Well, well, well.....

[mr x]

[Dirt Chicken]

progress, awesome!!!!

[Jimmy]

Has there been progress with the laws, or is this just a case of "jump on the bandwagon since Wine Kitz is doing it and getting away with it"?

[wortly]

We should dig up some of the heated discussion on this topic from the listserve.

[derek]

Has there been progress with the laws, or is this just a case of "jump on the bandwagon since Wine Kitz is doing it and getting away with it"?

I'm fairly certain there's been no progress with the law.

[Jimmy]

Either way it's good to see more places offering it. Hopefully it will be enough to spark a revision to the current laws..for the better, of course.

[derek]

Either way it's good to see more places offering it. Hopefully it will be enough to spark a revision to the current laws..for the better, of course.

None of the provincial parties are interested in changing the law, so I expect the only thing that will cause a change is a successful (and expensive) challenge in court.

[mr x]

Oh, they're interested in changing the laws, for the worse.

http://uvintns.ca/bill-120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[derek]

Oh, they're interested in changing the laws, for the worse.

http://uvintns.ca/bill-120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, yeah, but that one's really a non-issue - it doesn't give the government any power it doesn't already have, and more importantly doesn't do anything to head off the chance that a future court ruling could strike down any part of the current law.

[mr x]

Oh, they're interested in changing the laws, for the worse.

http://uvintns.ca/bill-120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, yeah, but that one's really a non-issue - it doesn't give the government any power it doesn't already have, and more importantly doesn't do anything to head off the chance that a future court ruling could strike down any part of the current law.

In reality it does give the government more power, as it will allow enforcement they can't handle now. And nothing can prevent the future. At any rate, it's far from a non issue, or it wouldn't be there.

[derek]

In reality it does give the government more power, as it will allow enforcement they can't handle now.

The Crown attorney always could get such an injunction - it's just removing a layer of bureaucracy and letting the NSLC do it directly.

[mr x]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

they should get an injuction for the NSLC being dicks.

[derek]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

They would if the Attorney General ordered them to. It's just a completely pointless piece of legislation.

[sleepyjamie]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

they should get an injuction for the NSLC being dicks.

or the NSLC being a legalized drug dealer

[mr x]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

They would if the Attorney General ordered them to. It's just a completely pointless piece of legislation.

That's not going to happen either. Regardless of how the law is written, how it works in practice is another story altogether. Hence the regulation. We've been through this all before.

From: S Haynes <shaynes@eastlink.ca>
Subject: RE: legal now?
To: "'Craig Pinhey'" <brufrog@gmail.com>, "'noble grape'" <shaynes@hfx.eastlink.ca>, brewnoser@chebucto.ns.ca
Received: Monday, May 10, 2010, 5:41 PM

It is definately still illegal. You can get a federal licence but alcohol falls under provincial jurisdiction and the Federal Liscence clearly states that it does not supercede Provincial Legislation.
The guy in New Glasgow is off the radar. Blair in New Minas is not. He will definately be charged under provincial legislation. I assume he knows this and plans on fighting the laws. He will probably lose as well. The laws are more clear in NS than in any of the other 5 provinces that don't allow on-premise at this time.
Steve

From: brewnoser-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:brewnoser-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of x
Sent: May 10, 2010 5:55 PM
To: brewnoser@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: RE: legal now?

Charlie is definitely not off the radar. He is in the home constituency of the provincial minister of justice, and put notice on the front page of the local newspaper. What law would he be charged with exactly? The last time around, two of three were dismissed, and the third was rectified by the license.

Robert

Charlie is off the radar because no one has complained. They will only act when there is a complaint. Let's just say that Blair is not very well liked in this industry.

The judge said in her ruling that she believed that Ross did not know he was in violation of provincial law because he had a federal permit, but would be much harder on him in the future. (Ross chose to plead ignorance instead of challanging the law)

Blair knows he is in violation of provincial laws. He was in the courtroom the whole time. He will be charged and probably found guilty of running an illegal U-Vint and of illegially selling alcohol.

etc, etc, etc....

[derek]

CA's will not get injunctions for this. 'Could' plays no part in this anymore.

They would if the Attorney General ordered them to. It's just a completely pointless piece of legislation.

That's not going to happen either. Regardless of how the law is written, how it works in practice is another story altogether. Hence the regulation. We've been through this all before.

And you've been wrong before, too. Quoting a completely irrelevant post doesn't help. The whole purpose of this legislation is to be SEEN as doing something to stop "alcohol abuse". It will make no difference to anything in the long run, provides the government with no powers it doesn't already have (it's completely irrelevant that "that's not going to happen" - the law already gives them the power), and the odds are fairly good that nobody will ever get an injunction under this section, either.

[mr x]

I've been wrong before about many things, but not about this.

It's totally relevant that they aren't using the law that's on the books. If it would or could work, it would be used, that's all there is to it.

[NASH]

Bammm muthafucka!!!



Sent from the Hop-Phone