Colorado § 44-3-102 - Legislative declaration.

§ 44-3-102. Legislative declaration.

(1) The general assembly hereby declares that this article 3 shall be deemed an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the economic and social welfare and the health, peace, and morals of the people of this state and that no provisions of this article 3 shall ever be construed so as to authorize the establishment or maintenance of any saloon.

(2) The general assembly further declares that it is lawful to manufacture and sell for beverages or medicinal purposes alcohol beverages, subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions in this article 3.

Source: L. 2018: Entire article added with relocations, (HB 18-1025), ch. 152, p. 951, § 2, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-47-102 as it existed prior to 2018.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Exercise of police power. The state liquor code is deemed an exercise of the police power and a vested interest on the ground of conditions once obtained cannot be asserted against the proper exercise of this power. City & County of Denver v. People, 103 Colo. 565, 88 P.2d 89 .

Statutes dealing with the liquor industry are founded on public policy and constitute an exercise of the police powers of the state. Spero v. Bd. of Trustees, 35 Colo. App. 64, 529 P.2d 327 (1974).

Purpose. The purpose of this article is the "protection of the economic and social welfare, the health and peace and morals", of any given locality in the state. Van DeVegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161, 55 P.2d 703 (1936).

The aim, intent, and primary purpose of the people in the adoption of art. XXII, Colo. Const., and of the general assembly in the passage of this article, was to completely outlaw and eradicate the old-time public saloon or barroom with its well-known obnoxious characteristics, vices, and effects, and at the same time to authorize, under proper regulations and safeguards, the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors in bona fide restaurants and hotels. City & County of Denver v. Gushurst, 120 Colo. 465, 210 P.2d 616 (1949).

The primary purpose of the liquor laws of this state is to authorize the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages while simultaneously protecting the public's health, safety, and welfare. New Safari Lounge, Inc. v. City of Colo. Springs, 193 Colo. 428, 567 P.2d 372 (1977).

The liquor code was enacted to control the manufacture, distribution, and sale of liquor for the protection of the economic and social welfare and health, peace, and morals of the people of Colorado. Squire Rest. & Lounge v. Denver, 890 P.2d 164 (Colo. App. 1994).

Section indicates legislative intent to regulate all aspects of licensing process including criminal penalties. People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987).

Applicability of liquor code. The provisions of this article do not apply to third persons who are not applicants of licensees and whose conduct does not violate specific provisions of this article but does violate specific provisions of the criminal code. People v. Eckley, 775 P.2d 566 (Colo. 1989).

State declares public policy. The public policy of the state concerning intoxicating liquor is for the law-making power to declare, and a municipality has no such power. City of Colo. Springs v. Graham, 143 Colo. 97, 352 P.2d 273 (1960).

Which includes issuance of hotel and restaurant licenses. The general assembly of the state of Colorado has authorized the issuance of hotel and restaurant liquor licenses throughout the state, therefore, the public policy has thus been determined. Farmer v. City Council, 153 Colo. 306, 385 P.2d 596 (1963).

There is no inherent right to carry on the business of selling alcoholic beverages. Gem Beverage Co. v. Geer, 138 Colo. 420, 334 P.2d 744 (1959).

Mere privilege exercised under license. It is settled doctrine that the right to sell intoxicating liquors depends upon strict compliance of the vendor with the requirements of the laws in force in the community where the sale is proposed, and no absolute right to engage in the traffic has ever been admitted in this state, and it is and always has been a mere privilege exercised under a license granted by public authority. Schwartz v. People, 46 Colo. 239, 104 P. 92 (1909) (decided prior to earliest source, L. 35, p. 597, § 1).

No mandate to permit sale. Where petitioner contended that the liquor code is a mandate to permit the sale of liquor except in local option territory, the court said that it did not so construe it, because it makes the sale of liquor lawful, "subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions contained in this article". Van DeVegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161, 55 P.2d 703 (1936).

However, a liquor license vests a personal right in the licensee to conduct the business. A. D. Jones & Co. v. Parsons, 136 Colo. 434, 319 P.2d 480 (1957).

Though not technically property, a liquor license is a valuable right and possesses some of the characteristics of property, and it may be revoked for breach of the conditions upon which it was issued. A. D. Jones & Co. v. Parsons, 136 Colo. 434, 319 P.2d 480 (1957).

The license confers the right to do that which without the license would be unlawful. A. D. Jones & Co. v. Parsons, 136 Colo. 434, 319 P.2d 480 (1957).

Liquor-related businesses form a distinct and justifiable class for regulatory purposes, and thus for taxing purposes. Tom's Tavern, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 186 Colo. 321, 526 P.2d 1328 (1974).

Objection based on abhorrence of alcohol not considered. The general assembly decreed that the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling of liquor is lawful when supervised and controlled as provided by law, hence, the supreme court cannot consider objections to a license rooted solely in basic abhorrence of alcoholic beverages in any form, at any place, at any time. Ladd v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 146 Colo. 366, 361 P.2d 627 (1961).

Because those opposing the granting of any application for a liquor license under all circumstances anywhere are not in harmony with the law on that subject as established by the general assembly. Ladd v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 146 Colo. 366, 361 P.2d 627 (1961).

Applied in Citizens for Free Enter. v. Dept. of Rev., 649 P.2d 1054 (Colo. 1982).