Literal interpretation of obscure state law threatens Smithville restaurant

[pstokely]

Source: KC Star

The land on which Justus Drugstore: A Restaurant sits on West Main Street in Smithville has been in Jonathan Justus’ family since 1842.

His grandfather, who owned the original Justus Drugstore across the street from 1914 to 1955, built the structure that now houses the restaurant. After he died in 1961, Justus’ mother ran the drugstore in the building for 40 years before selling the pharmacy in 2001.

Five years later, the new occupants abandoned the premises for a strip mall in town. Justus and his wife, Camille Eklof, seized the opportunity to realize their long-deferred dream: opening their own restaurant.

The two had worked in prestigious restaurants in San Francisco, Paris and Kansas City. Now they had the chance to return to Justus’ hometown and set up shop in the building long associated with the family name.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/682831.html

---

This board still allows fake fundie drugstores that deny the morning after pill. They haven't gone after any of those.

[truthisfreedom]

1. I wonder if they could give me any pro medical advice about this knot in my stomach over the story?

[1monster]

2. "The law is the law, and the law is not mocked!" Javere/Victor Hugo

[MilesColtrane]

3. He should legally change his last name to "Drugstore".

Problem solved.

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. I live close to Smithville.

This is really kind of stupid. Smithville is just a little town. Everyone there knows the history of the name of that restaurant. No one thinks its still a drugstore.

Couldn't they just change the name?

[LiberalFighter]

10. It costs money to change all their menus, uniforms, signs, etc

And they would have to file again for their liquor license.

[SoxFan]

5. This is why people hate bureaucrats

I strongly suspect that one of Justus' competitors is behind this foolishness. Nine times out of ten, that's what it takes to get a bureaucrat to act.

I have a friend who had to spend $40,000 to upgrade the fire supression system in a nightclub/function hall that he owns. I know another guy who was hassled by the fire inspectors because he had an unapproved type of paint in a small section of his restaurant, never mind the fact that the place is 90% brick. Meanwhile, another place across town, one made entirely of wood, has no sprinkler system, no emergency evac system. But...the owner's brother is a firefighter.

Funny how these things work.

[NV Whino]

6. A fairly easy solution

is to take the name off the sign and building, keeping it on all the "official" documents such as liquor licenses. Or reach an agreement that it goes in a smaller size type face and eventually disappears. Both sides need to compromise on this one.

[bean fidhleir]

8. No, the owners shouldn't have to compromise at all

That senator has the right of it: the law was intended to prevent non-pharmacists from opening a pharmacy.

Government officials are supposed to use their heads when enforcing laws, not do it by rote. The idea that someone could take them to court for selective enforcement is a rubbish excuse. Someone could take them to court for not wearing a big red nose and floppy shoes, too ...but that doesn't mean it would go anywhere.

[NV Whino]

9. Of course government officials are supposed to use their heads

But they don't, and technically, they can force this issue. A little give and take on both sides would prevent a court case. Obviously the restaurant guys have to go higher up the chain to get someone who can use their head and work this out.

What you aren't taking into account here is if the "drug store" nomenclature is allowed to stay, someone down the line could buy the restaurant and use that to be "grandfathered" in, consequently violating the law that the current owners aren't (in reality) violating.

[bean fidhleir]

14. "someone down the line"

I don't buy it. A restaurant is a restaurant. If someone down the line starts dispensing drugs, the situation becomes totally different. Saying they would be grandfathered in is like saying that someone who buys an ice-cream stand and starts making meth instead of ice cream is grandfathered in because it says "ice cream" on the sign.

[NV Whino]

17. Don't buy it if you like...

however we have had similar problems in the Napa Valley using the word Napa on the label when the wine comes from other areas. It has been argued that Napa is the brand name not the appellation. They were "grandfathered" in for a while, but eventually had to change the name because it broke the law. A law enacted, by the way after the name had been used for a number of years. They were given time to phase out the label by altering it little by little. I can see the same thing working for these folks.

[bean fidhleir]

19. You *really* don't see the difference???

Someone buying a wine made from grapes grown in an East LA backyard and labelled "Napa" has been deceived into thinking they're buying a wine from the Napa valley. That's fraud.

Do you think someone being served a plate of sea bass buerre blanc is going to be deceived into thinking that they're getting an antibiotic?

[NV Whino]

21. Within the law that governs each

they are the same problem. By the way, when the label was first designed, the brand was in Napa. The brand name was purchased, moved to another location and contained an insufficient quantity of Napa grapes. The new owner claimed he had purchased the brand name and was entitled to use it.

Different details, same principle.

[bean fidhleir]

22. No it's NOT the same principle! The wine one is about *FRAUD*

It's about people's legitimate expectations. Nobody can expect to go into a restaurant and get their scrip filled. Somebody who buys a bottle of plonk labeled "Napa", "Haut Medoc", "Champagne", "Okfen", "Bernkastel", etc. can definitely expect the grapes to have been grown in the region indicated.

Jeez!

[LiberalFighter]

11. And the pharmacy board only has jurisdiction over pharmacies or those holding themselves out...

as pharmacies.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Another solution would be to use a broom closet and id it as a pharmacy. But no business hours.

And have a sympathetic pharmacist be in charge of it.

[bean fidhleir]

15. That would be hysterically funny! I wish they'd do that - I'd love to watch those

bureaucrats' heads burst.

[Bette Noir]

7. That hurts.

Who approved the original business licenses for the restaurant? There should be some shared liability there, for not alerting the owners that the name wouldn't pass legal muster.

I hope they can work it out.

[baldguy]

13. Do they prevent the sale of Coca-Cola because it doesn't contain cocaine?

Or the sale of pineapples because they're not apples?

[dysfunctional press]

16. hire a retired pharmacist to be maitre'd, and sell aspirin by the register.

problem solved.

[digidigido]

18. If this is the biggest problem they've got, they should consider themselves lucky

[galledgoblin]

20. local zoning variance?

can the local zoning board help here? probably not, because it's a state agency causing a fuss, but maybe they can find an obscure law of their own that can assist.

[BreweryYardRat]

23. One suspects the Board of Pharmacy is angling for a bribe.

Even bureaucrats, even in Missouri, can't be THAT stupid and hidebound. Corruption is another matter entirely. They saw an opportunity, and they're putting the squeeze on these poor folks.