIA. Should you all wish to make any request or modification, please let me know in my Official Department Office. Thank you!

Free infrastructure money? Surely SJoyce can put some of this to use.This report shows that for $1.4 billion:

We can deploy 2,000 CNG-powered buses, each running a route of 37,000 miles per year for a period of 12 years.

Also, if there is no further debate to be had on the Protect Our Dogs And Cats Act of 2012, a vote will be opened sometime today.

[Adam Griffin]

I would support such legislation being moved to the top of the docket.

In regards to the Protect Our Dogs And Cats Act of 2012: Aye.

[Adam Griffin]

I've drafted a starting point from which to work on this. This will ultimately have to be put to a regional vote - in any form - if I am not mistaken. Let discussion commence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

     Quickly, I'd like to address the issue of the transportation bill. I'm thinking I might just propose a list of the 20 or so most populous cities in the region. Any comments or alternative suggestions?

This idea sounds reasonable. I cannot imagine where greater transportation efficiency could be achieved than in the most urbanized areas.

[Adam Griffin]

I would like to see at least one city in each state have access to these funds - as you suggested, Jackson along with perhaps Little Rock? Also, was San Juan's position included in these figures?

[Adam Griffin]

1) Seatown has threatened to take his case to the Supreme Court. While there is no timeframe to act yet, we should probably get the ball rolling on choosing a Defender of the Realm soon.

I'd like to suggest that we draft the former Speaker back into service.

[Adam Griffin]

New threads created. Does sponsor Adam Griffin accept my amendment as friendly?

Yes.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the current draft of the proposed amendment. Since it's still the holiday weekend, we'll allow more time unless there's a consensus from the Legislators to proceed to a vote.

[Adam Griffin]

     I don't think the language specifications are particularly needed, as long as it is something that can be readily translated on the internet (which is probably everything). If someone casts a ballot in Japanese, Google Translate can handle it.

I agree. While I accepted the amendment as friendly, I mainly just want to address this issue as soon as possible. I do not find it particularly necessary considering that in this context we are attempting to relax how votes are interpreted.

[Adam Griffin]

Per the Emperor's suggestion, we will go ahead and hold a vote to appoint Jbrase the Defender of the Realm to represent the region in Seatown vs IDS.

[Adam Griffin]

     I made a thread for it to be done in while we discuss the amendment here. We can hold the vote here, though.

We can do it in your thread. I was thinking that it was more of an announcement thread initially. I still haven't adjusted to having a thread for separate topics, yet.

[Adam Griffin]

Is this for the original proposal (sans SJoyce's amendment)? If so, aye.

[Adam Griffin]

Since all of the other ongoing discussions and deliberations are occurring in separate threads, I see no reason why we cannot get back to business with our bills in queue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let debate commence.

[Adam Griffin]

Voting will now commence on the Imperial Empiricism Act. Please cast your ballots in the affirmative, negative or an abstention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

By a vote of 3-2, the Imperial Empiricism Act is defeated.

[Adam Griffin]

Next item on the docket:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose the following amendment to the bill, as worded. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are to be struck in their entirety.

I cannot accept the amendment due to the fact that the content of the amendment is what this bill is attempting to address. The goal of this legislation is to end the somewhat-theocratic regulation of a substance in places that should only be regulated as a matter of economics and public safety.

By eliminating the concept of wet and dry counties/cities along with establishing a uniform standard of sales, we can avoid creating "pockets" where some communities benefit from alcohol sales by attracting that revenue from nearby cities and counties that cannot purchase alcohol at that set time or on that specific day - or even at all. By keeping local revenue local, we strengthen local economies.

I would like to offer an amendment as a clarification to this bill, however:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cause you make me feel like, I've been locke outta heaven! For too long!!!!

I see The People's Plantation is a wet zone.

[Adam Griffin]

I think the last version of the text is fine with me. We have a minimum opening time span, and we let the possibility of expanding that time span to those who wish to do so. Of course, any given bar or restaurant can still choose to not sell alcohol if they want. But a local authority can't ban alcohol sale on its jurisdiction anymore, which I think is the whole point of the bill.

     I agree with that idea, though it looks to me like the current draft of the bill requires businesses with a liquor license to serve alcohol during those times.

If an establishment with an alcohol license is:

a) open to the public during these hours
b) has alcohol on the premises

Then it would be required to sell alcohol during those times. This legislation is not a mandate on the restaurants and bars themselves to maintain certain operating hours, but rather a solution for customers and citizens alike in having standard hours in which alcohol can be purchased.

[Adam Griffin]

I think the last version of the text is fine with me. We have a minimum opening time span, and we let the possibility of expanding that time span to those who wish to do so. Of course, any given bar or restaurant can still choose to not sell alcohol if they want. But a local authority can't ban alcohol sale on its jurisdiction anymore, which I think is the whole point of the bill.

     I agree with that idea, though it looks to me like the current draft of the bill requires businesses with a liquor license to serve alcohol during those times.

If an establishment with an alcohol license is:

a) open to the public during these hours
b) has alcohol on the premises

Then it would be required to sell alcohol during those times. This legislation is not a mandate on the restaurants and bars themselves to maintain certain operating hours, but rather a solution for customers and citizens alike in having standard hours in which alcohol can be purchased.

So if I own a restaurant that has an alcohol license, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell alcohol during, say, lunch, I would now be breaking the law?

Under the strictest interpretation, yes. Possessing an alcohol license is a responsibility and a  privilege allocated by the government and as such, requires that the establishment in question follow certain basic guidelines pertaining to the possession and distribution of the beverage for which the license was issued.

Again, no new or existing business will be obligated to extend their hours of operation to conform with the standard. Those businesses that do have alcohol licenses and are operating during such hours, however, will be required to provide the service for which they've requested a license.

[Adam Griffin]

Then it's clear the bill is fatally flawed, because it would have the IDS running the businesses for them.

Businesses are already regulated in multiple facets when distributing alcohol. Businesses are allowed to distribute alcohol through government decree, not in spite of it. This is not a deal-breaker, nor is it unprecedented. If an establishment is willing to reap the benefits that come with a government-sponsored license, then it must also adhere to any regulations set forth by that body and its variations.

We live in a consumer-based economy. Consumers are my primary worry in this. Their decisions drive growth, not those of businesses; businesses simply follow the trends set forth by consumers in order to improve upon that. When it comes to leveling the playing field for local communities, ensuring that equal access to a regulated, taxed substance is prevalent is one of the least invasive ways we can encourage economic growth and increased spending in local communities.

When it comes to current purchasing of alcohol, citizens of many communities are forced to leave their jurisdictions to have a liquor-based beverage in a restaurant. Likewise, some individuals cannot even purchase alcohol in any shape or form on certain days - resulting in economic loss to that community if the consumer goes elsewhere. What about their choice? The decision foisted upon them when it comes to participating in the consumer economy is no less stringent than the one being proposed to those who sell alcohol in their venues.

Existing precedent is clear: if you want to provide an alcoholic beverage to consumers through sponsorship of a government license, then you must adhere to standards set forth regulating such activity. Most business-savvy individuals in dry and semi-dry counties would love this idea as it would allow them to distribute alcohol during hours of operation where they have not been able to otherwise, leading to more profit. Those who wish to make a ideological statement can close their business during hours in which they do not wish to sell alcohol or turn in their alcohol license.