The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[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.

[Donerail]

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?

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And ownership of a firearms license doesn't mean that one must exercise the license by going hunting. Same with ownership of a driver's license.

The issue isn't government regulation, the issue is unnecessary government regulation. Clearly your bill as worded is unnecessarily intrusive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? That's freedom. They are able to obtain what they want without any reasonable delay. Freedom isn't one way. Businesses should be free to operate as they see fit. If a Christian business owner wishes to close on sunday than he shall be free to close on sunday.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. They make the decision to purchase alcohol. No one is forcing them to do anything. Whereas your bill is forcing businesses to stay open when they don't want to be open. That's not freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should they? Shouldn't they be permitted to operate their business however they see fit? If they don't want to sell alcohol even though they possess a license to do so, they should not be forced to sell alcohol. A license does not require one to exercise it.

[Adam Griffin]

And ownership of a firearms license doesn't mean that one must exercise the license by going hunting. Same with ownership of a driver's license.

The issue isn't government regulation, the issue is unnecessary government regulation. Clearly your bill as worded is unnecessarily intrusive.

Regulation of licensed individual behavior is not commensurate to what we are discussing here, which is regulation of licensed business behavior. Corporations are not people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Businesses are likewise free to shut their doors during select hours if they disagree with the regulation of said license they requested or can voluntarily relinquish said license. Surely that's not inconvenient, either? I will also reiterate - since your example pertains to it - that any business is free to close its doors during whatever hours it wishes. There is no regulation pertaining this. The subject up for debate is that business must serve alcohol during the hours in which they are open that overlap the proposed hours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm beginning to become legitimately worried that you have not read this bill. Again, no business is forced to maintain hours that it otherwise would not. If Susie's Casa de Crucificion wishes to close at 7 PM, they are perfectly able to do so. They are, however, required to offer alcohol during their hours of operation that overlap with the proposed time period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's obviously a proposed change, now isn't it?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Atlasia law differs with your opinion on this matter.
2. Corporations are not required to exercise a license in order to retain a license.

The reason for doing so is because a license is just that, a permit to operate within the jurisdiction. A permit cannot be stripped because a business fails to remain open 9-5. Nor for a business with a liquor license choosing not to serve alcohol at a particular time that they are open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no such regulation requiring them to close if they choose not to serve alcohol. Nor should there be. This is unnecessary red tape that intrudes upon the operation of the business and is completely unenforceable. Licenses do not require themselves to be exercised in order to be retained, and a business should not be forced to close because they operate in a fashion that you personally disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should be free to operate as they see fit, without interference from this august body. As has been said earlier, this is the fatal flaw to this terrible legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they are not required to do any such thing. You believe they ought to be required to do so. I argue they should be free to operate their business without this pernicuous interference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's the law as it stands. You want to change the present law. Or are you assuming that this has passed already? Gosh. That's pretty presumptuous of you.

This is bad legislation, and it's been apparent from the start that this is a crucial part of the bill for you, forcing businesses to do what you want them to do.

[Adam Griffin]

1. Atlasia law differs with your opinion on this matter.

Care to cite where Atlasian law backs up your assumption?

And the rest of your content is dealing with semantics and arguing the scenario. I am discussing the law as it would be applied - in theoretical sense - so in that case the tenses that I used would be valid in a hypothetical situation. This is why everybody finds you to be so abrasive. You seriously just spent time correcting that and saying, "na na na na boo boo", when you could have otherwise offered up an amendment that is more amicable than the original one you provided.

Sans Legislator Kenobi's nearly-assured back and forth - if there are no other amendments, questions or concerns, this will be brought to the floor for a vote later tonight.

[Wisconsin+17]

Mr. Speaker:

In response to the honourable member from Georgia:

I suggest that when he issues the assertion that 'corporations are not people', that the honourable member himself cite the law that provides evidence for his own position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thank the honourable member for the compliment. Grit is a virtue in Texas, but perhaps not in Georgia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have offered an amendment. You have chosen not to address the amendment, for whatever reason. If you wish to defend the bill in it's entirety, then it shall stand or fall as is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest that the honourable member issue amicable bills if he desires amicable amendments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is much more to be discussed, Mr. Griffen. You wouldn't be trying to ram this over principled opposition, now would you?

[Adam Griffin]

Mr. Speaker:

In response to the honourable member from Georgia:

I suggest that when he issues the assertion that 'corporations are not people', that the honourable member himself cite the law that provides evidence for his own position.

Corporations are separate legal entities under Atlasian law. There is no amendment or law on the books that dictate otherwise, therefore the proof of burden is on you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An amendment that was completely antithetical to the proposal's intent. Had your amendment been accepted, it would have been the same as not bringing the bill to the floor in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is not the way governing works. No one Legislator introduces a bill that another Legislator likes in order for that other Legislator to offer an amendment that completely changes the bill in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there's been one week in which the bill has been on the floor for discussion - much more time than the average bill. Based on your prior comments: "If you wish to defend the bill in it's entirety, then it shall stand or fall as is", it would seem that we should bring this to an up or down vote.

That is unless someone else has any concerns, questions or proposed amendments.

[Donerail]

I have concerns, but I doubt they are addressable.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Okay. I didn't read all the dribble Drabble but I'd like to know if the current bill allows for local governments to set their own times - like if an urban area wants to stay open later than 2am they can, etc. If that's allowable then I am supportive of the bill. I'm on my phone now but I can somewhat read posts.

From what I gather, this sets a baseline regulation for the sale of alcohol and forbids dry counties, correct? If so, lets vote. My biggest wish here is to allow for more leeway for local governments and I'm fine with the rest. We need a uniform system merely because the government already controls licenses for selling alcohol and its distribution to customers.

[Adam Griffin]

Okay. I didn't read all the dribble Drabble but I'd like to know if the current bill allows for local governments to set their own times - like if an urban area wants to stay open later than 2am they can, etc. If that's allowable then I am supportive of the bill. I'm on my phone now but I can somewhat read posts.

From what I gather, this sets a baseline regulation for the sale of alcohol and forbids dry counties, correct? If so, lets vote. My biggest wish here is to allow for more leeway for local governments and I'm fine with the rest. We need a uniform system merely because the government already controls licenses for selling alcohol and its distribution to customers.

Yes, Duke, these are minimum standards. Urban areas (or any area, for that matter) are allowed to expand upon that - as outlined in section 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have concerns, but I doubt they are addressable.

Try me.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was your assertion that 'Corporations were not people in Atlasia", and you have provided no evidence from citations within Atlasian law to justify your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An amendment that sought to preserve the rights of municipalities and communities throughout the IDS. Their interests ought also be protected by this legislature, not overrun and trampled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It hasn't even been voted upon let alone discussed. You've simply ignored it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure it does. We've had amicable bills throughout this term. This is the first one that's been a direct assault on the laws and privileges presently possessed by the people of the IDS. Ergo, my opposition and proposed amendment to the bill protecting the rights of these communities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't your average bill, then is it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've been calling for an amendment. We should first vote on my amendment already proffered before voting on the bill as a whole. That is the way this process works, no?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Lovely. I'm all set to vote.

[Wisconsin+17]

I have no opposition to this bill other than the requirements for licensees to sell alcohol, (which is entirely unnecessary, and detracts from the bill), and the removal of dry counties. Counties should be allowed to remain dry if they wish to remain dry.

If the bill is amended for both of these, I shall support the bill.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

In terms of public safety, I find dry counties inherently bad for society because they encourage drunk driving which puts everyone else at risk. So for The People if anything else, we need this bill. In fact, I believe DUI's are far more common in dry counties than in wet ones.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, does the honourable member from South Carolina have any evidence for this contention that DUIs are more common in dry counties than in wet ones? I'd like to see it if it exists. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

http://www.dwi-austin-tx.com/sitedir.buford_gonzalez.com/DryCounties.aspx

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/DrinkingAndDriving/20060517124659.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/duis-wet-counties-versus-dry-counties

I'm on my iPhone so I can't pull up many other articles. But it's clear this bill is about public safety. People are going to drink regardless of whether their county is wet or dry. The only difference is if we're a dry county, they'll just drive to a bar in another county and then risk driving back, which is something we don't want to encourage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Just saying, I'm not interested in creating a minimum hours requirement, though I suppose that is a lesser problem than that presented by the existence of dry counties. Any chance we can strike the minimum from the bill?

[Adam Griffin]

     Just saying, I'm not interested in creating a minimum hours requirement, though I suppose that is a lesser problem than that presented by the existence of dry counties. Any chance we can strike the minimum from the bill?

I would argue that without a minimum, any jurisdiction could bypass the requirement of no longer being dry by implementing an alcohol sales period of one hour or so per day. That would effectively keep such jurisdictions "dry" in actuality.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the issue is drunk driving, then we should address the actual public safety issue. The issue isn't dry counties. The issue is drunk driving.

There is nothing stopping people from driving, picking up alcohol and taking alcohol back home with them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Just saying, I'm not interested in creating a minimum hours requirement, though I suppose that is a lesser problem than that presented by the existence of dry counties. Any chance we can strike the minimum from the bill?

I would argue that without a minimum, any jurisdiction could bypass the requirement of no longer being dry by implementing an alcohol sales period of one hour or so per day. That would effectively keep such jurisdictions "dry" in actuality.

     But we could say then that jurisdictions cannot legislate hours of legal sales. My problem is that the bill as written requires a restaurant with a bar to sell alcohol during these hours. Perhaps they want to start selling alcohol at 9 PM instead of 8 PM. Well, they don't get to do that unless they want to shut down for the hour of 8-9 PM. That just isn't cool, if you ask me.