Michelle Minton

Utah Doubles Down on Gambling Prohibition

by Michelle Minton on February 6, 2012 · 0 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Utah Doubles Down on Gambling Prohibition

It’s not news that regulators in Utah are often uncomfortable allowing residents to make their own decisions about how, when, or if they engage in morally questionable behavior. The Beehive State has a well-known bee in its bonnet when it comes to alcohol, but what many non-Utahans may not know is that it is just as strict, if not more so, when it comes to preventing residents from gambling — even if they are in their own home. As federal lawmakers and many states edge toward legalizing, regulating, and taxing online wagering, some Utah legislators want to clarify the letter of their state law to make it absolutely clear that their residents don’t have a choice: gambling in Utah is illegal, whether it’s at a business, in your home, or on your smart phone.

As Eric Bianchi over at CalvinAyre.com reported last week, Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom introduced legislation (HB 108) that would make it illegal for residents of the state to gambling over the Internet and on handheld devices. This is the second measure meant to address the increasing ease with which Utah residents are skirting the state’s strict gambling laws. Last month, the Utah House passed a bill (HB 40) that eliminated “vague working in the state law” that Internet cafes had reportedly been exploiting to allow online gaming — or as the bill’s sponsor Rep. Don Ipson charmingly put it, made them “havens for criminal activity.”

Utah is only one of two states in the nation that doesn’t have any form of legalized gambling, such as a casino or lottery (Hawaii is the other). But that doesn’t mean that residents aren’t doing plenty of gambling anyway.

Of course, that’s always the problem with prohibition, isn’t it? Bans never actually stop people from engaging in a behavior, it simply makes them a criminal if they do. If Utah’s Internet gambling ban is approved, especially as other states move toward legalizing the activity, Utahans will continue to gambling on and offline. Utah will lose tax revenue to neighboring states and residents will not have the protections of their government if their rights are violated while engaging in online gambling. Apparently, Utah regulators would rather try to protect the purity of the souls of their constituents rather than doing the job they are charged with which is to protect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: January 30, 2012

by Michelle Minton on January 30, 2012 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

In national news: Congressman Kurt Schrader of Oregon announced last week that he is withdrawing his support of the CARE Act, the piece of legislation that will likely make it more difficult for small producers of wine, beer, and spirits to reach the market. In his statement, Rep. Schrader noted that after listening to the concerns of Oregon’s wine growers he now believes the legislation would be detrimental to their industry.

Also in national news: The Small BREW Act picked up a new cosponsor. Congressman Brad Miller of North Carolina signed onto the act that will reduce costs for small brewers and allow them to brew more while still being considered “small.” Currently, small brewers are defined as those making not more than 2 million barrels a year. The BREW Act would up that to 6 million barrels a year. The act also cuts the excise tax rate on the first 60,000 barrels for small brewers from $7 a barrel to $3.50 a barrel. The additional barrels after 60,000 and up to 2 million will be taxed at $16 a barrel.

Arizona: A ballot initiative is underway in Arizona that could give residents the chance to vote on whether or not they’d like a new tax on their alcohol. The tax would amount to 25 cents on every gallon of hard liquor and a dollar on every gallon on beer and wine. Like many other “sin taxes,” this will go to community programs and is sold as a remedy to the financial toll that alcohol abuse has on communities. Of course, this new tax would be in addition to the alcohol taxes that Arizona already has. Currently, the state of Arizona extracts $3 per gallon of spirits, 84 cents on every gallon of wine, and 16 cents on each gallon of beer. There are no plans to give money back to people for the scientifically proven health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

Connecticut: Earlier this month, Connecticut Governor Malloy released details of his plans to update the state’s alcohol laws. Among other things, Malloy hopes to legalize Sunday sales of alcohol, get rid of the holiday sales bans, and eliminate minimum pricing. If successful, the new laws will hopefully reduce costs for consumers and prevent residents from buying their booze in neighboring states.

[click to continue…]

California’s Condom Mandate: Some Things Shouldn’t Be Up for a Vote

by Michelle Minton on January 23, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony

Post image for California’s Condom Mandate: Some Things Shouldn’t Be Up for a Vote

Some things should not be up for a vote. Among those things is whether consenting adults should be required to use condoms when they have sex. For many years, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has called for a mandate on condoms in adult films and recently collected enough signatures to add their legislation to the next city ballot. And last week the LA city council voted in favor of denying permits to adult films that do not abide by the condom requirement. While these efforts may be well-intentioned, a condom mandate violates actors’ rights to free speech, association, and choice—and likely will be counterproductive.

Current national workplace safety standards, as stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), require employers to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers in hazardous situations—for example, hard hats for construction workers. Notably, OSHA laws provide exemptions for workers who refuse to use the PPE on religious grounds. Unlike many other OSHA protection rules, this condom mandate does not allow for any flexibility in the type of protection workers may use: it requires some form of barrier protection and would not allow actors to voluntarily not use the protection (though I doubt any actor would seek a religious exemption). While sexually transmitted infection is certainly a risk on adult film sets, a condom mandate is a one-size-fits-all solution that certainly doesn’t “fit all”.

As many in and out of adult film industry have noted, the mandate prevents actors and filmmakers from expressing themselves as they wish—a clear violation of the First Amendment. While “obscene” speech is not guaranteed the same constitutional protection as other types of expression, the adult industry as a whole cannot be lumped into the obscenity category. The “Miller Test,” which is used to determine obscenity based on the 1973 Supreme Court case, Miller v California, would have to be applied to every film before the state of California would have the right to restrict their expression.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: January 13, 2012

by Michelle Minton on January 13, 2012 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jester-beer-from-thrillist.jpg

Out with the old year and out with the old alcohol laws! 2012 is off to a great start with several states reducing the regulatory burdens on the producers and consumers of alcoholic beverages. Here’s to a new year!

Colorado: The movement to get full strength beer grocery stores seems to be losing steam. After four years of concerted but failed efforts and a governor expressly against the idea, the legislature apparently has no plans to push for sales of beer with more than 3.2 alcohol by weight in outlets other than liquor stores.

Connecticut: Apparently, I was not the only person curious about where one wouldn’t be able to buy liquor on or around Christmas/New Year’s Eve. Consumer Protection Commissioner William M. Rubenstein was kind enough to clarify Connecticut’s law: unless you’re in a bar or restaurant, the state’s anachronistic blue laws do prohibit the sale of alcohol on Christmas and New Years, and if those happen to fall on Sundays, it prohibits off-premise sales on the following Monday as well.

Idaho: The push is on to collect enough signatures to get the question of privatizing the state-run liquor business before voters. Optimistic after the success of a similar privatization ballot initiative in Washington State, Idaho grocers need to collect 47,432 signatures by April 30. Even if the measure is successful, they will have to face-off with the current governor, a Republican who has stated his belief that it’s the government’s duty to promote “temperance.”

Indiana: Lawmakers are reportedly drafting a bill that would allow carry-out sales of alcohol on Sundays as well as cold beer sales in convenient, grocery, and drug stores. Opponents of the plan, as usual, claim it would hurt mom-and-pop liquor stores. Oddly enough, Indianapolis does have one exception to the Sunday sales ban – a recent change in the law allows retailers to sell alcohol on Super Bowl Sunday and the previous Sunday, but only in the “downtown Super Bowl zone.”

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: December 20, 2011

by Michelle Minton on December 20, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: December 20, 2011

With the holidays near and all in good cheer, here is some alcohol news at which you can jeer.

And you plan on having booze around the house on Christmas, you had better consult with my previous roundup of Christmas Day liquor sales bans and plan your shopping accordingly.

District of Columbia: Beer lovers in D.C. may soon be allowed to fill growlers. D.C. Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) filed legislation earlier this month that would lift the ban on filling growlers — large jugs that can be filled with fresh beer, enjoyed at home, and refilled.

Georgia: Counties in Georgia have been voting for the past year on whether they want to retain their ban on Sunday alcohol sales or repeal the ban. In November, Savannah was one of the counties that voted to end the ban. This week the city council made it official, meaning that businesses in Savannah (presuming they have a liquor license) may immediately begin serving alcohol on Sundays.

Illinois: For many years, local brewers of any size in Illinois were allowed to self-distribute their product. Since the ’80s, Anheuser-Busch (A-B), the St. Louis-based brewer, has owned a 30 percent share of Illinois distributor Windy City Distribution, but when they tried to buy the remaining 70 percent in 2010, the liquor control board put a stop to it. They say this is because A-B is technically not based in Illinois — they are an out-of-state dealer. A-B claimed, rightfully so, that the laws discriminated against out-of-state producers, and as a result the state passed a law that essentially stopped all brewers — out of state or in-state — from self distributing, though it does allow smaller brewers to continue self-distribution. The liquor control board is in the process of determining whether or not A-B should be allowed to hold onto its 30 percent interest in Windy City Distributor or be forced to divest entirely — something that A-B claims is the goal of its competition, Miller-Coors, which is currently the number-one seller in Illinois.

[click to continue…]

Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

by Michelle Minton on December 12, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

If you were planning to go-a-Wassailing along this Christmas, you may want to read this post carefully so that you can plan your booze-buying accordingly this holiday season. The “blue laws,” that still exist in many states, were originally intended to enforce religious worship. While most states have done away with the anachronistic rules, many still maintain bans on sales of liquor on Sundays, election days, and certain holidays. Since this Christmas falls on a Sunday this year, about 27 states in the union have some kind of blue law or another that will severely limit its residents’ ability to get booze, regardless of whether or not they are religious or celebrate Christmas. Most of the states listed below have limitations on off-premise sales of alcohol (that is liquor shops) but some also limit or prohibit all liquor sales, including serving in bars and restaurants on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Most of the states on the list below have state-wide prohibitions, but for some states the laws governing liquor are county-by-county. Even if your state doesn’t make the list, individual stores may elect to close on Christmas Day so you should prepare head of time so you won’t be forced to take drastic measures.

Alabama only allows off-premise sales of liquor through state-run stores, all of which will be closed from 4pm on Christmas Eve until the following Tuesday.

Arkansas not only prohibits sales of take-away liquor, but also prohibits

Colorado lifted the Sunday sales ban in 2008, however, off-premise alcohol sales are banned on Christmas Day. If you’re really in need you’ll be happy to know that you’ll be able to buy 3.2 percent ABV beer at grocery stores (if they’re open) on Xmas.

Connecticut bans Sunday liquor sales *except “for alcoholic liquor that is served where food is also available…or by casino permittees at casinos.” In addition, if Christmas falls on a Sunday, off-premise sales are also prohibited on the following Monday.

The District of Columbia, oddly, bans Sunday sales of liquor unless Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday — then stores are allowed to open on December 24. Of course, since Christmas Day is on Sunday people in the district will have to get whatever alcohol they want from grocery/convenience stores (or neighboring states).

Georgia: All alcohol sales are generally prohibited on Christmas Day. However, cities with more than 400,000 residents may allow alcohol sales after 12:30pm on Christmas.

Indiana liquor stores are forced to close while restaurants and bars are banned from Christmas Day alcohol sales, but may serve alcohol by the glass on Christmas Eve.

Kansas While some counties may permit Sunday sales as of 2005, liquor stores are prohibited from selling on Christmas.

Maryland: Oh, Maryland. The state that I currently call home has a labyrinthine system of liquor laws, which means that rules vary widely from county to county. Particularly confusing is the fact that while the state itself is not a “control state” meaning that the state doesn’t own or operate liquor stores, Montgomery County is a “control county” that shuts down its liquor stores on Christmas Day (according to the Chief Operator of the Montgomery Dept. of Liquor Control). Other counties in Maryland, such as Prince George’s, will have sales on Christmas.

Massachusetts like Connecticut prohibits off-premise sales on Christmas day as well as the following Monday if Christmas falls on a Sunday.

Michigan: Last year, Michigan undid the state ban on Christmas day alcohol sales but many municipalities, such as Flint, chose to maintain the ban.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: December 7, 2011

by Michelle Minton on December 7, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Arizona: Liberalization of beer laws in Arizona has kick-started the state’s craft brewing market. The state allows small producers to skip the wholesaling tier of distribution, allowing them to sell directly to consumers. Unfortunately, the law defined small brewers as producing less than 620,000 gallons per year, which forced many brewers to cut production. In 2009 the state increased the cap to 1,240,000 gallons per year and the number of breweries in the state has grown every year since. Hopefully the legislature will take a hint and let breweries of all sizes skip the wholesaler tier if they want to.

Michigan: Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm apparently did at least one right thing (even a broken clock is right twice a day) when she signed legislation into law that did away with the Sunday ban on alcohol sales until after noon. For the last year 6,000 businesses throughout the state forked out the $160 for the annual license that allows them to start selling alcohol at 7am on Sundays. According to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, the change has resulted in a $950,000 increase in revenue for the state.

Also in Michigan: As I predicted in my article, the new state keg-tagging laws have already resulted in a significant drop in keg sales and paper-work headaches for businesses.

Minnesota: This November the Minneapolis City Council passed amendments, removing the required 300 feet of distance between alcohol-serving -selling businesses and houses of worship. As I wrote about in November, this regulatory liberation is the direct result of small brewers pushing for updates to Minnesota laws that allow them to operate, profit, and stimulate the state economy.

[click to continue…]

Is the Four Loko/FTC Settlement on the Rocks?

by Michelle Minton on November 28, 2011 · 4 comments

in Features, Health and Illness, Nanny State, Regulation

Post image for Is the Four Loko/FTC Settlement on the Rocks?

If you’re a regular reader of OpenMarket.org, then you know we at CEI have written quite a bit on the issue of Four Loko. In the past two years, many of us at the Institute have stepped up to defend, not the product itself, but rather the company and consumers rights to purchase the beverage. Considering that there are already laws preventing minors from purchasing alcoholic beverages, we simply don’t see a need for some nanny-state bureaucrat to step between this trade and tell us we are too dumb to understand how harmful it is to drink four cans of Four Loko back-t0-back, and that’s why it needs to be taken off store shelves.

Yet, that is in essence what happened last year. The FDA sent warning letters to the makers of various alcoholic beverages that also contained caffeine. I detailed one businesswoman’s heartbreaking ordeal as she fought for, but ultimately lost, her company in the battle against the FDA.

As for Four Loko’s makers, Phusion Projects, the company voluntarily changed the formula of their product, removing the caffeine and then reintroduced the drink at the start of 2011. However, that wasn’t good enough. At the behest of pestering parents and state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) pursued the company for what it called “deceptive” advertising. The Commission alleges that the company advertises the drinks as equivalent to one or two regular beers, when in actuality they are closer to the amount of alcohol one would consume with four regular beer. The FTC also complained that the makers of Four Loko deceptively advertised that one can could safely be consumed as a single serving. Regardless of the merits of the FTC’s claims, this October the FTC announced that they had reached a settlement agreement with Phusion Projects whereby the company would add resealable tops to their cans and add another warning label that states the alcohol content of one can is actually equivalent to 4.5 ”regular” beers.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Turkey Day Edition

by Michelle Minton on November 18, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

As Thanksgiving quickly approaches many hosts and hostesses are scratching their heads about what drinks to pair with their meal items. The Washington Post has a great interview with the District’s own “beer wonder” Greg Engert on how to pair beer with your meal. If you live outside of the Midatlantic though, many of his beer recommendations may not be in your local shop. This is another reason to advocate for an end to the mandatory three-tier system and allow producers to distribute their beer, wine, and liquor on their own.

Colorado: Coloradans are wondering if the recent vote in Washington State that ends the state monopoly on liquor distribution could spread to their state.

Georgia: The modern age slowly comes to Georgie. After voting to end the many decade’s long ban on Sunday alcohol sales, some counties are antsy to see sales actually begin.

Maryland: While the federal ban on alcohol sales ended in 1933, not much has changed in Damascus — the last dry town in Montgomery County, Maryland. However, state legislators are reported planning to introduce a bill in January that would allow residents to vote whether or not to keep the ban at the next election. The change would allow the sale of bee and table wine in restaurants. Well, it’s not much, but it’s something I guess.

Massachusetts: A bill approved by both the state House and Senate would allow Massachusetts food stores sell beer and wine at more of their locations. The bill was intended to replace a proposed ballot measure that would have allowed voters to decide if their town should have the right to offer licenses to more food stores. Of course, the current holders of licenses, fearing competition, would rather increase the number of licenses they can have among their chain stores rather than allowing other companies to get into the game.

Also in Massachusetts: An Alderman in Beacon Hill is pushing a proposal to repeal the city’s self-imposed liquor license cap. If it passes the city would have an unlimited number of beer, wine and liquor licenses to give to bars and restaurants like some surrounding cities. The hope is that the proposal will stimulate the city’s economy.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Beer for Our Soldiers Edition

by Michelle Minton on November 11, 2011

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Not to overshadow the once-in-100-year numerically sequenced date, but today is also Veterans’ Day. This isn’t a great way to get free drinks at the bar by telling people you’re a vet (unless you actually are), but a change to give thanks for mind-blowing bravery and committment of those around us who defend our freedoms with their lives. If anyone deserves a taste of the high life, it’s those folks. While there’s no word on having the legal drinking age lowered so that 18-year-olds who can sign up for military service can also drink a cold beer before they ship out, there’s plenty of other alcohol regulation news.

National: The Brewers Association reports that the beer tasting event at Congress, which I mentioned in my last roundup, was a big success. Four additional members signed up as co-sponsors to the “Small BREW Act,” HR 1236 bringing the total number of co-sponsors to 137. The Act would reduce excise taxes on small breweries.

California: Craft beer lovers in the city of Sacramento lament an ordinance passed in the mid-‘90s called the “single serve ordinance,” which prevents off-premise sales of single bottles of beer — consumers much purchase a six-pack or more. Would-be craft beer store owners along with beer lovers are urging legislators to change the out-dated law which bars the city from carrying many of the high-end beers, those that come in bottles of 22 ounces or 750 milliliters and aren’t packaged in 6-pack form.

Georgia: As I reported in October, Georgia recently overturned the state-wide ban on Sunday sales by allowing counties and cities to vote on whether or not to maintain the prohibition-era blue laws. On Tuesday, Georgians sent a message to their lawmakers that they are so over prohibition. More than 100 counties approved ballot measures allowing Sunday alcohol sales.

Also in Georgia: The Athens-Clarke Commission voted by a vote of 7-3 to reduce the distance that beer and wine shops must be from churches, schools, and homes, from 200 yards to 100 yards.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries