Comments on: Pint Bill gutted by Senate committee

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:52:07 +0000

Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, was the senator who proposed the amendment.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:25:40 +0000

I didn’t get a chance to watch… who are the representatives that are insisting on this insurance clause?

By: South Carolina Senate committee adds restrictions to proposed “Pint Bill” | BeerPulse

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:12:53 +0000

[…] More >> Drink. Blog. Repeat.. […]

By: Opining on pints: My thoughts on the Pint Bill so far | Drink. Blog. Repeat.

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:19:41 +0000

[…] they started landing punches. The maximum consumption amount was decreased by a pint, and then the hefty insurance requirement […]

By: rvabeermeister

rvabeermeister — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:26:24 +0000

Reblogged this on Richmond Beermeister and commented: If I could send some SB 604 to South Carolina, I would.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:58:36 +0000

I think on the surface, it’s intentions are good. But the senator who proposed it and the people that voted for it don’t realize how hard it will likely be for breweries, especially the small ones – which are the majority in SC – to afford such coverage. It’s still unclear exactly how it’ll be implemented or what number it will be tied to. It could all end up being a lot worse than previously thought, but for now, it’s looking like a rough road ahead unless something is changed.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:46:47 +0000

I’m not positive, but I don’t believe there are any. Then again, I can’t find anything in the proposed bill outlining the the original $1 million required, so it may be outlined in another law.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:43:38 +0000

To the best of my knowledge, bars and restaurants aren’t required by law to purchase any certain amount of insurance. Surely their owners will pick a sizable plan and enough to cover potential liability, but there’s nothing on the books that says they have to buy X amount of insurance.

Having talked with the owners of small and upcoming breweries after the vote, there’s a mix of anger and trepidation. Some said they wouldn’t be able to open tasting rooms; others said they’d be fine. I think it’s all conjecture at this point until the language of the amendments is released.

By: Buzz B.

Buzz B. — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:40:01 +0000

The $1 mil/person sounds like an unreasonable burden to be placed on a business particularly if that burden does not apply to other alcohol serving establishment (eg bars). Probably easily contested in court (Note: our legislature has a *long* history of crafting poorly written laws that are regularly contested and usually thrown out by the courts).

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:35:57 +0000

Having watched the whole thing, I applaud Bennett for putting up such a good fight. He certainly knows his stuff and was exhausted by having to answer such stupid questions. He clearly got to a point where he was so frustrated and wanted to say, “Seriously, guys. This is not that complicated.”