NC officially bans smoking in bars / restaurants

Wisconsin also just bit the dust. I can't believe it. I am not intimate with many other states, but if any of those idiot politicians actually went and hung out with the people they claim to represent, they never would have passed this law. Milwaukee and Madison, our only two major cities, wanted it. So the rest of the public houses around the state where regular working people are just hanging out after work have to go outside to smoke?!!!???!!!!!

This makes me want to grab my representative and shake him. He voted against the ban but I don't care. He should have been more persuasive.

HOW IS IT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO?

I don't smoke. I don't like smelling smoke. If I want to avoid it, I GO TO A DIFFERENT BAR!!!!! How is that so hard. Damn it this topic pisses me off.

I am going to push my local establishments to ignore the law. I am guessing I will not win the argument.

The hypocrisy amazes me. This is generally a right wing forum that is ALWAYS spouting the creed "This is America, we do what we want" or "No government intervention"

Just like anywhere else, nobody has a problem with banning anything they don't agree with, but could easily avoid if they wanted to. In a real free market, surely there wold be an opening for voluntary non smoking bars?

edit: it seems that Boerderij, beat me to the same point. Now HE is a righty that I can respect!!

Who are you kidding. The US is more regulated than the EU in my opinion. At least for most of the activities I engage in regularly. The land of the free is a misnomer.

People will never see the logic in your argument Gnome. When you tell them it is your choice, they scream bloody murder and tell you how it is their right to live. yawn... Then don't go to smoky bars idiot!!!

I strongly dislike smoky areas and don't smoke myself, but I HATE the idea of taking that freedom away from anyone or even me. I have strongly considered taking up smoking because of all this nonsense.

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

I have strongly considered taking up smoking because of all this nonsense.

Click to expand...

That'll show 'em!

As usual, Evan and I agree on this issue. Ban smoking in public areas, no problem - but force private establishments to be non-smoking against the desires of the owner? I call BS.

moti_mo said:

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

Click to expand...

But the problem there is that there are no bars where one may smoke. It's really that simple. I'm not against non smoking bars, I'm against no choice in the whole fricken state.

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

moti_mo said:

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

Click to expand...

You are correct on both counts. Just as non-smokers can choose not to go in an establishment that allows smoking, smokers can choose to not be made to go outside to smoke in a non-smoking establishment.

That's not the issue though. The issue is business owners being forced by the government to ban smoking on their private property in their businesses. It should be at the discretion of the property owner whether or not smoking is allowed.

moti_mo said:

Nobody is taking a freedom away from gaseous people. They can still fart all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can fart. Stay at home farting while drinking your own homebrew - you can fart. fart on the way to the bar. fart on the way home from the bar. fart any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-farters having the choice to not go to the farty bars...well now the farters have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to fart or staying at home and farting when and where they want.

Click to expand...

Yes it is ridiculous, but I think you see where the logic breaks down. Imagine smoking was anything else or any other activity and this becomes a ludicrous idea.

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

Lets get my point absolutely straight. I completely support the right of non smokers to enjoy a smoke free environment. I also support the rights of smokers to have a smoke FILLED environment. Let the market decide which will be which.

Nah, screw it. I can't argue this any more. I now support the right for everyone to use either the ladie's or men's rest rooms, regardless of gender.

moti_mo said:

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...I never realized that the abrogation of property rights was okay so long as it didn't create too much of an inconvenience

Can you imagine if the Bill of Rights went something like this...

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless it's not too much of an inconvenience for the target of said law.

Click to expand...

This kind of ignorance is precisely why the whole concept of negative rights is foreign to most people in this country today. For them, it's got nothing to do with principles, it has to do with pragmatism.

So, moti_mo, are you suggesting that you would oppose the ban if it were less convenient than just walking outside? What if, like some states/cities, they have banned smoking on the sidewalks and streets as well?

Ugh.

Instant Classic!

Nobody is taking a freedom away from gaseous people. They can still fart all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can fart. Stay at home farting while drinking your own homebrew - you can fart. fart on the way to the bar. fart on the way home from the bar. fart any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-farters having the choice to not go to the farty bars...well now the farters have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to fart or staying at home and farting when and where they want.

Click to expand...

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Yes it is ridiculous, but I think you see where the logic breaks down. Imagine smoking was anything else or any other activity and this becomes a ludicrous idea.

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

Click to expand...

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

Just like anywhere else, nobody has a problem with banning anything they don't agree with, but could easily avoid if they wanted to. In a real free market, surely there wold be an opening for voluntary non smoking bars?

Click to expand...

In a perfect "free" market, I would agree. Unfortunately, this is more of a goal than an reality. Look at the stock market for an analogy - people thought the "free" market could correct itself without the need for regulation. Unfortunately, regulation is necessary sometimes to expedite a common cause; in this case, the abolishment of smoking indoors.

ohiobrewtus said:

That's not the issue though. The issue is business owners being forced by the government to ban smoking on their private property in their businesses. It should be at the discretion of the property owner whether or not smoking is allowed.

Click to expand...

Businesses already abide by numerous federal, state, country, and city laws for everything from food handling, sanitation, maximum occupancy, etc. So, the "private property" argument doesn't really hold much water when it comes to business regulation.

Running a business is also a "choice", just like picking a non-smoking establishment. Businesses decide to fold all of the time when new regulations are passed by the government. Adapt, or die. That is the dilemma.

problem with "Dont go to smokey bars"is before the ban no such thing existed. You rights actually end when they infringe on mine. Bars need to abide by 100's of laws in order to operate from health to safety codes to where they buy there beer and booze.So to say its the owners right to run the business as they see fit is well misguided. And every bars becomes a "public" place when they open their doors to the public.

Here Private clubs can still have smoking and also cigar bars where 20% of the business is cigar sales . Slesingers steak house in New Windsor NY has a cigar bar that is sealed from the eating area.

Smoking is legal so is drinking but if I walk out of a bar with a beer in my hand I can be arrested.

Most places have outdoor smoking area's now around here . They arent used much though I wonder if the 5$ a pack price here has anything to do with less people smoking.

moti_mo said:

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

Click to expand...

Good point, we had better ban alcohol, salt, fats, acids, soda and all other harmful products before we the dumb innocents hurt ourselves further. For that matter, we had better take away all pointy objects, guns, sticks, and put pads on all our hands and feet and muzzles on all our mouths.

The world is fraught with danger. Get over it. Or live in a bubble. Personally, I don't think second hand smoke is nearly as dangerous as has been believed. I don't have any proof of that, its just my personal stance.

moti_mo said:

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

Click to expand...

We don't have a democratic government despite what schools are trying to teach we have a representative democracy. The government can't take rights away from any of its people. The free market should determine how a business runs not the government.

Don't get started on second hand smoke that is a load of bull**** in itself.

moti_mo said:

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

Click to expand...

Do I have to use a different bathroom too? How about a water fountain?

What about the smoke "smell" on my coat? Do I need to sit in the back of the bus?

Smokers were already second class citizens in some respects while being hammered with taxes. Now they have to go outside to practice a legal activity?

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Good point, we had better ban alcohol, salt, fats, acids, soda and all other harmful products before we the dumb innocents hurt ourselves further. For that matter, we had better take away all pointy objects, guns, sticks, and put pads on all our hands and feet and muzzles on all our mouths.

The world is fraught with danger. Get over it. Or live in a bubble. Personally, I don't think second hand smoke is nearly as dangerous as has been believed. I don't have any proof of that, its just my personal stance.

Click to expand...

None of the things you just listed produces anything airborne that harms other people that are not choosing to consume them. And as far as alcohol goes, when it becomes a danger to public health, it is regulated - you're arrested if you've consumed too much alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car because you're putting other people in danger.

Actually farting is a perfect anology..Both smoke and farts contain toxic elements that can kill you if concentrated, so apparently you didn't check out your farts well enough..


Try google..LOL

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

Click to expand...

Let's be clear, here, because I have debated this with nanny-statists many time in the past, back when DC was going non-smoking...

...the government has clearly established a precedent for telling businesses that are open to the public what they must do and cannot do. Health codes. Fire safety & egress codes. Building codes.

The reason I bring this up is because I am anticipating someone on this forum to use this as an argument in favor of the smoking ban. Many nanny-statist smoking-ban-supporters use this argument freely. And so I mean to cut them off at the pass before they can even attempt to start arguing with you that yes, the government can and does tell businesses what to do, even though they're "private" businesses, in the interest of public safety.

The obvious hole in this line of reasoning is that things like fire safety, health safety, building safety, are hazards that are not easily observable to the casual customer. When I enter your restaurant, I can't be expected to know that the egress door in the back is blocked with crates and thus, if a fire breaks out, I might not be able to get out. I can't be expected to know if your chef is not washing his hands and is possibly passing on harmful bacteria in my food. I can't be expected to know if the ceiling joists above me are sized and spaced in such a manner that the roof is safely held up. All of these are unknowable hazards, and so you can at least entertain an argument that the public (in the form of a governing authority) has an interest in protecting the casual customer from these unknowable hazards.

Smoking does not fit this bill, however, because it is a clear, obvious, knowable, observable hazard to anyone who can see and/or smell, prior to entering the premises. Not only that, but unlike a fire safety hazard or a health safety hazard like e. coli, second-hand smoke takes prolonged exposure to manifest itself as any meaningful harm. So you would have to observe the smoke, then make the conscious decision to expose yourself to it for prolonged periods of time (several years, regularly) to see any meaningful damage to your health. All it takes is one fire or one poorly-designed roof structure, or one exposure to e. coli, in order for me to be harmed in a meaningful way.

EDIT: ha, I knew it was only a matter of time...

springer said:

And every bars becomes a "public" place when they open their doors to the public.

Click to expand...

springer said:

problem with "Dont go to smokey bars"is before the ban no such thing existed. You rights actually end when they infringe on mine. Bars need to abide by 100's of laws in order to operate from health to safety codes to where they buy there beer and booze.So to say its the owners right to run the business as they see fit is well misguided. And every bars becomes a "public" place when they open their doors to the public.

Here Private clubs can still have smoking and also cigar bars where 20% of the business is cigar sales . Slesingers steak house in New Windsor NY has a cigar bar that is sealed from the eating area.

Smoking is legal so is drinking but if I walk out of a bar with a beer in my hand I can be arrested.

Most places have outdoor smoking area's now around here . They arent used much though I wonder if the 5$ a pack price here has anything to do with less people smoking.

Click to expand...

Bull ****!!!!!! There are a TON of smoke free bars around here. I frequent many of them. It is up to the owner to decide if they want to attract that kind of market.

It is just a scam for the small places outside the cities where regular people are just going to relax with the neighbors and see what's up in town. I know many city people think these ignorant people clinging to their guns and religion <dig> aren't worth caring about, but they just want to work hard pay their taxes and have a damn beer and a cig at the end of the day.

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO ACCEPT?

Just go someplace else if you don't like the public house.

mmb said:

Do I have to use a different bathroom too? How about a water fountain?

What about the smoke "smell" on my coat? Do I need to sit in the back of the bus?

Smokers were already second class citizens in some respects while being hammered with taxes. Now they have to go outside to practice a legal activity?

Click to expand...

The smoke smell on your coat isn't a public safety concern. It's just unpleasant. Therefore, yes, you can walk around smelling like smoke all you want.

I never thought this day would come. Good for North Carolina! I support this wholeheartedly and hope Purdue signs off on the bill quickly and the law is enacted sooner than later. I generally stay away from bars because I am allergic to smoke and now I will be able to enjoy a beer or three out sometimes.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Good point, we had better ban alcohol, salt, fats, acids, soda and all other harmful products before we the dumb innocents hurt ourselves further. For that matter, we had better take away all pointy objects, guns, sticks, and put pads on all our hands and feet and muzzles on all our mouths.

The world is fraught with danger. Get over it. Or live in a bubble. Personally, I don't think second hand smoke is nearly as dangerous as has been believed. I don't have any proof of that, its just my personal stance.

Click to expand...

well what you do to your body is well your business eat 100 big macs every day I don't give a ratsass. But second hand smoke has been proven to carry toxins and smoking effects everyone around you drinking yourself to death effects you unless you get in a car while drunk.

UncleDave said:

I never thought this day would come. Good for North Carolina! I support this wholeheartedly and hope Purdue signs off on the bill quickly and the law is enacted sooner than later. I generally stay away from bars because I am allergic to smoke and now I will be able to enjoy a beer or three out sometimes.

Click to expand...

Don't ya just love it when a law gets passed to suit your own interests perfectly? I'm waiting for the law that allows me to shoot kids that get on my fooking lawn.....Do you have kids?

springer said:

problem with "Dont go to smokey bars"is before the ban no such thing existed.

Click to expand...

Wrongo-dongo. And even if there weren't any, that doesn't give you the right to force OTHER property owners, who put their blood, sweat, tears and money into their own bar, to do your bidding. You know, I'd like it if all bars gave away free booze. But none of them do! Oh noes! Well, maybe you should start your OWN bar that gives away booze, rather than be so selfish as to tell everyone else what they must do.

You rights actually end when they infringe on mine.

Click to expand...

Again, this isn't about smokers' rights, it's about property rights.

Bars need to abide by 100's of laws in order to operate from health to safety codes to where they buy there beer and booze.So to say its the owners right to run the business as they see fit is well misguided. And every bars becomes a "public" place when they open their doors to the public.

Click to expand...

See my argument above regarding why smoking does not fit the same bill as health and safety codes.

Smoking is legal so is drinking but if I walk out of a bar with a beer in my hand I can be arrested.

Click to expand...

Another bullsh*t law. Yay.

moti_mo said:

The smoke smell on your coat isn't a public safety concern. It's just unpleasant. Therefore, yes, you can walk around smelling like smoke all you want.

Click to expand...

I don't smoke. I also don't got to bars very frequently because I don't care for the "scene."

Your go outside comment smacked of "separate, but equal." It's not different, just do it outside. In the wind and rain, while I swipe your chair. But you can't take your drink outside, nope that's illegal.

Next step is bitching about people smoking near the door. Oh, I know... let's pass a law that you have to be 10 feet way from the door. And to know you are 10 feet away, let's paint a half circle "border" for you so you know where you can stand.

Sounds crazy? We've already had this discussion at the office. I kid you not.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Bull ****!!!!!! There are a TON of smoke free bars around here. I frequent many of them. It is up to the owner to decide if they want to attract that kind of market.

It is just a scam for the small places outside the cities where regular people are just going to relax with the neighbors and see what's up in town. I know many city people think these ignorant people clinging to their guns and religion <dig> aren't worth caring about, but they just want to work hard pay their taxes and have a damn beer and a cig at the end of the day.

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO ACCEPT?

Just go someplace else if you don't like the public house.

Click to expand...

I applaud that there are smoke free bars around you but there was no such animal around here prior to the law and I have been to pretty much all the local bars in my area .There are ways to get around around the smoking ban if the bar owner wants ,go private or become a cigar bar .

springer said:

Smoking is legal so is drinking but if I walk out of a bar with a beer in my hand I can be arrested.

Click to expand...

Good logic.

'We have this one really stupid and over reaching law... so why don't we make a bunch of other to match it!'

Hurray.

Has anyone ever tried <i>REAL</i> tobacco? I mean fresh tobacco, unprocessed tobacco? I never thought about it till a couple of years ago I was talking to a guy in my neighborhood and he had a tobacco plant growing in his front planter. He said he'd been growing them for years. He rolled a cig...... and it was amazing. Wasn't harsh like the store bought. It was smoothed and soothing. After that I've been growing one in my front yard ever since. Everyone should do it. I always tell people, once the government is done taxing cigs, alcohol, junk food, etc out of existence there going to come for <b>SOMETHING</b> You love......

Maybe we should ban tobacco companies from putting harmful fillers in the cigs and let people smoke all naturals wherever the hell they want;

Yall wanna give me the second hand smoke speech now?

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

Click to expand...

Where I live, an employer is under the obligation to provide a safe working environment for his employees.
Part of that would be a smoke-free environment.

Maybe it's more about employee health and safety rather than telling them how to do business.

springer said:

well what you do to your body is well your business eat 100 big macs every day I don't give a ratsass. But second hand smoke has been proven to carry toxins and smoking effects everyone around you drinking yourself to death effects you unless you get in a car while drunk.

Click to expand...

By voluntarily entering a contained establishment that has cigarette smoke floating around in the air, and voluntarily remaining there, whilst knowing full well that you are voluntarily ingesting secondhand smoke, which can be harmful to your health, you are making a CHOICE to voluntarily harm yourself, just like the person smoking has made a choice to harm themselves. Yes, when a business opens its doors to the public, it also opens itself to the intervention of governing agencies who are interested in protecting the public from harm. But as I stated above, there is a fundamental difference between protecting the public from unknowable, imminent harm (like invisible bacteria in their food), and protecting them from something that is both easily observable and that requires prolonged exposure to register meaningful health problems.

springer said:

I applaud that there are smoke free bars around you but there was no such animal around here prior to the law and I have been to pretty much all the local bars in my area .There are ways to get around around the smoking ban if the bar owner wants ,go private or become a cigar bar .

Click to expand...

Wow... so let me get this straight... there not enough demand for smoke free establishments in your area to support a single smoke free bar, but now you have mandated the EVERY bar prohibits smoking?

And this somehow makes sense to everyone???

ChillyP said:

Has anyone ever tried <i>REAL</i> tobacco? I mean fresh tobacco, unprocessed tobacco? I never thought about it till a couple of years ago I was talking to a guy in my neighborhood and he had a tobacco plant growing in his front planter. He said he'd been growing them for years. He rolled a cig...... and it was amazing. Wasn't harsh like the store bought. It was smoothed and soothing. After that I've been growing one in my front yard ever since. Everyone should do it. I always tell people, once the government is done taxing cigs, alcohol, junk food, etc out of existence there going to come for <b>SOMETHING</b> You love......

Click to expand...

I picked tobacco for one season when I lived in France. My neigbour grew tobacco for Phillip Morris.

I snaffled some, and dried it in my barn......Damned near frigging killed me!!

ChillyP said:

Has anyone ever tried <i>REAL</i> tobacco? I mean fresh tobacco, unprocessed tobacco? I never thought about it till a couple of years ago I was talking to a guy in my neighborhood and he had a tobacco plant growing in his front planter. He said he'd been growing them for years. He rolled a cig...... and it was amazing. Wasn't harsh like the store bought. It was smoothed and soothing. After that I've been growing one in my front yard ever since. Everyone should do it. I always tell people, once the government is done taxing cigs, alcohol, junk food, etc out of existence there going to come for <b>SOMETHING</b> You love......

Click to expand...

We seemed to post at the same time; question is, did I blow smoke in your face on the way in?

Brewer_Steve said:

Where I live, an employer is under the obligation to provide a safe working environment for his employees.
Part of that would be a smoke-free environment.

Maybe it's more about employee health and safety rather than telling them how to do business.

Click to expand...

Being an ice fisherman or a lumberjack is very dangerous, but they do it anyway, and the government doesn't stop them from doing it. Again, this goes back to the "knowable hazard" versus "unknowable hazard". A worker knows, when they go to work at a bar that allows smoking, that they will be exposed to it. They make this rational choice. This is different from unknowable hazards that the worker cannot reasonably be expected to know about prior to being exposed to them. That having been said, even many of the workplace safety laws are arcane and overreaching, and should be repealed. There are valid laws, of course, on those books, but there are also many absurd ones.

Evan! said:

Wrongo-dongo. And even if there weren't any, that doesn't give you the right to force OTHER property owners, who put their blood, sweat, tears and money into their own bar, to do your bidding. You know, I'd like it if all bars gave away free booze. But none of them do! Oh noes! Well, maybe you should start your OWN bar that gives away booze, rather than be so selfish as to tell everyone else what they must do.

Click to expand...

Around here bars can and do give booze away its called a buy back and I have received plenty.

If you want to open a brewery can you just do it? Same **** different situation If you own a bar you abide by the laws present and future. If the law is oppressive lobby to change it.