Tennessee eyes changes to liquor by the drink laws

[Guest TnRebel]

Tennessee eyes changes to liquor by the drink laws - Kingsport Times-News Online

Tennessee eyes changes to liquor by the drink laws

By Hank Hayes

Published December 4th, 2010 | Added December 4th, 2010 1:34 pm | Comments

Tennessee lawmakers are considering using restaurant insurance codes to create state licenses for places serving liquor by the drink (LBD).

It’s a move to give some clarification to LBD establishments that use a wide range of business models.

"We don’t have a definition of a bar in Tennessee. ... We’re thinking there needs to be some delineation of codes," said state Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, who recently chaired a joint Senate and House State and Local Government Committee meeting on the issue.

After all, Ketron noted, all insurance companies use standardized codes.

"We think that over the years since Prohibition, our alcohol codes have be come overlapping, and they have be come very confusing especially for new businesses who want to come in and decide what business model they want to be," he explained. "Some want to be a full-service restaurant and serve alcohol. Some want to be less than that."

********************************************************

Maybe now they can get it right ... and modal it after Florida to distinguishes between a bar and a restraint that serves.

Edited December 6, 2010 by TnRebel
to add post note

[LagerHead]

"Some want to be a full-service restaurant and serve alcohol. Some want to be less than that."

Yea, because you can't possibly do that if the government doesn't define it for you. Give me a break. This is just going to be another way to collect taxes based on what kind of business a restaurant does.

[memphismason]

Yay! More Government Rules.

[Fallguy]

Do I think the alcohol laws need to be revamped....yes. Do I want to see it done so carry can be prohibited in certain ones....no.

[Oh Shoot]

....

Maybe now they can get it right ... and modal it after Florida to distinguishes between a bar and a restraint that serves.

Can't see any advantage for HCP law now, though. Only a possible additional restriction. Restrictions of any kind are the last thing we need.

- OS

[RobD]

I think its just a revenue grab by the state, and like most retards in government "service" it just happens to mess with us so they like it even more....

[GKar]

Don't be too quick to forget that much of this scrutiny arose as backlash over the first restaurant bill and its fate...indeed, Curry Todd (who co-chaired this hearing) made it very clear during debates on version 2 of the restaurant bill that he wanted to see a major overhaul of these regulations, incljuding a total revamp of the ABC laws. And, it was this same discourse that ratcheted up the pressure on ABC, and several establishments ended up losing their licensure.

If anyone is interested in hearing (and seeing) what was actually said, go to the link below:

Tennessee General Assembly::Streaming Video

Choose archived video for Joint-Other-Joint Senate/House State & Local Government Committee of November 18.

Edited December 7, 2010 by GKar
add link

[Paletiger13]

As if we didn't have enough retarded laws. Go figure

[Guest CJK]

As if we didn't have enough retarded laws. Go figure

Unfortunately, that's the end result of continuing to elect retarded lawmakers.

[GKar]

After watching the video, it seems that one track legislators are interested in pursuing is to revise (not create anew) the licensing scheme currently used by ABC. Instead of the current 2 or 3 tiered system based on percentage of food sales, it would utilize as the basis for licensure an existing insurance scheme that stratifies establishments by level of risk according to the percentage of alcohol served vs total receipts. It presumably allows licensure to be more tailored to the business model of the establishment, with an escalatingfee structure corresponding to greater perceived risk models. (ie, an establishment that derives say, 35% revenues from the sale of alcohol would be charged a lower licensure fee than a business that derived 85% or more revenue form alcohol sales). Since restaurants and other establishments are already familiar with this classification scheme due to using it to acquire their insurance/bond, it should simplify things considerably. Nothing was said during the proceedings relating to tying this scheme to HCP/carry regulation...not even close.

Before others go off about new laws and revenue generation, remember that current ABC licensure also requires different licensures for decreasing amounts of revenue versus food sales...places deriving as little as 15-20% pay $4000, decreasing to about $1500 or less for >50%. Difference being, ABC had to audit receipts to determie for their classification - the insurance assn already does so for theirs, and so the data would already be there.