Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 3, 2007, to revise the law that authorizes the issuance of additional on-premises liquor licenses in excess of the number of licenses allowed in an area under a state quota system, for businesses that will offer dining, recreation, or entertainment in “development” or “redevelopment” districts. Under current law, a person applying for one of these licenses must demonstrate that no “escrowed license” or unused quota license is readily available within the local unit of government in which the applicant proposes to operate. The bill would require a person to ensure that not only are no licenses are available in the same community, but to confirm that none may be acquired from anywhere in the county

The vote was 22 in favor, 16 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 61 at Senate Journal 17)

Click here to view bill details.

So is this because having more intoxicated people roaming around a developing area is better that having more intoxicated people roaming around a non-developing area?? I guess this feeds into the basic premise that we need alcohol to socialize.

alcohol, then quit taxing it, quit selling it, and make it (once again) illegal to posess and consume. you won't do it. it was tried before. it failed. alcohol, whether you like it or not, is a legal substance, which the state chooses to control, and that control is, according to the people who wish to consume it, too strict. the public is expressing it's collective opinion and demanding that the control be loosened. every time somebody says 'give me a beer', taxes are raised. funds for government are generated. would you prefer that the tax burden lost to those alcohol sales be passed on to you?

have any say about who can sell booze and who can't? Oh yeah...It's that money thing again.