Bars and Saloons coming to Virginia?

It seems some republicans want to make it easier to get drunk. Have to wonder what the implications would be for 'bar and saloon' carry.

Bill would change food-alcohol ratios for Virginia restaurants

Virginia Beach Del. Scott Taylor this week introduced a bill to change the ratio governing food and alcohol sales at Virginia restaurants.

Under the current system, which hasn’t been changed since 1980, food and non-alcoholic drinks must provide at least 45 percent of a restaurant’s total sales. Beer and wine sales are excluded from the calculations.

Taylor’s bill, HB219, would adjust the ratio to require that food and non-alcoholic beverages make up much less of the total – 25 percent.

...

Sen. Richard Saslaw, a Democrat from Northern Virginia who helped craft the current law on ratios, said he’ll oppose the bills. He said restaurants already enjoy a big break because they don’t have to include beer and wine sales in their totals.

“If you can’t meet that ratio, you ain’t running a restaurant,” Saslaw said. “You are flat running a bar. If you want saloons in Virginia, say so.”

Click to expand...

Dave Albo is on board. Good for business, if you catch my meaning ...

There are not words sufficient to describe how terrified I am to agree with something out of the mouth of Dick Saslaw...

Having said that, this would make Virginia more like Maryland. And there really isn't anything about Maryland that I want Virginia to be more like.

TFred

TFred said:

There are not words sufficient to describe how terrified I am to agree with something out of the mouth of Dick Saslaw...

Having said that, this would make Virginia more like Maryland. And there really isn't anything about Maryland that I want Virginia to be more like.

TFred

Click to expand...

What he said EXACTLY !

Hey! The first US Marines were recruited from a tavern! :cuss:

Whaddya wanna bet that a goodly number of patrons of public houses were some of the first to support the American Revolution?

And, now that I think about it, somewhere around here I came across a historical marker that said a local vote was taken during the ratification of the US constitution at--you guessed it--a tavern.

And, think about those fellas in western PA during George Washington's administration that rose up against the fedgov--The Whisky Rebellion. While some did use whisky as a form of payment (money), the rest weren't sitting around their homesteads sipping. Wanta bet some of them were in their version of a bar?

Why, drinking liquor in public is almost patriotic!

ETA: Oh! hey, now! I just remembered. George Washington became the largest distiller in the US at that time, according to the website of the distillery near Mt. Vernon. According to the website, a lot of his white liquor was shipped straight up the road to Alexandria. Now, I'll bet anything it wasn't the upper crust sipping his white liquor like cognac after dinner. Wanta bet a lot of that adult beverage flowed into bars? Now, who was a bigger patriot than George Washington?

Alcohol was the drink off choice back then - the water often was not fit to drink, gave meaning to the term 'branch water.'

Restaurants, as stand alone edifices, really did not exist either.

In Virginia today one may sit and drink adult beverages w/o ever ordering a meal - so conditions have not changed for those that want the public house feeling, just like it was in the 1700's. Have had many conferences/meetings is such businesses.

No, I will push to retain the status quo - we have the best of both worlds IMHO.

TFred said:

Having said that, this would make Virginia more like Maryland. And there really isn't anything about Maryland that I want Virginia to be more like.

Click to expand...

I've recently realized that the single greatest benefit of (the perception of) Utah's tight alcohol (and pot) laws is that California refugees are encouraged to keep moving until they reach Colorado.

Liberals eventually flee the mess they create, but invariably start voting to turn their new home into a copy of the mess they recently escaped. We are well advised to keep something in law to encourage gun grabbers, wealth redistributors, and other liberal loons to settle somewhere other than places we consider dear.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

I've recently realized that the single greatest benefit of (the perception of) Utah's tight alcohol (and pot) laws is that California refugees are encouraged to keep moving until they reach Colorado.

Liberals eventually flee the mess they create, but invariably start voting to turn their new home into a copy of the mess they recently escaped. We are well advised to keep something in law to encourage gun grabbers, wealth redistributors, and other liberal loons to settle somewhere other than places we consider dear.

Charles

Click to expand...

I am reminding of an ongoing, tongue-in-cheek banter between Richmond West End residents and those favoring the South Side.

The West End would indicate others were welcome 'By Membership Only.' Whereas the South Side indicated 'By Invitation Only.'

Either could work quite well in keeping Virginia for [strike]Lovers[/strike] Virginians, me thinks.

People that come to our state need to be able to see what made it great and embrace those principles. We don't appreciate those that fit the 'not-see' mold.

I am a strong believer in the need for a alcohol sales permit, that it is it. Here in NC there are no saloons, or taverns, instead private clubs. Same thing IMO, just calling a potato, a tomato.

I see not reason that taverns should not sell some food, in fact it makes sense. I see no reason a restaurant should not sell alcohol, it makes sense. Both should have health inspections, and have both permits. The clientele will determine which is a restaurant, and which is a tavern. Sports bars are basically a tavern that sell food. They are popular with both those looking to eat high priced wings, and those looking to get high.

Grapeshot said:

I am reminding of an ongoing, tongue-in-cheek banter between Richmond West End residents and those favoring the South Side.

The West End would indicate others were welcome 'By Membership Only.' Whereas the South Side indicated 'By Invitation Only.'

Either could work quite well in keeping Virginia for [strike]Lovers[/strike] Virginians, me thinks.

People that come to our state need to be able to see what made it great and embrace those principles. We don't appreciate those that fit the 'not-see' mold.

Click to expand...

I grew up in Southwestern Utah, a couple hours north-east of Las Vegas, and pretty much the last place headed north along I-15 that didn't get snow. Our small community became popular with the California types looking to escape the problems of the big city, but without having to shovel snow. After a while I could pretty accurately predict how long a transplant had lived in the area. For the first year it was all raves about the friendly, low-key, low-crime area where neighbors knew each other, nobody locked doors, and so on. At about the 1 year mark these same people changed their tunes 180 degrees. Suddenly they were complaining about the lack of night life, noisy neighbors who knew every time someone sneezed, no place to get a drink, etc, etc. To this day I am amazed at how many people cannot, will not, make the obvious connection between social mores and the criminal or other social ills that derive from those mores.

Now, to each their own. And certainly there are those who want the big city living. Or even the small, but rough and tumble miner/driller/logger/rancher watering hole village. I just wish they'd stay in such areas rather than fleeing the problems, but then so shortly and surely wanting to turn their new home into the same place they so recently left.

The greatness of our system is self government with local culture. The problem is that shifting populations can force changes on long time residents. Whether folks move to avoid harsh winters--as has happened since residential AC became common and made the sun-belt a much nicer retirement area than the rust belt--, to escape bad economic conditions or crime--such as Californians, New Yorkers, or "Massholes" fleeing high taxes, or for whatever other reason, they get to bring their votes with them.

I have no idea how one might counter this problem. Maybe local constitutions locking in various cultural standards and that can only be voted on by those with 10 years of residency? That is about long enough to either move on or to adopt local culture.

Charles

I don't think think alcohol should be served in public. I think alcohol should only be sold for home consumption. Serving alcohol in public inevitably leads to drunk driving. Millions of lives have been ruined by drunk driving. I think America needs to recognize the insanity of serving people alcohol who will in all likelihood drive away from the establishment, and move on to a more enlightened public policy on alcohol. Tough drunk driving laws have reduced, but not eliminated, drunk driving. One drunk driver can wipe out a whole family, or render a formerly productive citizen into a broken and ruined body, dependent on a lifetime of medical care. With almost 34 years in EMS, I have seen way too many tragedies caused by drunk drivers. Serving drivers alcohol is madness of the highest order. Restaurants can survive without alcohol. Bars can convert to restaurants. Private alcohol clubs should be heavily regulated and have sufficient controls in place to absolutely prevent drunk driving, whether that means supervised designated driver programs, or being required to offer mandatory inn service to their members.

And the government should prevent the ownership of magazines larger than 5 rounds because a few people have used them illegally.
Same premise.

You're saying because a few people drink to excess, that I shouldn't be able to enjoy an ice cold XX Amber when I go out for Mexican food.

I'm guessing you're a Hillary supporter.

have a cigar, cigarette, smoke some vap ...

now go stand by the hospital respiratory area and watch folk w/lung malaise suck on another smoke

identified cause of cancers (one of a gaggle!!) yet only used for a tax base for our government.

ipse

The amount of anti-liberty rhetoric in this thread is staggering.

FBrinson said:

The amount of anti-liberty rhetoric in this thread is staggering.

Click to expand...

+1

The poster above who mentioned that drinkers don't have to buy food in a VA restaurant that serves alcohol blithely writes to the effect that VA has the best of both worlds. As I was reading that, it occurred to me that a fellow who wants to retire from his IT job or whatever and would like to go into business for himself by opening a respectable bar...the poster above is effectively saying in that fellow's face:
.
.
Oh, and with all that restaurant stuff comes heavy regulatory burdens. Now, our fellow who just wants to run a respectable bar has to worry about health inspection aspects he wouldn't have as a bar. Is the dishwasher running at the right temp? Is the refrigeration equipment cool enough? Does he have the required fire extinguisher system above the grille?

No, the massive taxes he and his patrons would have to pay on the alcohol isn't enough. Lets stick it to him even harder!

How about leaving the decision to be called a bar, saloon, restaurant, pub, tavern, or aardvark up to the marketing plan of the entrepreneur who started the business based on the market niche he/she/they are trying to capture?

I would add that gov inspections of the premises and food handling are not really needed. Chipotle has taken a massive market hit due to e-coli. While under the pervue of gov. inspections. It will take them years to recapture a good chunk of those customers and many will never come back. I guarantee that example has more power to change business behavior then the whims of some minor bureaucrat checking arbitrary items off of a checklist once a year.

Jim675 said:

How about leaving the decision to be called a bar, saloon, restaurant, pub, tavern, or aardvark up to the marketing plan of the entrepreneur who started the business based on the market niche he/she/they are trying to capture?

Click to expand...

But, but, but, then what would government actually do if it could not regularly pander and solicit from lobbyists and so forth? What are you trying to do? Put the worthless who cannot actually produce something valuable (legislators) out of work?

My goodness. All the malum in se * laws were figured out more than two millennia ago. If it were not for the ability to create malum prohibitum** laws, government would have almost no function. What are you trying to do, anyway? Nullify the legitimacy of Omni-coercive government?


*Wrong inherently. For example, murder, and rape.

""Wrong merely because the government says it is wrong.

I'm failing to see how any of this discussion, with the exception of post #1, pertains to open carry. And, post #1 was only vaguely related to open carry by asking a question.

This thread should be shut down.

It matters because governments in many jurisdictions use distinctions between bars / restaurants / the bar portion of a restaurant / and the restaurant portion of a bar to determine who (age limit) and if you may carry, as well as openly or concealed.

I have an alternative proposal: How about they call their business whatever they want and everyone who carries (OC or CC) is responsible for their actions?

Is it less dangerous to drink at home then drive to meet friends to shoot some pool than it is to go to a family joint and have a beer while playing darts? (Assuming OC / CC / Both C)

These distinctions sound painfully close to determining how a given rifle is either an uber-dangerous assault weapon or a community-friendly patrol rifle.

Edit: grammar

Can you OC in a brewery and drink?

scooter348 said:

Can you OC in a brewery and drink?

Click to expand...

Some restaurants brew there own craft beer on site, but not in the area open to the general public/customers.