Taproom Tuesday

[ny2nh]

Everyone - including the St. A's girls - was 21 and over.  I employ a doorman to check IDs for this very reason. 

Doorman? That's new. When did this start?

Right after he installed the brass pole for the dancers
Rightafter the Bikers took the joint over
Right after Dale talked him into turning the place ino a Gay Lesbian Bar

Right after he hired the Wine Concierge


I'm running out of stuff here!  Help me out!

How a bout right after he opened the back room? Once you add music to the mix, I would guess that you are more likely to attract underage drinkers.....and since Keith runs an successful, upstanding business, he probably doesn't want to chance it. I don't blame him in the least. Plus, there are more and more people at Murphy's these days....and if some drunk guy picks a fight with someone, I could hardly see MJ or Molly or one of the other wait staff being able to do much to stop it!

[J’raxis 270145]

Is Keith making sure the doorman knows the regulars, and/or is using his own judgment as to who looks like they're under twenty-one? I do not produce my government ID—if I even have it on me—except to a police officer, while I'm in my car. I'm probably not alone here, except a lot of people probably won't even do that, or don't even have ID.

[highline]

Is Keith making sure the doorman knows the regulars, and/or is using his own judgment as to who looks like they're under twenty-one? I do not produce my government ID—if I even have it on me—except to a police officer, while I'm in my car. I'm probably not alone here, except a lot of people probably won't even do that, or don't even have ID.

While you are driving or in charge of a car you need to produce it.  This could require you to produce it when you are outside your car and it is running, or some other obscure situation.


265:4 Disobeying an Officer. –

I. No person, while driving or in charge of a vehicle, shall:

(e) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to drive such vehicle or his certificate of registration or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination;

[J’raxis 270145]

Yeah, I knew about that, but the only way I imagine such a scenario occurring where I didn't have my license on me would be with the car parked in my driveway or garage. Otherwise, it had to have gotten where it is by me driving it there, in which case I'd have my license on me.

[ny2nh]

You're missing the point Jeremy. Keith is running a business. There are laws that his business must follow to stay in business. This includes not serving alcohol to someone under 21. Last night, the door men were both usually bartenders...so they would probably recognize you and not ask for an ID. I would think if someone who is not familiar to them were to arrive, and they looked like they could possibly be underage, they would ID them. If that person doesn't have an ID or refuses to show one, I would expect that they wouldn't be allowed in.....and justifiably so. If any of us can't see that this is just a necessary part of running an business that serves alcohol, then I don't know what to tell you. Keith has his investment and the investment of others to look out for first and foremost.

That said, I don't know how Keith can make sure every doorman knows every "regular". And as far as using judgment as to if they are under 21.....I would think if there is the remote possibility that they are, then they have to show ID to prove they are. Thinking someone is old enough is far different from if they ARE old enough....and that is how the bars get busted for serving minors....someone who looks old enough but isn't goes in and gets served....bam, busted for serving a minor.

Additionally, I believe the server is held responsible as well...not just the establishment.

[highline]

The server indeed is criminally liable.

[KBCraig]

If any of us can't see that this is just a necessary part of running an business that serves alcohol, then I don't know what to tell you.

It's a necessary part of complying with the law, but otherwise not at all necessary to the running of a business. It's an important distinction.

So is Murphy's now restricted to 21+? I thought it was a family restaurant that happens to have a kick-ass selection of beers.

[ny2nh]

They don't do the door men until later in the evening when the music starts.....families aren't going out for dinner at 9:00 or later.

And yes complying with the law is only necessary if Keith wants to serve alcohol - and I'll venture to guess that without alcohol, he is out of business, so complying with the law is needed to sustain his business.

[J’raxis 270145]

And I think you missed my point, Tammy. There are many different ways that one can "comply" with the law:

One can make it a point to say that he doesn't agree with the law, at all, and that he's merely following it because he has to. One can read the law in the most conservative way possible. One can try to find whatever exceptions and loopholes exist, that he can slip through, come up with innovative interpretations, and so on. And one can prepare to fight the law to the fullest extent in the courts, if he is ever called to do so.

Or one can bend over backwards to meet or exceed the requirements of the law, either out of caution, paranoia, or because one actually wants to demonstrate that he agrees with the law. As a ludicrous example, I've seen bars and liquor stores card senior citizens just to prove how supportive they are of "responsible" liquor laws.

Considering that the Taproom is owned and operated by a group of libertarians, on which end of this spectrum do they lie?



By the way, while digging through the liquor laws, I found this statute. Are any of the stakeholders in the Taproom planning on running for State rep this year? Maybe idiocy like that RSA will help to show why we all need to stand up to the bastards instead of just "comply" with whatever they dish out.

[ny2nh]

And I think you missed my point, Tammy. There are many different ways that one can "comply" with the law:

One can make it a point to say that he doesn't agree with the law, at all, and that he's merely following it because he has to. One can read the law in the most conservative way possible. One can try to find whatever exceptions and loopholes exist, that he can slip through, come up with innovative interpretations, and so on. And one can prepare to fight the law to the fullest extent in the courts, if he is ever called to do so.

Or one can bend over backwards to meet or exceed the requirements of the law, either out of caution, paranoia, or because one actually wants to demonstrate that he agrees with the law. As a ludicrous example, I've seen bars and liquor stores card senior citizens just to prove how supportive they are of "responsible" liquor laws.

Considering that the Taproom is owned and operated by a group of libertarians, on which end of this spectrum do they lie?



By the way, while digging through the liquor laws, I found this statute. Are any of the stakeholders in the Taproom planning on running for State rep this year? Maybe idiocy like that RSA will help to show why we all need to stand up to the bastards instead of just "comply" with whatever they dish out.

As individuals, every single one of us can take our lives savings and pool it with funds from others and open an establishment that chooses to serve alcohol. We can also decide whether it is a good business decision to follow the current laws that require that alcohol not be served to minors - the best way to verify the age of a patron is from some sort of legitimate photo identification. Or - we can decide that we will follow what we believe should be the law (as opposed to working to change the law) which would eventually lead to the revocation of the license required to sell alcohol.

Everyone has the right to do what they want - in the name of being libertarians or whatever it is they want to call themselves. You take your money and run your business the way you think makes it most likely to be financially successful....and leave Keith to run his the way he feels he should to make his financially successful.

Came back in 10 years...I'll be at the place that Keith will still own. : )

[J’raxis 270145]

We can also decide whether it is a good business decision to follow the current laws that require that alcohol not be served to minors - the best way to verify the age of a patron is from some sort of legitimate photo identification. Or - we can decide that we will follow what we believe should be the law (as opposed to working to change the law) which would eventually lead to the revocation of the license required to sell alcohol.

I think you misunderstood my post—I was not suggesting that they ignore or intentionally break the law. That has it's place, but I understand that doesn't work for a business. I was pointing out that one can comply with the law either by doing the bare minimum necessary or by doing everything asked of them and then some, and wondering which side the owners of the Taproom are taking.

[ny2nh]

We can also decide whether it is a good business decision to follow the current laws that require that alcohol not be served to minors - the best way to verify the age of a patron is from some sort of legitimate photo identification. Or - we can decide that we will follow what we believe should be the law (as opposed to working to change the law) which would eventually lead to the revocation of the license required to sell alcohol.

I think you misunderstood my post—I was not suggesting that they ignore or intentionally break the law. That has it's place, but I understand that doesn't work for a business. I was pointing out that one can comply with the law either by doing the bare minimum necessary or by doing everything asked of them and then some, and wondering which side the owners of the Taproom are taking.

And I guess my point is that there is no "bare minimum" - you can lose your liquor license (and the server be held criminally responsible) for serving anyone under 21. Failure to check ID's of anyone that might be under 21 would be plain stupid. It only takes one incident to get Keith in trouble. There's no using judgment, etc.....it's pretty black & white - check ID's to be sure someone is old enough. I don't see how there is more than one side to this - expect to blatantly be disregarding the law....which you said you didn't mean. So - I guess I don't follow what the alternative to checking ID's would be.....

[J’raxis 270145]

Okay. So what efforts are currently underway to reign in the State liquor commission? If one can't even express one's discontent with the law without giving them an excuse to revoke the liquor license, that's something in dire need of fixing.

[highline]

Okay. So what efforts are currently underway to reign in the State liquor commission? If one can't even express one's discontent with the law without giving them an excuse to revoke the liquor license, that's something in dire need of fixing.

I agree. I think the solution is in having a pro freedom appointed commission, which most likely will never happen. As currently they are appointed by a socialist/statist.

Sadly, the 21st Amendment gives states massive authority to regulate booze.

[J’raxis 270145]

If it's not realistic to either eliminate the regulation completely, or get the "right" people onto the commission, then at least they need to be stripped of their power to revoke liquor licenses without cause. That arbitrary power is what was behind the earlier dust-up at Murphy's and seems to be what keeps everyone going out of their way to please the liquor commission.

Sadly, the 21st Amendment gives states massive authority to regulate booze.

Actually, I believe that they had that authority beforehand (in the sense that the Federal government had no powers to tell them they can't do it). The reason that got written into the twenty-first amendment explicitly is to make it clear the Fedgov was only repealing Federal prohibition powers under the eighteenth amendment, not attempting to usurp the States' powers to regulate intrastate commerce in alcohol.



Since this topic is turning toward political reform, I've started a thread on the NHLA forum to continue in this vein.