# Back bar access through ADA bar



## eyden (May 24, 2017)

Around my town, I've noticed a lot of restaurants and bars use the ADA section of the bar for things other than ADA customers -- cash registers, water dispensers, storage, drinks to go out, and most commonly, as the access to the back bar. I noticed on another thread (sorry I can't find it now) someone called out hinged door back bar access as being non-conforming. My firm has recently put this in a few projects. They're still in plan check, so it isn't too late to change them, but do we have to? Where is it said what other uses the ADA bar can and cannot be used for?

I'm in California.


----------



## steveray (May 24, 2017)

Pretty simple that you don't get to boot the person sitting there out every time someone needs to go in and out....I don't need a code section for that. Kinda like you can't block a door with a table...


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2017)

California Access civil laws and regulations promulgated in the California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 6 ensure equal access for people with disabilities by prohibiting their exclusions from everyday activities, such as buying an item at the store, watching a movie in a theater, enjoying a meal at a local restaurant, exercising at the local health club or having the car serviced at a local garage. In providing equal access, every effort must be exhausted to ensure that access is being provided on equal terms, without highlighting any special accommodations, and without any special assistance similar to the required unassisted entry usually provided to gain access. As such, people with disabilities are able to dine or work at a restaurant as well as an able-bodied individual and enjoy the same experience afforded to the general public.

If I were a Chair user and was dislocated every time you wanted to enter the "back-bar" area, I would not enjoy the same experience afforded to the general public. "Enjoying  the same experience afforded to the general public  was the premise for the Chipotle lawsuit which cost them a bundle to remodel all their stores
In response to the Court of Appeals’ decision, a Chipotle spokesperson announced that the chain was retrofitting all its California restaurants with a new counter design.

If I were the Bar owner, I would go after the Designer ....
 See this:
http://www.wendel.com/knowledge-cen...ence-a-substitute-experience-violates-the-ada


----------



## steveray (May 24, 2017)

I knew there would be a better answer out of California...


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2017)

steveray said:


> I knew there would be a better answer out of California...


You said it just fine. It is a ADA thing not a CA thing,,,,


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 24, 2017)

??? https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/new-construction-sales-and-service-counters.6989/  ???


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2017)

Francis Vineyard said:


> ??? https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/new-construction-sales-and-service-counters.6989/  ???


And you Question IS?


----------



## eyden (May 24, 2017)

steveray said:


> Pretty simple that you don't get to boot the person sitting there out every time someone needs to go in and out....I don't need a code section for that. Kinda like you can't block a door with a table...



I get that. I've just seen it used SO MANY times throughout California, even in new construction, that I was wondering where the issue stood.


----------



## eyden (May 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> If I were the Bar owner, I would go after the Designer ....



Which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid! 
It's hard for me to believe there hasn't been a lawsuit on this exact issue in California where it's been more definitively decided.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> And you Question IS?





eyden said:


> . I noticed on another thread (sorry I can't find it now) someone called out hinged door back bar access as being non-conforming.
> I'm in California.


Was this the thread?


----------



## conarb (May 25, 2017)

In order for an employee to enter the back-bar by raising a hinged section he is going to displace somebody if that somebody is sitting there, is there a difference between displacing a normal person sitting at the bar and displacing a handicapped person sitting at a lowered section?  Seems like displacement is equal.


----------



## tmurray (May 25, 2017)

conarb said:


> In order for an employee to enter the back-bar by raising a hinged section he is going to displace somebody if that somebody is sitting there, is there a difference between displacing a normal person sitting at the bar and displacing a handicapped person sitting at a lowered section?  Seems like displacement is equal.



The difference is that this is theoretically the only place a chair user could sit. If they could sit at the bar somewhere else (if there were two sections), but chose this spot, they would be the cause of their own "misfortune".

Realistically, it's a lack of education on the part of the management. If they don't know what something is for, they're going to use it for what makes sense for them. Most people don't think about differently abled people when setting up their business processes.


----------



## Yikes (May 25, 2017)

In many retail/restaurant parking lots, I've often seen the van parking stall 8' wide access aisle also used as a path for moving trash bins in and out.  In some way this reminds me of the bar scenario, but there's a big difference:  the parking aisle is used as a pathway, for the bin, not a destination: they don't park the trash bins on the aisle.  Likewise, the wheelchair user will not stay in the aisle, nor park in the aisle, but will only use it enter/exit the vehicle.


----------



## conarb (May 25, 2017)

*Amendment XIV*
*Section 1.*
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hypothetical:

We have a small 6 person bar, the bar has an ADA compliant level that is hinged, all spaces at the high bar also have hinges, occupying all spaces are:

A handicapped man in a wheelchair at the lowered section.
A white man.
A white woman.
A Muslim man not a citizen of the United States.
A Muslim woman who is a citizen of the United States.
The bartender has to exit the back-bar, one of the 6 hinged sections has to be raised for him to exit and reenter, which section does he raise to exit?


----------



## Msradell (May 25, 2017)

That's easy, he uses the 6th space where nobody is sitting! According your description there only 5 people sitting at the bar.


----------



## conarb (May 25, 2017)

Msradell said:


> That's easy, he uses the 6th space where nobody is sitting! According your description there only 5 people sitting at the bar.



Good, now while he's gone a developmentally disabled person sits down at the 6th space, who does he ask to move out of the way?


----------



## tmurray (May 26, 2017)

conarb said:


> *Amendment XIV*
> *Section 1.*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> ...



The law requires an accessible section. Your questions are pointless.


----------



## conarb (May 26, 2017)

tmurray said:


> The law requires an accessible section. Your questions are pointless.



Not in this country, just look at Trump's travel ban, Federal law clearly gives the President the authority to ban anyone from entering the country solely at his discretion, yet several lower Federal Courts from both the 4th and 9th Circuits have ruled that he has violated the 1st Amendment's ban on religious discrimination, this is such a constitutional issue that the Supreme court will hear it and we'll get some clarification within a few years. 

*
 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)*​
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The Federal Law can't get much clearer than that, this is no simple code or even state statute, 8 USC 1182(F) is Federal Law.


----------



## tmurray (May 26, 2017)

This affects the ADA law how? You seem to be implying that by others getting a guarantee to pursue life liberty and happiness on equal footing as an able bodied person, your ability is somehow diminished as a result. I'm certain if there was any substance to this argument, it has already been explored by the courts. 

The reality, your reality, is that this law exists and must be enforced. If the population thought that it should be removed, politicians would do so to gain political power. 

Does everyone enforcing it agree with all it requires, no, but no person enforcing laws agrees with all the laws they are tasked with enforcing. What we agree to when we are tasked with enforcement is to enforce the laws that the majority of society has agreed to. When we elect representatives by majority, these representatives represent the collective interests of those living in the area that chose them. Laws enacted are as though these people voted for the laws themselves.

Have you ever tried complaining about a speed limit to a police officer? The police officer doesn't set what the speed limit is, they just enforce it. It's no different with us.


----------



## conarb (May 26, 2017)

tmurray said:


> This affects the ADA law how? You seem to be implying that by others getting a guarantee to pursue life liberty and happiness on equal footing as an able bodied person, your ability is somehow diminished as a result. I'm certain if there was any substance to this argument, it has already been explored by the courts.



The constitution says that all should be given equal treatment under the law, not that some should be given special treatment.



> The reality, your reality, is that this law exists and must be enforced. If the population thought that it should be removed, politicians would do so to gain political power.



Our founders modeled our constitution after Plato's Republic, Plato was against democracy because of the failure of Greek Democracy, the tyranny of the majority over minorities. Laws are passed to get votes, or to get money from special interests, in most cases it isn't the laws themselves as passed by our legislators, it's the regulations written by government employees.  Current Justice Thomas and new Justice Gorsuch believe in limiting agency interpretation of laws:


			
				Twin Cities said:
			
		

> Neil Gorsuch has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies’ interpretations of statutes, a deference that stems from a Supreme Court ruling in a 1984 case. More recently, he sided with two groups that successfully challenged the Obama administration’s requirements that employers provide health insurance that includes contraception.¹





			
				T Murray said:
			
		

> Does everyone enforcing it agree with all it requires, no, but no person enforcing laws agrees with all the laws they are tasked with enforcing. What we agree to when we are tasked with enforcement is to enforce the laws that the majority of society has agreed to. When we elect representatives by majority, these representatives represent the collective interests of those living in the area that chose them. Laws enacted are as though these people voted for the laws themselves.



There has been such abuse of regulations that they have rendered our country noncompetitive in a world economy, our electorate recently elected a new administration on the basis that it would reduce regulation. As far as I can see the best way to deal with ADA problems is to leave the law in effect as passed by our legislators, but immediately scrap all regulations written by the Access Board and the DOJ, then carefully and prudently write new comprehensible and fair regulations that don't give privileges to a minority. Even you inspectors here can't agree on how to interpret the existing regulations.



> Have you ever tried complaining about a speed limit to a police officer? The police officer doesn't set what the speed limit is, they just enforce it. It's no different with us.



I had a friend who was a motorcycle officer, he smoked cigarettes, back about 1998 I asked him what he was going to do if the state passed the proposed smoking ban?  He said he would be no part of such a deprivation of our freedoms and would retire immediately if they did, they did and he did. A moral inspector should retire rather than enforce an immoral law, just like the motorcycle cop did.


----------



## conarb (May 26, 2017)

T Murray:

It has occurred to me that I didn't address your main point above, you asked:



			
				T Murray said:
			
		

> This affects the ADA law how?



ADA is Federal Law, *8 U.S.C. 1182(f) *is Federal Law, the courts are saying that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) violates the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, I am saying that ADA violates the 1st Amendment Equal Protection clause.  Once we get a Supreme Court opinion on the Freedom of Religion matter it should be applicable to the Equal Protection matter.


----------



## sergoodo (May 27, 2017)

Hypothetical is missing crucial information like - How big ah' boy is this bartender?


----------



## ADAguy (May 29, 2017)

You "know" the bartender to be a "boy" how?


----------



## tmurray (May 29, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> You "know" the bartender to be a "boy" how?


Had the same thought, but it was his hypothetical so I let it go. I was also curious why Muslims were at a bar, but they must have just been eating lunch.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 1, 2017)

Same as some Mormons (smiling)?


----------



## conarb (Jun 1, 2017)

No matter who the bartender tells to move isn't he discriminating against that person?  As a matter of fact it would probably be easier for the guy in the wheelchair to roll back than for others to climb down and then back up onto bar stools.


----------



## steveray (Jun 2, 2017)

The problem is CA that they are ONLY displacing the disabled person, if the whole bar had to move  every time, it would be equal...But don't worry, from what I have seen, no one really enforces accessible seating at the bar...


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2017)

steveray said:


> ... no one really enforces accessible seating at the bar...


That is Why people file lawsuits


----------



## tmurray (Jun 7, 2017)

conarb said:


> No matter who the bartender tells to move isn't he discriminating against that person?  As a matter of fact it would probably be easier for the guy in the wheelchair to roll back than for others to climb down and then back up onto bar stools.



Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Doesn't sound like discrimination to me.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 7, 2017)

Conarb, love how you channel the voice of Ed Kemper with your comments.


----------



## conarb (Jun 7, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
> 
> Doesn't sound like discrimination to me.


When you have an amendment to the constitution that says:



			
				U.S. Constitution said:
			
		

> *Amendment XIV
> Section 1.*
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*



If you give any person, or persons, special treatment under the law that is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In addition, if you enforce a law that requires an individual, like a small businessman, to spend money to create special accommodations for a group of people, that is depriving that person, like the businessman, of his money.


----------



## sergoodo (Jun 7, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Had the same thought, but it was his hypothetical so I let it go. I was also curious why Muslims were at a bar, but they must have just been eating lunch.



I determined "How big ah' bartender is this bartender?" is not funny and for this hypothetical I used my hypothetical comedic license. Not intended to be a sexual identification political jab.

Back to the point, regardless of opinions about the ADA; that small businessman is not an individual being deprived, the law deprives everybody equally.  For an inverse comparison law gives special treatment to doctors only allowing them to prescribe drugs - is it a violation of equal protection that the white woman in space #3 is deprived of Ambien(property) because she cannot write her own prescription? Anybody can be a doctor.  Anybody can be a small businessman...uh wait...you meant businessperson right?


----------



## conarb (Jun 7, 2017)

Maybe with another conservative judge on the Supreme Court we can get the whole thing thrown out and get back to treating everyone equally under the law. This will be coming to a head with Black college students all over the country demanding that white males leave, 


			
				USA Today said:
			
		

> Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly, police are refusing to explain their actions and harassment,” a group of protesters told The Olympian, the local newspaper, in a statement. “Students will not stand for this anymore, as students of color have never felt comfortable on campus and have not been treated equally.”¹




¹ http://college.usatoday.com/2017/06...cels-days-of-classes-due-to-external-threats/


----------



## tmurray (Jun 8, 2017)

conarb said:


> When you have an amendment to the constitution that says:
> 
> 
> 
> If you give any person, or persons, special treatment under the law that is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In addition, if you enforce a law that requires an individual, like a small businessman, to spend money to create special accommodations for a group of people, that is depriving that person, like the businessman, of his money.



Businesses aren't people.


----------



## steveray (Jun 8, 2017)

Soylent green is people.....


----------



## conarb (Jun 8, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Businesses aren't people.


Legally businesses are people, that's one of the gripes about the _Citizens United_ decision, so a small Chinese restaurant like Sam Wo is put out of business because it can't comply no matter how much money is taken from the family to serve a few obnoxious people like the "Black trans disabled students" who have shut down Evergreen College demanding all white males leave the college.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 8, 2017)

So these businesses should be permitted to choose what classes of people that have the pleasure of spending money there?

You know, when I was going to college I worked full time at a flower shop as a night and weekend manager. One Thursday night there was a black gentleman who came to the door about 6:30PM he opened the door and asked if it was OK to come in. I told him of course he could we are open unit 8:00PM. He gave me a little bit of a funny look, but motioned for his wife and granddaughter to come in. He explained he was looking for a small arrangement for his daughter who had just had another baby. I gave his granddaughter a carnation like we usually did in situations like this and when ringing him out he asked his wife and daughter to head out to their car and he needed to speak with me about something. I started racking my brain because I assume I had offended him somehow and couldn't figure out what I had done. But he told me he was from the southern US and when he asked if it was OK to come in, it wasn't if we were open, it was if we let black people in our store. He told me there are places that he is still not permitted to enter based on his skin and he was so happy his grandchildren were growing up in a place where this was the furthest thing from someone's mind.

I'm not trying to say the US is bad and Canada is good, there are more than enough racist people here.

What I'm saying is that not being allowed into a store because of the colour of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation or your physical ability is not freedom.


----------



## conarb (Jun 8, 2017)

tmurray said:


> What I'm saying is that not being allowed into a store because of the colour of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation or your physical ability is not freedom.



The 14th Amendment was passed to insure that all states followed the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, the  southern states were known as "the solid south" because the whites there voted solidly for the Democratic Party and were arguing "states' rights" under the 10th Amendment, ironically it's the Democrats today that are arguing "states' rights" in the sanctuary city issue claiming that the Federal Government doesn't have the right to tell them what to do asserting the 10th Amendment.  

There is a difference between doing what is the right thing to do (in your opinion), and doing what is legally right, using your right thing to do argument I could argue that I don't have to obey the building codes because doing so would increase the price of construction so that it would bar the poor from occupying my buildings. We either live under the rule of law or we all decide what is the right thing to do.  Just look, now we have racism, sexism, and ableism, now I'm hearing elitism, I worked night and day to go to an elite college to move up the socioeconomic ladder, now they are calling me elitist equating that to racism, etc. Where is this going to end, will someone who has a phobia about red flowers be able to demand that you remove all red flowers so he can come into your flower shop? 

Of course there is a difference between telling a black man that he can't come into your store and his own inability to come into the store because the doorway isn't wide enough, there is a difference between active discrimination and passive discrimination.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 8, 2017)

Well ADA is a law, so it is both the ethical thing and the legally right thing.


----------



## conarb (Jun 8, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Well ADA is a law, so it is both the ethical thing and the legally right thing.


My point is that it is unconstitutional law as I've posted above, in violation of the 14th Amendment.   We need a more conservative court system that will finally throw this crap out.  Look at the recent immigration ban, the US Codes give the President unilateral authority to ban anyone he wants from entering the country, so far several courts have ruled that that authority violates the constitutional ban of Freedom of Religion since the President is using it to ban Muslims, the Supreme Court will decide this but my point is the ADA violates the 14th Amendment as I've outlined above, if do-gooders want to help handicapped people do it legally, put door widths and other requirements into the code for all to observe, and if the buildings were built to code they are legal until remodeling requires they meet current codes.

We recently voted for an administration that promised to drastically reduce regulations, this would be a good place to start. Nobody should be forced to spend money for someone else, it's one thing to say you have to serve a black man, it's totally another thing to say you have top spend $30,000 to serve a disabled man.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 9, 2017)

You have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?


----------



## conarb (Jun 9, 2017)

tmurray said:


> You have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?


No, only the courts, which should have been done here.  If they wanted civil rights law there is a constitutional amendment to go through, but it's a tough bar to pass, the women wanted special rights and they tried to get the ERA through starting in 1923, eventually they piggybacked on Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights act, then the handicapped piggybacked on it in 1990. 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender; it seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in terms of divorce, property, employment, and other matters. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The amendment was introduced in Congress for the first time in 1923 and has prompted conversations about the meaning of equality for women and men. In its early history, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States in the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI), in 1971, it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.
> 
> Congress had originally set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. With wide, bipartisan support (including that of both major political parties, both houses of Congress, and Presidents Ford and Carter) it seemed headed for ratification until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives and cause women to be drafted into the military. Four states rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline, however, there is no precedent or mechanism within the US Constitution for rescinding, and thus, it becomes a legal question. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment before that revised deadline.¹



At the present time all citizens do not have equal rights under the constitution, if the voters wanted equal rights they should have passed the ERA and added the handicapped to it. 


¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 9, 2017)

conarb you should have been a lawyer. All of us have been discriminated against to one degree or another. The founders of our country understood this and wrote a document that was intended as a living document. Unfortunately it has become the plaything of a few professionals. You seek to split hairs over every word, ADA was not intended as a code, only a "legal" guideline as to "minimums".

The code is a model to be accepted, rejected or modified by AHJ's. DOJ has always lacked the staffing necessary to find codes to be safe harbors, though the IBC is much closer (though not retroactive) then ever before. Even new construction is still lacking due to ineffective enforcement, giving cause to lawsuits.  At this rate and per your opinion we should never see pre-ADA buildings approaching the level of compliance of post-ADA buildings.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 9, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> At this rate and per your opinion we should never see pre-ADA buildings approaching the level of compliance of post-ADA buildings.



That is actually the way it works in Canada. Until they are renovated then we make them accessible as possible based on the scope of work and the challenges the existing construction faces. Would a similar thing work there? I'm not sure. While it works here, for every similarity between our nations there also appears to be a difference.

Going back to what is "fair", is it fair that someone cannot come into your store based on the class of person they are(regardless of active or passive discrimination)? No, but it's also not fair to force someone to update a building that is a hundred years old based on a new law that has nothing to do with life safety. I can even see Conarb's argument about retroactive earthquake requirements. I don't completely agree with it, but I certainly see his perspective.

But as Conarb so articulately pointed out, just because something is unfair, doesn't make it illegal. And until a law has been struck down by the courts, it must be complied with.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 9, 2017)

TM, having just spent time in Canada I fully appreciate its people and the clarity with which your newspapers inform them. I also found your highway patrol to be very reasonable when dealing with travelers from the US. Your form of government and legal system in many ways is a more logical system then ours but then again do you have anything like the ACLU or the NRA in Canada, or as many lawyers?
How is it that you open door policy to immigrants from the Middle East has not lead to the issues we have in the states?


----------



## tmurray (Jun 12, 2017)

The media in Canada must be factually correct in their reporting. Clarity helps in ensuring this. I believe you had a similar law, but it was repealed. 

There are certainly special interest groups with the same goals as their American counterparts, but I personally have found these organizations to be much more moderate in their goals than their US counterparts.

For instance in Canada you are required to have a license to own a firearm. If you want a handgun or something like an AR15, you need a restricted firearms license. Even then, all rifles are limited to a 5 round clip. I've never heard someone complain about our licensing requirements. But then again, this is a difference in the fundamental rights between our two nations. We believe in the right to health care, you in right to bear arms. 

What issues are you seeing with middle east immigrants? Any religious extremists acts I've heard of lately have been homegrown (this includes 2 here in Canada in the last couple years). 

Canada is a little different in its integration of immigrants. In speaking with people who have immigrated here from the US, they say they were expected to adopt American traditions and values. Here in Canada, our identity is multiculturalism, so people can just do what they want to do, provided they d not violate any laws. We might ask the Ugandan family why they don't turn the lights on in their house at night, but simply because we're curious.

FYI, it's because electricity is extremely limited where they came from and they are simply not used to being able to use as much as they want.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 12, 2017)

"T" thank you for sharing these insights. Maybe because we were a nation of revolutionaires that mentality carries on. Our presidents don't wear crowns though some think they do.
As to prisons, do you incarcerate as many as we do?


----------



## tmurray (Jun 12, 2017)

Yours is 5 times higher. But there again, we don't incarcerate for simple position of marijuana. It is simply a fine offense.


----------

