Michelle Minton

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: January 25, 2013

by Michelle Minton on January 25, 2013

in Alcohol Regulation Roundup, Deregulate to Stimulate, Features, Personal Liberty

National: According to the Brewers Association, the trade group that represents smaller craft breweries, the Small BREW Act will be reintroduced in Congress in January 2013 after failing to come to a vote in 2012. H.R. 1236 and its companion legislation, S. 534, would have reduce excise tax rates for small brewers (those making under 6 million barrels a year), from $7.00 to $3.50/barrel on the first 60,000 barrels and $16.00 per barrel on beer production above 60,000 barrels up to 2 million barrels.

Alabama: Rep. Mac McCutcheon has proposed a bill that would legalize home brewing in Alabama — at least a very small amount of it. If passed, HB 9 would make Mississippi the only state maintaining a ban on home brewing. The bill would allow Alabamians to legally brew up to 13 gallons of beer, wine, cider, or mead every three months.

Colorado: Rep. Kevin Priola thinks he’s found a way to solve the ongoing battle to get full strength beer in grocery stores. Currently, grocery and convenience stores may sell beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent or less. Priola’s bill would let stores carry full strength beer made by “craft” brewers — that is, beer makers who produce less than 6 million barrels a year. MillerCoors and AB InBev will almost certainly push back against the move, as will liquor manufacturers being left out in the cold. When you try to change an entrenched system you will never make everyone happy, but perhaps this different approach is the step forward that can get the ball rolling.

District of Columbia: It’s now officially legal for stores to sell and deliver liquor on Sundays. On January 15, 2013, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray signed the Omnibus Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Emergency Amendment Act and by the next day the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration began accepting applications from liquor stores hoping to stay open on Sundays. In addition to Sunday sales, growlers (reusable containers holding up to 64 fluid ounces of beer) can now be sold and filled by brew pubs, liquor stores, and full service grocery stores for off-site consumption.

Kentucky: Kentucky legislators are scrambling to respond to a court decision last year that overturned the state’s ban on selling wine and hard spirits at grocery stores and gas stations. The judge stayed his ruling, preventing stores from acting on the changed laws, but if the legislature can’t come to an agreement in the 2013 session, the ruling will go into effect.

Maryland: Lawmakers in Maryland have introduced measures (House Bill 4 and Senate Bill 32) that would allow breweries to sell beer on site, up to 6,000 barrels a year.

[click to continue…]

Washington’s Liquor Privatization Did Increase Prices, But Also Selection And Availability

by Michelle Minton on January 15, 2013

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

Post image for Washington’s Liquor Privatization Did Increase Prices, But Also Selection And Availability

Since selling off the state-owned liquor monopoly, many Washington State residents have noticed an unfortunate development; despite what proponents of privatization promised, the cost of buying liquor in the state did not go down and in fact jumped. The cause of the increase in prices wasn’t the free market or greedy businesses taking the place of the benevolent state-run stores. It was the massive increase in taxes and fees that forced privately run liquor stores to charge more. That said, some of the benefits promised by those supporting a free market for liquor have materialized.

As I and others have discussed in the wake of the passage of Initiative 1183, the proposal voters approved to allow the sell-off of state owned liquor operations included a bundle of new taxes and fees on retailers and distributors of liquor in Washington. As a result, the prices on many types of alcohol jumped in the wake of privatization, making some residents question what exactly it was they voted for.

According to Kirsten Johnson at the Puget Sound Business Journal, the average price of a liter of booze with taxes has increased about $2.50 since September 2011 (I-1833 went into effect in June 2011). Of course, some of that increase is due to the increase in fees, taxes, and tax revenue obligations written into the initiative, including a 17 percent tax on liquor sales that retailers pay to the state and the 10 percent tax on sales that distributors pay to the state. This is in addition to the taxes Washington already placed on liquor before I-1183, which, according to the Tax Foundation, “are some of the nation’s highest at $26.70 a gallon. The national average is $7.02 a gallon.”

And despite a lot of whining about how things shook out after privatization, all indications are pointing to positive changes for alcohol consumers. For one thing, there are now 10 times as many retailers selling spirits, including national retailers like BevMo and Total Wine — increasing selection for not just liquor drinkers, but beer and wine as well. Perhaps this increased availability and selection are responsible for increases in sales. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal report, spirit sales were up 2.9 percent by volume during the four months post-privatization compared with sales the previous year — and that’s despite the 11.6-percent price increase.

It’s hard to say what the market would look like had privatization occurred minus the new taxes and fees. However, we can look to the other effects of privatization — such as selection and availability, which were not as constrained by I-1883 as prices were — to see that the law privatizing sales could have been better. This doesn’t mean that Washington State residents should turn their backs on privatization, but rather seek to remove the artificial costs of selling liquor that are the true cause of higher prices post-privatization. This is also a cautionary tale for those in other states like Oregon, Idaho, and Pennsylvania as they consider if and how they should privatize their liquor sales.

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: New Year Edition 2013

by Michelle Minton on January 8, 2013

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

With a new year comes a new opportunity to take stock in our past endeavors and renew our goals for the future. While many a New Year’s resolution involves alcohol (usually an effort to drink less of it), some lawmakers out there have resolutions of their own related to alcohol; specifically, alcohol regulations. Hopefully, in 2013 we will see a continuation of the trend towards more liberal alcohol laws that make it easier and more affordable for producers, purveyors, and patrons of the fermented and distilled arts.

National: The TTB, without much fanfare, introduced a measure that would reduce the bond tax burden on small brewers.

District of Columbia: Apparently not every politician in D.C. is unable to act. On December 18, the D.C. Council unanimously approved an omnibus alcohol bill that would, among other things, allow Sunday liquor sales, create a permit for wine pubs, and allow grocery stores and brew pubs to fill growlers (64-ounce reusable jugs). Councilmember Jim Graham deserves a cheer even if his previous proposals focused on raising alcohol taxes.

Kansas: Uncork Kansas, a coalition of convenience stores, grocery stores, and chambers of commerce, says it plans to introduce a bill early in the legislative session to change state law and allow full-strength beer and liquor sales in grocery stores. Of course, liquor store owners who are currently the only retailers allowed to sell full-strength beer, liquor, and wine, oppose the measure because they see it as a threat to their business model.

Mississippi: After successfully battling to raise the allowable alcohol content of beer, activists in Mississippi were gearing up for their next fight to get growlers legalized in the state only to realize it is already legal! A few brave business owners waded into the legal gray legal area and began selling the jugs of fresh beer, but demand is low because most customers don’t even realize it is an option. This is sort of the activist’s equivalent of finding that $20 bill you don’t remember putting in your coat pocket.

[click to continue…]

The Temperance Movement Is Alive And Well

by Michelle Minton on December 5, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for The Temperance Movement Is Alive And Well

Today, Dec. 5, is the day to go out and raise a glass to celebrate the anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the United States. For many of us, the era of prohibition feels distant and forgotten. We assume since Prohibition was overturned nearly 80 years ago, every last remnant of it is dead and buried. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Despite the passage of the 21st Amendment, which officially repealed prohibition, remnants live on in the form of state- and local-level bans on Sunday, Election Day, and Christmas sales, and the three-tiered system that forces an artificial separation between the makers, distributors and sellers of alcohol that makes no economic sense (about which you can read more about here). But the truly important hangover from Prohibition remains in the extension of the temperance movement to other products. Just as in the days of Carrie Nation, self-styled “public health” advocates continue to claim to know what is best for everyone and are determined to force their opinion on the whole of society.

The only real difference is subtlety. For-your-own-good crusaders learned their lesson in the 1930s: Bans don’t work. They serve only to arouse that part of the American psyche that rankles at the thought of being told you can’t have something. If you truly want to prevent consumer access to something, you must first convince them it is evil so that they become reluctant to come to its defense. Then you slowly squeeze the product out of the market through taxation and restrictions on sales and advertising. We’ve come a long way from the days of Demon Rum. Today’s do-gooders’ favorite tactic is to label something as “unhealthy.”

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Turkey Day 2012 Edition

by Michelle Minton on November 21, 2012 · 2 comments

in Alcohol Regulation Roundup, Features

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Turkey Day 2012 Edition

While most people in the U.S. are fantasizing about turkey slathered in gravy, yams, and pumpkin pie right now, beer connoisseurs throughout the nation — like me — are dreaming of the beer that they will savor at Thanksgiving dinner. This year we lovers of libations (not to mention the folks who make them) have a lot to be thankful for. While some states take steps backwards and others don’t seem to budge, we can raise our glasses to the increasingly liberal alcohol laws throughout most of the nation, that benefit of businesses and consumers and have contributed to making the U.S. one of the most vibrant environments for alcohol production.

Below is a collection of regulatory news items on proposed regulations or regulatory changes that affect the sale, production, and distribution of alcoholic beverages? Jump to the bottom of this post for suggestions on how to find the perfect beer to go along with your holiday meal. And remember, if you’re planning on buying alcohol you’d better check your state liquor laws. As I noted in my Christmas-ban post, many states have laws that make purchasing alcohol on a holiday difficult or outright impossible.

National: Should we be worried about the size and scope of America’s beer producers? Should we try to stop them from increasing in size or disallow them from distributing as well as producing beer? According to several publications, we should. The American Antitrust Institute released a white paper opposing a merger between Grupo Modelo — Mexico’s largest beer producer — and Anheuser-Busch, while an article in the Washington Monthly (echoed by Mother Jones) seems to suggest that we must stop brewers from merging or allowing them to distribute or we risk having a world where one company terrorizes the market and we have epidemic levels of alcoholism. I will have a more in-depth discussion on that in another post, but the short answer is: we shouldn’t be worried about stopping “big beer,” we should be thinking about how to get out of the way of craft beer. Up until recently, big beer companies had been experience a multi-year decline in sales, while craft brewers were experiencing a boom. There will not be a monopoly so long as small brewers can make and get their beer to market. Eliminate their taxes, let all brewers self-distribute, let them advertise, and we will never see a beer monopoly while Americans still have taste buds.

[click to continue…]

Overhyped Energy Drink Reaction

by Michelle Minton on November 19, 2012

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

Post image for Overhyped Energy Drink Reaction

As has been reported extensively, the Food and Drug Administration has received several recent reports of alleged side-effects sustained by consumers who have ingested energy drinks. Predictably, the news stories were immediately followed by hasty calls to ban or restrict these drinks and supplements.

The reports submitted to the FDA, in most cases filed by consumers themselves, detail serious and sometimes life-threatening health problems, including convulsions, heart attacks and death after consuming energy drinks.  The FDA does not consider the reports proof the drinks were in any way related to health problems, but it does lead the agency to look more closely at the products mentioned. According to FDA representative Shelly Burgess:

“As with any reports of a death or injury the agency receives we take them very seriously and investigate diligently…Under the law, Adverse Event Reports serve as a signal to FDA and do not prove causation between a product or ingredient and an adverse event.”

It is important to make sure the things we consume are safe, but current reaction by media, lawmakers and public health advocates about a small number of incidents that may or may not be related to energy drinks is out of proportion. Nearly 1 million people have heart attacks in America every year, and most did not consume energy drinks. Considering hundreds of millions of cans of energy drinks sold in the U.S. every year, it is safe to say the vast majority of people can tolerate such products without serious cardiac problems.

Anything we ingest can have negative side effects (including water) depending on the quantity consumed and a person’s unique health conditions. This is why it is up to each individual to make food and drink choices for themselves and in consultation with their own physician. It’s terrible when someone accidentally aggravates an unknown medical condition, but that is not a reason to restrict access to that product for everyone.

image via the foodnetwork

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Election Hangover Edition

by Michelle Minton on November 12, 2012 · 1 comment

in Alcohol Regulation Roundup, Features

How did the election affect alcohol laws? Alcohol is regulated by states, cities, counties and towns, and hundreds of them had alcohol-related measures on the ballot Nov. 6. Georgia alone had more than 100 alcohol-related items on various ballots. Tennessee voters approved six of seven alcohol-related ballot measures. Blount County, Alabama, voted to stay dry, but four counties in Arkansas and two in Texas voted to go wet.

Six cities in Ohio voted to allow alcohol to be sold on Sundays, as did Lancaster, York,  Greenwood and North Augusta counties in South Carolina and Clay and Holmes counties in Florida.

Illinois: Congrats to Anheuser-Busch on winning the right to be both beer maker and distributor in Chicago. Opponents claimed it was illegal for an out-of-state brewery to own a distributing license, but a judge determined such a law was discriminatory since in-state breweries could hold a distribution license. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission agreed and allowed AB to maintain a 30 percent ownership stake in City Beverage-Illinois — the largest distributor of Budweiser in the state.

Maryland: For the first time since prohibition, businesses in Damascus in Montgomery County will be allowed to sell wine and beer. Until last Tuesday’s vote, the town of about 15,000 residents had remained dry despite five attempts to lift the ban through a referendum vote.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Election Day Edition

by Michelle Minton on November 6, 2012

in Alcohol Regulation Roundup, Features, Personal Liberty

While Mitt may not drink, many of the voting public and the candidates themselves hope to celebrate/drown their sorrows at the bar while the returns roll in. If you were planning on knocking a few back with friends at the pub, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise depending on where you live. A couple of states still ban all sales of alcohol on election day while others have some interesting restrictions — all of these so-called “blue laws” are hangovers from prohibition

Only two states, Kentucky and South Carolina, ban sales of all alcohol on Election Day, which includes sales at stores, restaurants, and bars. Unlike South Carolina, which seems content with the ban, some lawmakers in Kentucky, are attempting to update the laws.

According to a Time blog post on the issue, Kentucky Rep. Arnold Simpson has tried no less than 5 times to lift the ban and save the state’s bars and restaurants from the $4.5 million in revenue they reportedly lose for being closed on the day.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: October 19, 2012

by Michelle Minton on October 19, 2012

in Alcohol Regulation Roundup

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: October 19, 2012

The only real change of late seems to be happening to leaves on trees. But on the alcohol regulatory reform front, the following states have taken baby steps toward updating their laws.

Alabama: Lawmakers in Alabama are talking about getting the state out of the liquor business. State Sen. Arthur Orr authored a bill that would eliminate the state’s 172 state stores and allow hard liquor to be sold by private retailers.

Illinois: In the next legislative session, State Rep. Keith Farnham plans to introduce a bill that would allow home brewers  to offer free samples at public gatherings. Although the bill is based on a similar Wisconsin law, Farnham worked with local home-brewing clubs to draft his specific proposal, which he says has a “good chance” of being approved.

Indiana: Though not on the official legislative agenda, it is likely Sunday alcohol sales will come up in the next session. Last May, Connecticut became the 49th state to allow Sunday sales, leaving Indiana as the last state in the nation to maintain its prohibition-era ban on Sunday off-site alcohol sales for all three categories of alcohol.

Kentucky: A district court judge halted an order that would allow gas stations and grocery stores to sell wine and liquor. In August, the same judge ruled the state’s laws banning wine and liquor sales at gas stations and other retailers was unconstitutional, but he ordered sales not begin immediately so state regulators  could have a chance to address the statute without creating a “legal mess.”

[click to continue…]

New Study Questions Link Between Alcohol And Breast Cancer Risk

by Michelle Minton on October 18, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk

Post image for New Study Questions Link Between Alcohol And Breast Cancer Risk

Every day, we make decisions about what to eat and drink that can affect our long-term health. Each individual is ultimately responsible for determining the best diet for his or her body and life. Ideally, individuals should make nutritional decisions by balancing health goals and personal enjoyment, while considering their unique physical condition, family history, and risk for certain conditions.

Unfortunately, this is not what public health advocates or many in the media believe. Every new study that manages to get published in a journal (regardless of how reliable or unreliable the conclusions are) represents an opportunity to push for government policies or lifestyle recommendations, applying one-sized-fits-all prescriptions for the public.

For example: Alcohol has known health risks but it also has significant health benefits—not to mention the social and psychological costs and gains. This past November, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study linking moderate alcohol consumption to an increased risk for breast cancer. The study was conducted by the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), and it received a great deal of media attention.  While earlier research had theorized that heavy drinking was associated with increased breast cancer risk, the NHS study found that even moderate and light consumption (less than one drink a day) could cause a 10 percent increase in a woman’s risk for breast cancer.

The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and ABC News among many others reported on the study. The Telegraph went as far as to tell female readers that they should “stick to one glass a day” or completely abstain if they have a family history of breast cancer.

However, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) released a paper this month that called the NHS study into question and saying that the “relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and breast cancer risk needs further study.” They highlight some problems with the self-reporting method, such as underreporting of alcohol consumption, which might lead to the conclusion that less alcohol has greater effects. Also, the NIAAA points out that the study does not account for the potential difference in binge-drinking versus long-time light drinking. While epidemiological studies like the NHS study add valuable information, as the NIAAA notes, it’s inadvisable to create guidelines for consumers based on such preliminary evidence.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →