Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZeRoGRaViTY
So you are saying hypothetically, if some fantastically rich and lucky person would to buy ALL liquor licenses in that state and decided to not sell alcohol, it could potentially become a dry state?
Financially it is a smart move to make no new licenses, but people going out to a bar or picking up a 12 of guiness shouldn't be regulated by people who treat these licenses like a ty cobb rookie baseball card. And, shame on the government for treating these licenses as such and not recognizing the 50% growth in population. But then again the government won't do anything unless someone petitions this and yells, kicks and screams loud enough.
To me it just seems like another case of the government taking away rights and priveledges of business owners as well as consumer.
Can anyone say prohibition '06?
|
Hypothetically, yes, that's what I'm saying. Or if licenses aren't transferable within a certain area (city limits, etc.), the same reasoning stands.
I don't see how this is a financially smart move for the state since they are only now starting to make their money back. First, they've been missing out on the revenue for 18 years. Second, they're stiffling new business development, assuming that one license can be used for multiple locations (I have no idea one way or the other). My point is that competition between local business and out of state businesses would definitely be shaded towards the non-locals in that scenario.
Prohibition isn't very probable, given the likes of me and my friends who golf in Phoenix at least a couple of times a year.
