alcohol

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…]

Washington State Alcohol Intiative Takes on Three-Tier Mandates

by Angela Logomasini on November 2, 2011

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Washington State Alcohol Intiative Takes on Three-Tier Mandates

Action this Election Day in Washington State may send tremors across America by cracking open the anti-consumer, anti-competitive alcohol regulations in that state.

Initiative #1183 strikes at the heart of a government-enforced three-tier system for distributing alcohol, which is common in most states. This system requires alcohol producers and importers to sell only to wholesalers, who in turn are the only source from which retailers may purchase their inventory. Most states also ban “vertical integration,” preventing any single company from owning and operating businesses in more than one tier.

These mandates benefit the middlemen — alcohol wholesalers — by ensuring they get a cut in the profits on every sale. But it’s bad for everyone else from consumers to small wine, spirits, and beer producers.

But cracks have emerged within the three-tier system during the past decade. A major blow came in 2005 with the Granholm v. Heald U.S. Supreme Court decision, which barred protectionist state alcohol laws.

Now Costco Wholesale Corp. is leading the campaign for change in Washington State. A number of Washington state laws that enforce the three-tier system prevent Costco from effectively implementing its wholesale model, which involves direct purchasing of large volumes of product at discounted prices, central warehousing, and eventually delivering to its retail outlets where cost savings are passed on to members of its wholesale club.

Costco had already won the right in court to buy alcohol direct from both in-state and out-of-state wine producers, skipping wholesalers altogether. But laws barring them from buying direct from the spirits industry and against central warehousing of alcohol undermine their model.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Ale-oween Edition

by Michelle Minton on October 24, 2011

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/beer-draught.jpg

National: Phusion Projects, the makers of the now-infamous alcoholic energy drink Four Loko, have reportedly reached an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). After making nice with the FDA/TTB by removing the stimulants from their product, the FTC warned that the size of the can could constitute a deceptive act. To avert another government attack, the makers of Four Loko have agreed to add a resealable top to indicate that the drinks hold multiple servings.

Also at the national level, Ken Burns’s newest documentary, “Prohibition,” has the media all atwitter with articles on modern-day issues from marijuana, jobs, and the ongoing discussion about removing the constitutional protection alcohol currently has, as do most economic activities, from discriminatory state laws. See my discussion of Prohibition’s present incarnations here.

California: Gov. Brown signs a law solving a nonexistent problem of alcohol purchase through automated checkout lines at grocery stores. As I wrote about last month, the California grocery store workers’ union has pushed this measure as a way to pressure on one of the state’s largest chains to allow workers to unionize.

Iowa: Higher-proof beer is now on tap in Iowa as the law that capped beer alcohol content at 5 percent was raised to 15 percent when former Iowa Gov. Chet Culver signed a bill into law in March 2010.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Myths Persist Beyond Prohibition

by Michelle Minton on October 21, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Alcohol Myths Persist Beyond Prohibition

In a recent article for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, I make the case that many elements of Prohibition did not fade away after the repeal of the 18th Amendment. In his October 13 opinion piece for The Detroit News, former police chief Jerry Oliver proves my point by digging up an old alcohol myth — one that was used to force Prohibition on the nation. In short, Mr. Oliver expresses the belief that producers of alcohol only seek to have customers consume as much alcohol as possible, thereby making it necessary for the government to intervene in the name of “moderation.”

Historically, it was unscrupulous alcohol producers selling directly to consumers or in cahoots with bars to sell only their products, sometimes at artificially low prices, that fostered an environment for abusive alcohol consumption. It was these excesses that helped trigger the Prohibition backlash.

…Today, most states require producers to sell to state-licensed distributors who in turn sell to local retailers. Exceptions abound where specific states allow direct-to-consumer shipments from wineries…

Critics of this time-tested approach argue the system is antiquated, citing its roots to the last days of Prohibition. That’s like arguing the Constitution is antiquated because it was written in the 1700s.

While Chief Jerry Oliver is correct that Prohibition was a backlash against Americans’ increasing alcohol use (or at least the perception of increasing use) there is no evidence that the system of direct sales or “unscrupulous” producers were the cause of increased consumption. His claim that “tied houses” (saloons owned or operated by alcohol producers) caused people to drink more is the same old myth used by the Temperance movement to push Prohibition on the country. However, we now have a large body of historical evidence that seems to debunk this presumption. Using cirrhosis of the liver as a proxy, historians have found that drinking sharply decreased in the decade preceding Prohibition — even though tied houses still abounded. While incidences of cirrhosis declined further at the start of Prohibition, they rose again toward its end.

This myth of “unscrupulous” producers has been used to maintain the mandatory three-tier system that forces alcohol producers, like brewers, to rely on a middlemen — wholesalers — to get their products into bars, restaurants, and stores. The only real reason not to shift to a voluntary system is to protect the profits of middlemen, who wield considerable political power. A voluntary distribution system would allow small producers to skip the middleman and cut costs, resulting in lower prices for consumers.

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: October 7, 2011

by Michelle Minton on October 7, 2011

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: October 7, 2011

National:

A Supreme Court decision is being heralded as potentially liberating the advertising market for tobacco and alcohol as it expands first amendment protections on all types of commercial speech. Eugene Volokh analyzed the Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. decision and it’s implications on whether or not commercial advertising may be generally restricted on the grounds that it might persuade people to do something that the government thinks is bad.

Also in National news, the neo-prohibitionist group “Alcohol Justice,” (formerly known as the Marin Institute) is taking aim at Facebook. The group claims that Diageo, makers of popular drinks such as Guinness, have struck a “youth oriented” advertising campaign with the social media site and they are demanding that the Federal Communications Commission step in.

Georgia: One of the last few states to overturn its statewide ban on Sunday sales will soon give each district a chance to vote on whether to keep the ban or open up Sunday liquor sales.  Georgian towns will vote on the referendum on November 8.

Massachusetts:  In September, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced approval for proposed ballot questions in the 2012 election, including a proposal to end the ban on grocery store beer and wine sales. Also approved were questions about legalizing medical marijuana and repealing the state’s health care law.

[click to continue…]

Dear Labor, Don’t Fear the Robot

by Michelle Minton on September 6, 2011 · 3 comments

in Employment, Features, Labor, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Post image for Dear Labor, Don’t Fear the Robot

In California, a war is quietly being fought: workers versus technology. And the war has materialized in the form of a bill that seeks to ban the sale of alcohol by automated checkout machines at grocery stores. You may have seen them, those machines that allow customers to scan and bag their own items, which can speed up the process and keep lines smaller. Those machines also allow grocery store owners to reduce their costs by employing fewer workers. Herein lays the problem: workers fear that they are slowly being replaced by machines and that increased reliance on automatic check out machines threatens their jobs.

The legislation, AB 183, would ban the sale of alcohol at self-checkout aisles. The bill’s proponents drag out the old “save the children” argument, claiming that minors can easily purchase alcohol without the human oversight a traditional checkout process offers. Of course, the robots aren’t completely automated and require a worker to authorize any purchase that contains an age-restricted item such as alcohol. Additionally, the numbers of “sales to a minor” violations submitted by the state’s alcohol control board seem to indicate that most of these sales do not occur at grocery stores, but rather at liquor stores and in restaurants.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Alcohol Regulatory Round-up: August 11th 2011

Alcohol Regulatory Round-up: August 11th 2011

by Michelle Minton on August 12, 2011

in Odds & Ends

Federal: A proposed bill, Brewer’s Employment and Excise Relief Act, would reduce the federal excise taxes for craft brewers in order to help them grow in the hope that they will provide jobs, revenue, and economic stimulus. This is a smart move since craft brewers have had a strong showing in the last five years. According to a recent report from the Brewer’s Association, craft brewers saw a 15% increase in production while big beers like Bud, AB-inBev and MillerCoors have suffered with the rest of the economy. The more government gets out of the way of these businesses the more likely they are to grow, and the bigger and more financially secure they are the more people they can afford to employ.

Alabama: A clear example of how deregulation equals stimulation is occurring in Alabama, a state with a grand total of 6 brewers. It’s not surprising there are so few. But a new law seems likely to encourage a few brewers to give Alabama a try. Thanks in particular to the efforts of grassroots beer-lovers, Free The Hops, which I detailed in an earlier post, Alabama legislators passed the Brewery Modernization Act in May. It was signed by the governor in June, and a few months later new breweries are reportedly making plans to open in the state. While Alabama still has really stupid laws regulating brewing, (like the one that limits brewpubs to historic buildings and counties where brewing occurred before prohibition) the new regulations allow brewers to offer tours, tastings, sell their beer on-premise whether or not they have a restaurant, and it allows brewpubs to sell their beer to wholesalers for retail sales where previously they were limited to selling on-premise.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Independence Day Edition

by Michelle Minton on July 5, 2011 · 4 comments

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

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Independence Day Edition

Hopefully, this Independence Day weekend you liberated some nice libations from their containers. As Founding Father Ben Franklin said, “there can’t be good living where there is not good drinking.” If he’s right, then this week’s alcohol regulation roundup would probably bring a smile to old Ben’s mug — as the changes in most states’ alcohol laws mean that the quality of life in this country is clearly improving.

Alabama: At the end of May, the Alabama legislature approved the Craft Brewery Modernization Bill after much effort from the state-based beer rights group Free The Hops (FTH). Just last month, Governor Robert Bently signed the bill into law, allowing breweries to give visiting patrons a taste while they tour the brewery. Unfortunately, another bill that would have allowed residents to brew for at-home consumption without a license (illegal only in Alabama and Mississippi), failed to make it through the legislature.

Kansas:* When it comes to selling alcohol to patrons, convenience and grocery stores in Missouri are restricted to 3.2 percent ABV beer and wine coolers. Liquor stores may sell liquor and wine, but are banned from selling groceries. However, efforts to change the outdated laws are underway. Republican Senator Tim Owens has been pushing a bill that, if passed, would abolish both prohibitions, allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer and liquor and permitting liquor stores to sell grocery food items.

Maryland: Good and bad news for Maryland’s drinkers, as laws passed earlier in the year went into effect last week. Liquor taxes went up by 50 percent, with projected revenue increases of $85 million. On the positive side, the state’s new laws allowing direct shipping for wine also went into effect.

Michigan: A bill that would eliminate a 1.85 percent sales tax on distilled spirits is making its way through the Michigan legislature.

[click to continue…]

Delaware to Erase a Remnant of Prohibition?

by Michelle Minton on May 19, 2011

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

On April 6, a remarkable bill was quietly introduced in the Delaware state house. If it passes and is signed into law, House Bill 84 would allow small brewers to deliver their own product to licensed retailers of their beer. This would mean that, for small brewers like Dogfish Head, which is headquartered in Milton, Delaware, they could skip the onerous and expensive middle man (aka as a distributor or wholesaler) that is mandated in most other states. That is if they want to bypass the distributor.

Introduced by Republican Rep. Ruth Briggs King, HB 84 would essentially end the mandatory three-tier system for small brewers in Delaware. As both I and my colleague Angela Logomasini have written, the three-tier system is an archaic remnant of Prohibition. In an attempt to create a safe product and limit corruption in the wake of the mobs that grew up during the alcohol ban, lawmakers attempted to separate production, distribution, and sales of alcohol. The fear was that a large distributor of alcohol who also owned the production could shut out competition. Since the end of prohibition, the mandatory three-tier system has created the very powerful and profitable wholesaler industry. Producers of alcohol must contract a wholesaler who then finds the retail operations that will stock the producer’s products. Sometimes though, this doesn’t work out so well for producers — especially smaller ones — who often find that a wholesaler will do a poor job in distributing their products, perhaps to favor other more popular brands. In a system where they are forced to rely on middlemen to get their products in front of consumers, this sometimes leaves brewers with little or no recourse if their distributor underperforms.

Past attempts to end the three-tier system, or at least make it voluntary, have met with strong opposition from the powerful wholesalers lobby. They believe that if the system was switched to a voluntary basis, they would lose jobs, power, and money. Perhaps they are right. But is that reason enough to perpetuate an archaic, wasteful, and corrupt system?

[click to continue…]

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper Overturns Low-Alcohol Ban

by Michelle Minton on May 18, 2011

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

On Friday the 13th, just before happy hour, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law a bill that reversed the only victory in years for those fighting to get full-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores.

Governor Hickenlooper’s intentions aren’t malicious. A former brewer, Hickenlooper is simply trying to preserve the system that his craft brewing constituents assert creates the best environment for craft beer. That system divides beer into two categories: low-alcohol or 3.2 beer, which grocery stores and convenience stores may sell, and high-alcohol beer, anything above 3.2, which liquor stores, bars, and restaurants may sell.

As I have written before, the craft brewers are mistaken in their assumption that grocery store sales would have a negative impact on craft beer in Colorado. And even the liquor stores, who assert that grocery store sales of beer would put them out of business, could thrive in a liberated market.

Grocery and convenience stores backed by consumers who want cheaper more convenient options have asking year after year for the state to have one definition for beer and to allow beer to be sold, regardless of the alcohol content, in grocery, liquor, and convenience stores, as well as bars and restaurants. Yet, for at least four years running, all the bills introduced in the state legislature to change the beer regulations have been knocked down. Until last year.

Frustrated with yet another failed attempt, proponents of “real beer” in grocery stores had an ally in the state legislature attach an amendment to another bill, which passed, forcing the state to begin enforcing all of its liquor laws to the letter. What this meant, in effect, was that bars, restaurants, and taverns were banned from selling low-alcohol beer. Though the rule had been on the books for a long time, the state had never enforced it.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries