Assembly committee hears AB375 to allow cocktails to go, designate pecan punch state drink

CARSON CITY — Sponsors presented Assembly Bill 375 to the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee as a statewide framework to allow restaurants to sell and deliver sealed alcoholic beverages to customers. The bill, sponsors said, would preserve local control — giving local governments the option to opt out or add restrictions — while adding statewide safeguards such as tamper-evident packaging, driver training, age-verification records and a 50-cent surcharge per sale to fund DUI prevention.

"This bill seeks to provide a statewide framework for alcohol delivery that local governments, and I wanna repeat this, local governments would be able to opt out of or enact further restrictions or requirements," Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager said when introducing AB375.

Peter Saba of the Nevada Restaurant Association, who previewed operational details, told the committee the measure would "modernize Nevada's liquor laws by allowing restaurants to safely sell and deliver alcohol to go, just like big chain grocery stores and liquor retailers already do." Saba described mandatory tamper-evident packaging, multi-step ID verification by delivery drivers, driver training and a Department of Taxation enforcement role.

Supporters including the Nevada Restaurant Association, NFIB Nevada and the Reno-Sparks Chamber said alcohol-to-go sustained restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a revenue source for small businesses. The restaurant association's written and oral testimony included economic estimates presented on the record: sponsors estimated about 127 to-go drinks per week per licensed restaurant, roughly 438,000 weekly alcohol-to-go transactions statewide and annual revenue gains on the order of $228 million; the testimony projected $15–$19 million in additional annual sales tax revenue and dedicated surcharge revenue for the Ignition Interlock Device Program.

Law enforcement testimony included support for the bill's public-safety aims. John Abel of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association said he believes the measure "will reduce DUI arrest and probably DUI deaths" by giving people an option besides driving to obtain additional alcohol.

Opponents and local governments raised concerns about resort deliveries and jurisdictional control. Misty Grimmer of the Nevada Resort Association asked that the committee and sponsors craft a prohibition on deliveries to resort properties and emphasized preserving local control. Clark County spokeswoman Ashley Kennedy said the county is in negotiations over local ordinances and supported additional Clark County opt-out language currently being discussed.

Committee members asked detailed questions about training and verification. Members pressed whether existing training (TAM/ServSafe) and platform-specific training would be sufficient and whether delivery platforms already use multi-step ID verification; Peter Saba confirmed third-party platforms operate ID-verification protocols in Nevada and that grocery/liquor deliveries already use similar systems under SB307 (2021).

No committee vote was taken; sponsors said they will continue negotiations on outstanding concerns, including possible resort-delivery prohibitions and platform training standards.

Ending — Sponsors and stakeholders told the committee they will continue working on amendments; the committee closed the hearing without action and indicated the bill will return with revised language for future consideration.