Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 1, 2007, to revise the law that prohibits a bar or restaurant from selling liquor to a person who is intoxicated, so it refers to someone who is "visibly intoxicated." The bill would place in statute current administrative rules on bars and restaurants that prohibit allowing a visibly intoxicated person fro loitering on the premises after being refused with certain narrow exceptions, prohibit a server from being visibly intoxicated, and explicitly prohibit a number of other practices that are generally banned elsewhere in statute (such as allowing illegal gambling)

The vote was 102 in favor, 1 opposed and 7 not voting

(House Roll Call 215 at House Journal 62)

Click here to view bill details.

STOP IT!! NO MORE STUPID LAWS Gte Jobs. Do Real Work, You'll fell better about yourself.

Serving or providing alcohol to an intoxicated person is irresponsible. Efforts to close loopholes in laws to punish such irresponsibility is important to the protection of our citizens and our communities. Thanks for your work. You're helping us all to live in healthier communities.

Michigan bars shouldn't allow any intoxicated individuals to "loiter" and maybe wash out some of the booze by waiting, drinking some coffee or eating a few burgers. Just as your silly little law requires, drunks should be thrown out onto the street immediately. Of course, none of these guys can be expected to get into their cars and try to drive home, right? Are you getting a piece of the Dram Shop lawsuits, or what? Dumbass. Jim Arvada, CO

Jim, perhaps you should read this legislation more closely before commenting on it: It contains this provision: >(4) A licensee shall not allow a visibly intoxicated person to frequent or loiter on the licensed premises except where the visibly intoxicated person has been refused service of further alcoholic liquor and continues to remain on the premises for the purpose of eating food, seeking medical attention, arranging transportation that does not involve driving himself or herself, or any other circumstances where requiring the person to vacate the premises immediately would be considered dangerous to that person or to the public.< Those are good reasons for allowing a drunk to stay on the premises. It’s the drunks who don’t have such good reasons for hanging around who cause trouble. Knee-jerk fighters, some of them, or otherwise obnoxious in their behavior, which invites unpleasant and sometimes dangerous confrontations between them and other patrons.

Admitted. I only read the bill summary, which is incomplete. Jim Arvada, CO

Yes, the bill summaries posted here sometimes are incomplete. Important nuances thus get lost, and sometimes the impression created is quite misleading. But this site does provide a lot of worthy ibnformation and service, especially for a freebie.

I was a bartender for years. The most difficult patrons are those who come into the place already 1/2 drunk. Many people who go out to drink heavily; have a high tolerance of alcohol and do not show signs of having been drinking. Sometimes though it only takes two more drinks to make the hidden drunkeness more than obvious. It is scary to think how many people are actually driving around drunk but not visibly inebriated. I often wished that people could voluntarily take a test coming into and before leaving; perhaps just having it available could deter drunk driving.

I was a bartender for years. The most difficult patrons are those who come into the place already 1/2 drunk. Many people who go out to drink heavily; have a high tolerance of alcohol and do not show signs of having been drinking. Sometimes though it only takes two more drinks to make the hidden drunkeness more than obvious. It is scary to think how many people are actually driving around drunk but not visibly inebriated. I often wished that people could voluntarily take a test coming into and before leaving; perhaps just having it available could deter drunk driving.

besides, there is no "magic" machine that can measure blood alcohol without a twenty minute wait since you've had your last drink, or your last burp, or barf. otherwise, it only measures the proof of the last drink.

come up with bird droppings like this and the revised cpl freedoms? Must have multiple personalities, one day we get more freedom the next day he wants to tke some away.

Please, all businesses leave Michigan now!

will be taken over by jenny chavez, oop's I meant hugo granholm, oop's must be jenny the great.

so we should let the drunk drive off and cause harm to some innocent person? the law is a good law.

 when michigan writes a provision into the law that a person denied further alcohol is completely innocent of all crimes he commits while inebreated, and the bar owners and employees are also completely blameless if (heaven forbid) the drunken sod goes out and kills somebody , THEN i'll believe that they care one way or the other.

if a person is responsible for what he or she does when drunk, then let's hold that person, and that person only, responsible. not the state, and certainly not the bar owners or it's employees. they are certainly not to be forced into being "THEIR BROTHER'S KEEPERS" by laws like this, and by state policies like are in place here.

are restaraunts held responsible when a custome keels over with a heart attack or stroke from eating too much?

NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.

is the tobacco shop responsible when the customer gets cancer?

NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.

any time you have to write provisions in the law exempting the bar owner from DOING THE RIGHT THING, then you have a BAD LAW.