144 replies to this topic

[GrantK]

This thread is locked pending discussion with the Admins.

[Rail Paul]

The NY SLA actually inspected, and closed down a few bars following the murder of the teenage girl from Bergen County last year. The usual for a first offense with minors is 15 days closed and $5,000 fine, IIRC. Once the heat was off, the checking stopped...

15 days closed is a lot of lost revenue. Not to mention having to probably continue to pay people during that time, etc etc. In my view...not worth the risk to keep the tiny number of underage wine drinkers in an upscale restaurant happy. And the money lost on those few bottles of wine that they don't sell to those underage patrons....peanuts compared to the risk.

Sure, I suppose that inspections of this type in these kinds of restaurants are rare. But all it takes is one...

Just to clarify that the focus of the SLA inquiry last years was bars which seek / attract a borderline legal crowd. I don't believe restaurants were the main target.

Crossing over to another thread, that would seem to be a better means of controlling unwanted late-hour noise, drinking in the streets, etc than simply banning new licensees as one community board has done.

[StephanieL]

I've unlocked this thread for the time being.

[omnivorette]

Thanks. If this thread violates the guidelines, for the life of me I can't see how.

[tanabutler]

I assume the word "libertarian" had something to do with it, but it's pretty innocuous usage.

[Orik]

I'm not sure either.

Omni, seriously, minors drinking in restaurants (accompanied or not) seems like a very insignificant issue. Minors who drink heavily tend to do so in more economically efficient ways.

[omnivorette]

There was no guideline violation involved. Using the word libertarian does not make it a political post.

Anyway...I hope BryanZ wasn't scared off by the eG-like moderation. I was enjoying the debate (and so was he) and I hope to continue it. I like hearing his youthful perspective.

[omnivorette]

I'm not sure either.

Omni, seriously, minors drinking in restaurants (accompanied or not) seems like a very insignificant issue. Minors who drink heavily tend to do so in more economically efficient ways.

Okay, but there's still no reason why we can't discuss these issues if we want to.

Anyway my point is (and Robert said it already) that you can't have one set of laws for minors drinking wine in upscale restaurants and another for minors drinking in a neighborhood pub. The law's the law.

[StephanieL]

Please note that some of the original posts from the Eleven Madison Park thread are here now.

[Orik]

I see no reason they can't be discussed either.

There's no reason why you couldn't have a different set of laws or a difference in enforcement. If there can be a different law for small restaurant, there can be a different one for expensive restaurants. (in that respect, there's now a set of laws meant to screw fast food chains by making them list the caloric content of their food)

[Daniel]

This is getting wayyyy off topic, but I just thought I'd say that second law is a bit much. If a restaurant that happened to serve wine tried to keep me out because of my age I would certainly not return.

I have a story for you, A 26 year old baby faced Daniel, on a date, in a suit, at Babbo, I order a bottle of pretty expensive wine.. The waiter asks for my ID.. I dont have one.. Refuses to serve me..

[tanabutler]

Are you the Daniel road-trip guy who goes from Vegas to NYC, and posts at eG? That baby-faced Daniel?

Either way, howdy!

[omnivorette]

This is getting wayyyy off topic, but I just thought I'd say that second law is a bit much. If a restaurant that happened to serve wine tried to keep me out because of my age I would certainly not return.

I have a story for you, A 26 year old baby faced Daniel, on a date, in a suit, at Babbo, I order a bottle of pretty expensive wine.. The waiter asks for my ID.. I dont have one.. Refuses to serve me..

The guy was doing his job. And obeying the law. And probably observing the rules of his employer.

If you're baby-faced and you know it, perhaps you should have carried ID.

[Evelyn]

Here's one for you...so, the underage diner (let's say he's two days short of the age of 21 just to be really perverse) "enjoys" a glass of wine while at the table for dinner with Mom and Dad at Chez X. He is not "impaired", but has alcohol in his system. He proceeds to drive them home and while doing so, has an accident that causes a fatality. In that case, blood is always drawn to make sure the driver had no consumed alcohol (or drugs). Chez X would be way up the creek on that one (at least from what I remember of the business law I took many moons ago). As the law stands now, 21 is 21, period. I owned a restaurant in FL and would not have ever considered serving a minor (including children of my friends who were close to "majority"). The costs are just too high if something goes wrong versus any profit made off the sale/service of alcohol to a minor. I'd rather face disgruntled customers than a jail term and large fine any time. That may sound "uptight", but, it is reality.

[omnivorette]

If a restaurant that happened to serve wine tried to keep me out because of my age I would certainly not return.

So if a restaurant obeys the law, they deserve to lose your business?