Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 24, 2007, to allow the Liquor Control Commission to issue a supplemental liquor permit to caterers that would allow them to bring liquor and serve it at private events where they also serve food. Under current law, caterers are allowed to serve liquor, but the host of the event must purchase it independently

The vote was 24 in favor, 12 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 97 at Senate Journal 44)

Click here to view bill details.

Is there any pimp, hustler or other low class lobby you don't whore for?

Senator Jacobs, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.56 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to Senate Bill No.56, which, as my colleagues know, is a reintroduction of a bill from last year that was vetoed by our Governor. My concern for this bill remains the same as it did last session. This bill, if it were topass, would adversely affect so many small businesses not only in my district, but in all of our districts. I've got a problem with us changing a system that's been in effect for maybe 100 years or so. Sometimes we find sort of winners and losers when we make some changes, but for many of the small businesses which provide alcohol for events, I've been told by these businesses that almost 20 percent of their businesses serve or sell these products for weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, and other types of events. I just feel at this time when our small businesses are struggling to stay alive that we shouldn't be doing anything to harm them. So I urge my colleagues to give a "no" vote on Senate Bill No.56.

any move by the legislature that eases restrictions on making money in this state is a good move. every time someone orders a drink, that is that much more tax money that the state collects. every time someone gets pulled over at two thirty in the morning because they are simply on the road is a BAD MOVE. as was proven during prohibition, you cannot legislate away the consumption of alcohol. even George Washington understood this. he was the largest whiskey distiller in the nation while he was president. he understood that alcohol, while vile and disgusting to some, is wanted by others, and the decision as to which was which was not up to him. in keeping with this lesson, the decision as to whether or not I drink is NOT UP TO YOU. the OTHER lesson we learn about prohibition is that it DIDN'T WORK. prohibiting behavior by legislation doesn't work, it's not working for alcohol, it's CERTAINLY not working for drugs. before drugs became illegal, there were users, certainly, but there were no rampant killings by drug dealers. now that you have made drugs illegal, the business of illegal drugs is booming. you cannot eradicate it, and you certainly are in no position to tax it to gain additional revenues. you lost that war when you started it. you are losing the war against drunk driving in the same manner. certainly, punish drunk drivers, but don't punish the average citizen who is NOT drunk. drunk drivers will show up on mortuary tables no matter what you do, so just sit back and wait for them, they'll show up eventually. you can't SAVE them, you can't REHABILITATE them, you can't even CONVINCE them it's wrong. stop meddling in personal affairs. stop subsidizing the expenses of drunk driving. stop criminalizing the citizenry. maybe then we'll have enough money to pay our bills.

in case you have forgotten, the proper role of government is as follows. 1. establish Justice 2. insure domestic Tranquility 3. provide for the common defence, 4. promote the general Welfare, and 5. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity nowhere in there does it say "control our drinking/smoking/eating/lives." if you submit every law to the simple five part test, that is to ask yourself before you submit any law the following questions. does this law establish justice? does this law ensure domestic tranquility? does this law provide for the common defense? does this law promote the general welfare? does this law secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? if you do this, every law you propose will be in following with the constitution you have sworn to protect and uphold. the pap you have come up with so far is NOT.

how is easing liquor license restrictions HURTING business? how will it HARM the suppliers of alcohol? you haven't explained that in your explanation, please do. restrictive laws and regulations DO hurt business, yet you are against FIXING THAT.