Let’s get it out at the start, drinking and driving is a monumentally stupid idea. If you’re extremely lucky you’ll get home only hitting the mailbox on the way in your driveway. Most likely, you’ll hit something bigger on the way and not only ruin you day, you could take the lives of innocents who had the unfortunate luck of crossing your dumbass path.

Don't drink and drive and none of this applies at all

DUI Checkpoints Legal?

With that said, DUI checkpoints really skirt the edge of what is legal.
The United States Constitution (your country’s rules may vary) states a citizen cannot be stopped without probable cause. DUI checkpoints assume guilt before proven innocent.

DUI, there’s an app for that

There are phone applications, like Buzz’d and Fuzz Alert, which help you know where the DUI checkpoints are in your area. This can help you avoid an unnecessary delay when driving somewhere, but lets be honest, you’re using it to avoid getting your sorry ass caught.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is demanding answers from Apple and Google as to why these applications are allowed. Apparently the Senator doesn’t know the law very well. No surprise there. I’m convinced most of the representatives in Washington have never looked at the Constitution.

DUI Checkpoints History

For those who don’t know the history of DUI checkpoints, years ago some guy named Sitz (as in he should have sitz instead of driving his drunk ass around) sued the state of Michigan police department (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz) claiming the DUI checkpoints were a violation of the Constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court agreed, but the Supreme Court overruled the decision. Get this: Chief Justice Rehnquist admitted the checkpoints were probably a violation of the Constitution, but it was a minor violation so it was ok. If you violate the Constitution only a little bit, its ok. Yeah, the stoopid, it burns.

To make up for the “minor violation” of the Constitution, the rules were later refined for everyone by the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer. In that ruling, the court decided in order to minimize the intrusion, police had to notify the public in advance. That’s right. These apps are getting their information from the police who are required to publish the DUI checkpoints in advance.

No one should ever drink and drive, but you can't violate the Constitution to stop stupid people

DUI Checkpoint locations public info

Now the police would love to publish this information someplace where no one looks, like a newspaper, but a few companies had the bright idea of publishing the PUBLIC information in a phone app where someone might actually see it. That’s the real problem here. The police are required to publish the information so DUI checkpoints can get around the stickiness of the Constitution.  They just don’t want anyone to know.

You might not like the phone apps, but they are legal. It’s like the First Amendment. There might be lots of opinions you don’t want to hear, but the amendment is there to protect the speech you don’t like. So do you want to allow DUI checkpoint applications on phones, or do you want to toss out the Fourth Amendment? As to why Apple and Google allow the DUI checkpoint applications, the Senator from NY should do a little reading before asking stupid questions.

(Source: DUI Blog and AppAdvice)

UPDATE (06-08-11) : Apple is no longer accepting DUI checkpoint apps

© 2011, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. How to get out of a DUI/DWI
2. Police: Our bad, here’s some beer
3. Ear’s drinking to you!

Remember back in 2008, when Samuel Adams was recalled because of glass chips in their beer?  Yeah, I forgot about it too.

According to a press release by Boston Beer Company, makers of Samuel Adams, “The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE: SAM) and its former glass bottle supplier have today entered into an agreement to settle all claims regarding the recall implemented by the Boston Beer Company in 2008”. The former glass bottle supplier? Yeah, that one. The one who shall remain nameless (they don’t mention them by name in the press release – who can blame them).  They don’t mention “fault”, but it’s clear who’s coming out on the winning side of this dispute.

The recall was a big deal in 2008, but forgotten soon after (probably the next week)

Boston Beer gets a settlement of $20.5 million dollars, and both parties promise to never speak of it again. The whole fiasco cost Boston Beer $22 million resulting in a spiffy minus $1.5 million bonus. Yea American Justice System! Given the legal fees and the years of fighting in court, only losing $1.5 million in the deal is pretty good.

(Source: Boston Beer Company)

© 2011, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Samuel Adams unintended adjunct
2. Which country drinks the most beer?
3. Review: Samuel Adams Winter Lager

H.R. 4278

Federal legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 4278, is a bill which you want to bring to your representative’s attention.  The purpose of the bill is to lower taxes on beer produced by smaller brewers.

New legislation like H.R. 4278 could really make a difference in your local craft brew community

The new legislation will reduce the taxes on the first 60,000 barrels to $3.50.  The next 1,940,000 barrels will be taxed at $16.  According to Harvard University’s John Friedman’s study, Economic Impact of Small Brewers Excise Tax Reduction (H.R. 4278), the new law should create 2,700 new jobs the first 18 months and 375 new jobs each of the following years.  It creates new jobs because the money the brewery would be spending on taxes can go to hiring more help and improving their breweries.  It’s a win-win situation.  H.R. 4278 creates jobs, and it supports the local brewers we love so much.

This new beer law won’t affect the major brewers, but that’s not it’s intent.  This bill is designed to help the smaller breweries and brew pubs.  Brewers who produce more than 6,000,000 barrels a year cannot take advantage of the new rules.  To give you an idea of scale, A-B InBev produces over 300 million barrels of beer a year.  H.B. 4278 supports the beers from your local brewery that none of your friends outside your state have heard of.  The bill will also help the medium sized brewers making less than 6 million barrels of beer a year.  Hopefully it will reduce the price of local beers, and encourage beer lovers to drink locally too.

How to help your local brewer

You never know, this bill could help you start your own small brewery in the future!

Unfortunately this bill is still just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill (Gen-Xers can thank me later for getting that annoying ditty stuck in their heads).  This is where you come in.  If you want to see this bill become a law, you should contact your local represenative.  The Brewer’s Association has created a resource page to help you locate your represenative.  On the resource page, you will find a link to a list of current sponsors of H.R. 4278. If your Representative DOES NOT appear on this list, please take a moment and email your Member of Congress to ask them to cosponsor H.R. 4278.

Hopefully we can all help the brewer that gives us the craft beer we love so much, and push this bill into law.

© 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Moonshine to be legalized in Washington
2. HB 1192 and the battle over full strength beer
3. What you need to know about adding oak to beer

When you hear about prohibition (in the USA during 1920-1933 alcohol was illegal) , people tend to glamorize how the sneaky partiers were always one step ahead of Johnny Law.  You hear about the glamorous secret parties, the underground tunnels between establishments, and the bathtub homebrewers.  It was a time where the little guy thumbed his nose at the law.  Unfortunately it was not all fun and games.  Prohibition was serious business.

The Italian Job

My great-grandfather, Louis Circo, was a poor Italian worker living with his family in Garcia Plaza (the tent city near Trinidad, Colorado).  He had worked in the coal mines, but at the time he was out of work.  Like so many others, he was desperate to make ends meet for his family.  Circo was approached by another Italian man for a “job”.  This story almost sounds like something out of a Godfather movie.

Louis Circo didn’t tell his family what he was doing.  My great-grandmother Josephine knew something was up, because men would come to the door and my great-grandfather would leave with them.  Josephine did not like the men and could tell they were up to no good.  She wasn’t happy about the situation, but stayed quiet.

My great-grandfather was going up into the foothills to make bootleg whiskey.  To this day, no one in the family knows exactly how the transactions went.  We know there was one man who was the contact, and two other men who were not seen.  The trio and Louis Circo were making bootleg whiskey in the foothills, but we’re not sure who was buying it.  It was most likely the local underground bars in the neighboring towns or possibly organized crime.  One day while travelling to the foothills, the bootlegging business did not go as planned.

The Aftermath

My family thinks Louis Circo was sold out to protect a bigger operation.  He might have just been unlucky.  It’s a piece of the story we will never know.  For some reason, the police followed him to the whiskey site.  He was the only person arrested, and the only person of the group convicted of illegal bootlegging.  Louis Circo spent six months in Canon City Penitentiary.

Naturally my great-grandmother was very upset and horribly humiliated.  She was left to fend for herself during the depression with three children.  She stayed with my great-grandfather, because no one divorced back then.  My grandmother remembers going with her brother and sister to visit her father once a week while he was in prison.

When Louis Circo got home, things changed.  He stayed at home and did the cooking and caring for the kids.  My great-grandmother would work all day because it’s hard for ex-cons to find work, especially during this harsh period of American history.  When she came home she would leave soon after.  Their marriage didn’t end in divorce, but for all concerned it was over.  The crime, the shame of the arrest and prison, and prohibition wrecked the family.

I can’t say he would not have run afoul with the law if prohibition did not happen, the times were hard.  Prohibition provided the situation, and Louis Circo made a poor choice.  I can see how the seriousness of the crime could be trivialized when the amendment banned alcohol.  I do not believe I would give up homebrewing, especially since I’ve brewed for so many years.  It is hard to think of alcohol as a crime.

When you raise a glass today, celebrate your right to a drink.  Also remember the lives Prohibition harmed because someone thought to cure a headache with decapitation.  The right to drink is a serious right, so make sure no one takes it from you ever again.

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control pays homebrewer a visit
2. Man doesn’t get beer, gets goat
3. HB 1192 and the battle over full strength beer

Does this look anything at all like the Monster drink labels?

The story

Yesterday Monster Energy drinks fired a shot at a Rock Art Brewery over their Vermonster beer.  Monster Energy drinks says the name Vermonster beer is too close their Monster Energy drinks line of energy sodas.  They sent a cease and desist letter to Rock Art Brewery.  Apparently they think consumers might confuse Vermonster beer with their Red Bull knock off soda.

The Monster Drink Battle

Matt Nadeau, the owner of Rock Art Brewery, isn’t taking the fight lying down.  He’s mobilized the internet, which is typically against corporate bullying.  He’s posted more info about the battle on his website.  His Web site calls the battle “Rock Art Brewery vs. Corporate America.”  Here’s the story in his own words!

The battle is now all over twitter and facebook.  #monsterboycott is quickly becomming a trending topic on twitter.  To show your support for Rock Art, join the Facebook group Vermonters and Craft Beer Drinkers Against Monster!

If you’re a blogger, feel free to leave links to your article about this story in the comments.

(Source: Google)

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Homebrewing Is Illegal
2. Utah wants to force sale of piss warm beer
3. Beer, you can put your weed on it!

The US Supreme Court may have inadvertently given drunk drivers a free ride.  In June they ruled in a 5-4 decision, the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantee “… to be confronted with the witnesses against him” is not satisfied by a sheet of paper.  This means the lab technician responsible for processing your blood sample from your arrest must appear in court to discuss the results showing just how drunk you were.

Here’s the problem with this.  Many crime labs which process drug and DNA samples are already heavily overburdened.  The labs barely have the time to process the lab work.  Technicians do not have the time to show up in court and read the lab results.

This will also increase the workload for state courts.  Many drunks plea bargain, but now many might take their case to court with the hopes the technician won’t show up.  Several cases have already been overturned in Virginia just because the technician could not appear to testify against the drunk.  Expect more cases to get dropped as the word gets out about this technicality.

The ruling came from a case in which Luis E. Melendez-Diaz allegedly stashed cocaine in a Boston police car while he was under arrest (great idea – the police will never think to look in their own car).  The drugs were sent off for analysis, and the results were entered as evidence against him.  Scalia wrote Melendez-Diaz “was entitled to ‘be confronted with’ the analysts at trial.”  The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

(Source: Washinton Post)

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Why Apple allows DUI checkpoint apps
2. Sergeant Sloshed
3. Underage possession of alcohol may be legal in SC

In South Carolina, buying alcohol by anyone under 21 is illegal, but one judge ruled this does not prevent them from possessing or consuming alcohol.  A twenty year old was cited by the Richland County Sheriff’s department in March for posession of alcohol.  To the surprise of everyone, the courts sided with the twenty year old.

Is this something that could reach the Supreme Court? Probably not since the Federal Courts usually leave these matters to the states.

South Carolina Magistrate Mel Maurer in Richland County says the state constitution barring 18 year olds or older from possession or consuming alcohol is unconstitutional.

“The constitutional decision to allow 18 year olds a vast array of freedoms, including the ability to fight for our country, suggests that the privilege of alcohol consumption as well should be extended to our citizens who are 18 years old and above,” the twenty year old’s attorney Joe McCulloch writes.

I agree.

If groups like MADD and other anti-alcohol activist groups really are interested in helping curb binge drinking by underage individuals, I think they should focus their money and effort on education and responsibility, not abstinence (of alcohol).  “Just say no” is not working, and restricting the rights of individuals based on age for any reason is wrong.

Of course the ruling is already being appealed to the circuit court, although I admit my limited knowledge of the legal system doesn’t understand why.  The ruling says the 20 year old is not guilty and you can’t retry him, so doesn’t this end it?  My guess is they can contest the ruling without retrying the individual.

We will keep our eyes on this case as it progresses through the courts.

(Source: WISTV.com)

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Moonshine to be legalized in Washington
2. How to get out of a DUI/DWI
3. Why can’t I have boobies on my beer label?

History of beer distribution

Before prohibition, the large breweries had their own saloons.  If you wanted a Schlitz, you went to a bar which sold only Schlitz.  The large breweries practiced anti-competitive practices by requiring retailers to carry only their products.

The breweries also held ownership stakes in the bars.  They provided the bars not only with beer, but the breweries also gave loans for furniture, beer equipment, and other bar needs.  While this might seem like a great way to start a bar, the breweries required the bars to carry only the brewery’s labels, and they applied pressure to the bars to continually increase beer sales.  The pressure pushed their patrons to the point of constant overindulgence.  Society cried for a solution, and the government gave us the 18th Amendment, otherwise known as Prohibition.

America went without alcohol for thirteen years before Prohibition was repealed with the ratification of the 21st Amendment.  The new Amendment gave the states complete control over alcohol regulation.  To make sure the problems before Prohibition were not repeated, nearly every state adopted some form of the “three-tier system”.

How it works

The three-tier system requires all beer (and other alcohol in most cases) to pass through a middle-man, known as the distributor (also called a wholesaler in some states).  The distributor does the on-the-ground sales and marketing for the producer, and the distributors sells the beer to retailers.

The three tiered system introduces a "middle-man" for alcohol distribution

This system means beer producers do not sell directly to bars, liquor stores, or grocery stores.  It is the responsibility of the distributor to establish the retail relationship.  The distributor is not allowed to purchase shelf space or exclusivity, furnish equipment like draft coolers, offer loans or create a feeling of obligation, or offer discriminatory promotional pricing.  They are supposed to provide all retailers the same pricing.

Distributors also maintain refrigerated warehouses to store the beer, and fleets of trucks to ship the beer around the state.

The benefits of the three tiered system

The original intent of the three-tiered system was to provide temperance, ensure orderly market conditions, and raise revenue (taxes).

The system increases the price of alcohol (since there is a middleman).  In theory, the higher prices discourage over-indulgence, and forces temperance on the society.

Distributors argue the system also benefits small producers.  They say if direct sales were allowed, a small brewery would be at a disadvantage.  Large retailers, like Costco, are used to purchasing goods in very large quantities to get the best price possible.  Larger breweries would be able to undercut small brewery prices, and only macro beers would be available.  Since all brewers are required to go through an independent distributor, this levels the playing field for all brewers.  One distributor can get many beers into a retail store at once, since there is incentive to provide a diverse selection.

The distribution model also benefits retailers.  The distributor reduces inventory costs for the retailer by managing the large portfolio of beers.  This is an advantage because beer is a perishable product.  The distributor makes sure the retailers are always carrying fresh beer.

The three-tier system also provides transparency for taxation.  The government can easily determine how much alcohol is shipped, and where it is shipped to.  The distributor often is responsible for collecting the taxes because they can accurately monitor the shipments.  This creates a paper trail and protects against “gray market” sales (purchases from unauthorized sources).  If the distribution system goes away, the government will be forced to come up with a new system to collect revenue.

Complaints about the system

While the system has been in use for over 70 years, it is not without its warts.  The three-tier system makes sense in the United States, but other countries have open and lightly regulated markets.  We are headed into a global market and international producers struggle with the prohibition-era laws.  They feel the laws interfere with efficient distribution, unnecessarily inflate beer prices, and are possibly in violation of international free trade agreements.

The wine guys are getting around the system

The system is inefficient because everything has to go through a middle man.  Many wineries are contesting this system which they feel was not intended for wine sales.  This problem came to a head when some states allowed in-state wineries to sell wine directly to the consumer, but required out-of-state wineries to go through distributors.  This is obviously a problem, because it violates the Commerce Clause—you cannot pass laws which improperly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce.  In 2005, Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court agreed with the small wineries and forced New York to change their laws.  This opened the floodgates, so to speak.

As of April 2008, 35 states now permit some form of direct wine sales to the consumer.  It only accounts for about 2% of the wine sales in the United States, but there is huge opportunity in this market.  The distributors see this as a direct challenge to their place in alcohol commerce.  Craft brewers would love this access to the consumer, and some states are starting to permit it in small quantities.  If everyone can sell directly to the consumer, there is no need for distributors.  You better believe the distributors are lobbying heavily against this!

Beer costs more money

Since there is a middle man in the system, the cost of beer in America is higher.  There is a whole industry between the producer and consumer that employs over 92,000 jobs and generates almost $8 billion (USD) annually.  The added costs are passed to the consumer by design.  The original intent of this system was to discourage over-indulgence, but now it just makes our beer cost more.

It might violate trade treaties

Budweiser dominates in world sales, and was the number one selling beer in the world until recently.  Part of the reason for their success is it is much easier for Budweiser to penetrate foreign markets than it is for foreign beers to penetrate the American market.  The most likely reason InBev pursued the purchase of Budweiser was to gain better access to the distributors, not for the “great taste” of Budweiser.

International producers are challenging the three-tier system, and the EU has requested the United States conform our distribution system with the requirements of the General Agreement of Trade and Services (GATS).  If the American laws are not liberalized, the issue may be forced by the World Trade Organization (WTO).  By treaty, the WTO does have the authority to challenge and possibly dismantle the distribution system.

Corruption was just moved, not fixed

Another big problem with the distribution model is the abuses before Prohibition are just moved to the distributors.  Corruption now exists at the distributor level.  Powerful distributors determine which beers make it to the shelves.  For example, Bell’s Brewery in Michigan gave up trying to penetrate the Chicago market and pulled out of Illinois completely.

A small brewery has almost no chance of reaching the Chicago market.  In fact, while craft breweries flourish across America, very few craft breweries exist in Chicago.  They just can’t get their beer to market.  Two Brothers, founded by Jim and Jason Ebel, split their efforts to save their brewery.  Jim kept the brewery and Jason formed Windy City Distribution to distribute the beer.  Even then it took many years for any retailer to take them seriously.

The smaller distributors (especially in Chicago) are getting squeezed out of the business, because the larger distributors are also offering illegal perks.  It could be as simple as running an extra tap line “to try out a new beer” to installing entire tap systems costing thousands of dollars.  Retailers in Chicago are even requesting freebies since the practice is so commonplace.  It’s illegal but in most cases it is overlooked.  The distributors are employing the same tactics the breweries used before Prohibition.

Distributors are not neutral parties anymore

The original intent of a neutral middle party is long gone as well.  The macro breweries may not own the distribution channels, but they might as well claim ownership.  Distributors align themselves so much with the big brewers, they even self-identify as an “A-B Distributor” or “Miller Distributor”.

In 1997, Anheuser-Busch had their distributors sign an “exclusivity incentive program” which didn’t require the distributor carry only A-B products, but gave huge benefits if they did drop all competitors.  It even offered lines of credit and cash to those distributors joining the program.  This is exactly what the breweries were doing to bars before Prohibition.  When the demand for craft beers took off, the distributors rebelled and A-B relented.  The U.S. Justice department launched an anti-trust investigation of these practices in 1998, but closed the investigation the same year without doing anything.  There isn’t anything to stop A-B InBev from trying again when market conditions are favorable for them.

Beer distributors can control what beers reach your stores

Where do we go from here?

It’s clear the three-tiered system is not perfect, but it is not clear how to fix the system.  On one hand a distributor can help smaller breweries get their product to market, but in cases like Chicago the system actually hampers small brewery distribution.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in a report the three-tiered system limited consumer options and increased the price of alcoholic beverages.  The commission stated temperance and revenue collection could be met by other less intrusive regulations.

Markets are becoming more open for wine, so it is a matter of time before the beer producers demand the same treatment.  The distributors will fight for their existence, but the US government may have already signed their death warrant with world trade treaties.  No matter what happens, eventually the path beer takes to your glass may change.

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. How to connect multiple kegs to one CO2 tank
2. The All-in-One Personal Brewery
3. The ultimate system for your beer cave

What’s at stake in the 3.2 beer battle?

If you live in Kansas or Colorado, you know about the looming battle over beer in grocery stores.  Currently grocery stores in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah are allowed to sell only 3.2 beer.  3.2 beer, or near beer, is beer which is 3.2 % alcohol by weight (ABW) or about 4% alcohol by volume (ABV).  Since the original law was expressed as ABW, the beer is referred to as 3.2 beer.  Full strength beer is only 1% ABV more alcohol than the 3.2 version on average, however people perceive a difference and this difference drives beer sales.

Grocery stores want to sell full strength beer, while liquor stores are lobbying heavily against it.  In Colorado, state lawmakers Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D-Pueblo) and Sen. Jennifer Veiga (D-Denver) introduced bill HB 1192 which will allow grocery stores in Colorado to sell full strength beer.  The bill does not address the sale of wine or spirits.  A similar bill (HB 2062) is up for debate in Kansas.

• Colorado is an”elite” group of states which include Utah and Kansas that still have 3.2 laws
• HB 1192 is a bill aimed at allowing grocery and convenience stores to sell full strength beer

The history of 3.2 beer

3.2 beer is an artifact from prohibition.  March 22, 1933, before prohibition ended, Congress amended the Volstead Act (the enforcement of prohibition) with the Cullen-Harrison Act to allow 3.2% ABW beer.  Prohibition was seen as a failure which led to organized crime, and the Cullen-Harrison Act was an attempt to stem the tide of people demanding the repeal of the Volstead Act.

The concern is making regular strength beer available in grocery stores means we won't have access to good beer anymore?! That makes no sense.

December 5, 1933, Congress amended the Constitution again with the Blaine Act, or the 21st Amendment as it is commonly known.  This amendment not only legalized alcohol, it restored control of alcohol to the states.  Once this amendment was put into law, the Cullen-Harrison Act became an asterisk in history (at least it should have).

Few states kept the 3.2 beer and at the time of writing only six states use the designation for beer in their laws.  Missouri has a 3.2 designation, but it is rarely seen since everyone can sell full strength beer.  Minnesota has permits for full strength alcohol, but the 3.2 licenses are much easier for retailers to obtain.

If you want a full strength beer in Colorado, Utah, Kansas, and Oklahoma, you have to buy it from a liquor store.  HB 1192 hopes to rid Coloradoans of this prohibition era law.

• The Cullen-Harrison Act (3.2 law) became irrelavent after the 21st Amendment

The debate over full strength beer

Will liquor stores go bankrupt?

The main argument against HB 1192 is by allowing grocery stores to sell full strength beer; they will put liquor stores out of business.  The thought is if liquor stores lose their beer business, they will no longer be able to keep their employees and will possibly fail.  Liquor stores claim beer sales account for as much as 70% of their business.  If they can’t sell beer, the store will be forced to close.

This hasn’t happened in the other states which allow grocers and convenience stores to sell full strength alcohol.  California and Oregon allow grocers to sell full strength alcohol and liquor stores still exist.  According to getRealBeer.com, a survey in Southern California showed “of 292 Vons supermarkets indicates that fully 70 percent of them have at least 2 retail liquor stores within one-half mile – many of them in the same shopping center”.

When you point out other states have liquor stores and do just fine, the common argument against this point is “we are not California”.  Well this is true.  We are also not Oregon, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, or any of the other 38 states which allow grocery stores to sell full strength beer.  Somehow small brewers and liquor stores survive just fine in these states when grocery stores sell beer.  In fact, of the 5 major cities with the most liquor stores per capita, four allow the sale of full strength beer in grocery and convenience stores.  Denver is the lone exception.

• Liquor stores have no problems coexiting in 38 other states
• In the top five cities with the most liquor stores per capita, four allow full strength beer in grocery and convenience stores

Where is the money going?

Another (strange) argument is the money will go to large corporations outside of Colorado.  The main supermarkets in Colorado: Safeway and King Soopers, have their corporate headquarters outside of Colorado (even though King Soopers originated in Colorado and was purchased later).  The fear is the hard earned cash you spend on beer will go to other states.

I’ve never heard this concern from any Coloradoan purchasing a Samuel Adams (Massachusetts), Stone Ruination IPA (California), Chimay (Belgium), or any other out-of-state beer.  The money for these beers isn’t staying in Colorado.  If you make this claim, you are applying one standard for the grocers and a different one for the brewers.  And to what level do you want to apply this standard?  The liquor stores (not all are mom and pop operations) are not held to this standard. Maybe I should I shun Fat Tire because the beer is from Fort Collins, and the profits will not go to Denver.

I think you should drink locally, but I’m not willing to give up beers from other states or countries.  I love variety too much, and the truth is some of the money is staying in Colorado.  These major grocers are not flying people from India to work in their stores.  The workers are Coloradoans, and the major grocers employ many.  King Soopers and Safeway are also active in the community, and both give back to the community through school programs.

It’s easy to target the huge corporations as evil, especially in today’s economic climate, but what about all the small convenience stores in Colorado.  When the liquor stores extended their 6-day monopoly on full strength sales to 7 days, 3.2 beer sales plummeted by more than two-thirds at grocery stores and small convenience stores.  Since you now can purchase full strength beer on any day, why would you buy 3.2 beer from a convenience store?  These small convenience stores are owned by Coloradoans too.  It is not fair to level the playing field?

There is a study by Summit Economics, LLC, in Colorado Springs, which was presented to lawmakers demonstrating the dire consequences if grocery stores were allowed to sell beer.  While the report is technically assembled by a third party, it was commissioned by the Colorado Coalition of Liquor Store Associations.  The report is not peer-reviewed and it is hardly neutral.  If the liquor stores want to maintain their monopoly, is it really surprising the study they funded supports their position?  I would not expect a study commissioned by grocers to be impartial either.

• 3.2 beer sales plummeted by two-thirds after Sunday beer sales were allowed
• Taxes will go to Colorado regardless who makes the sale

Will it affect the small brewers?

Small brewers claim they will have troubles selling their beer to the large supermarkets.  Their argument goes like this.  Supermarkets typically stock items which have a slight profit margin but have a quick turnover.  The grocers can sell items much cheaper because they can purchase products in larger quantities at lower prices. The small brewers say they will have troubles matching the lower prices of larger breweries, and thus will have less access to the grocery stores demanding lower priced beer.  This will result in limited choice and struggling small breweries.

This assumption probably comes from viewing the current selection of beer in grocery stores.  Only the mass market beers, like Budweiser and Coors (ironically both are produced in Colorado) can afford to offer a 3.2 beer.  By leveling the playing field, more opportunity will exist for smaller craft brewers to sell their beer.  Grocery stores will carry the smaller local brands (as well as other national and international craft brands), and this will expose more grocery shoppers to different types of beer.  This can only help the small brewers and craft industry.  Again if you need examples, look to Oregon and California.  The craft brew industry thrives in both of these states.

Grocers will stock the beer that sells. There is no reason a grocery store would choose to not sell craft beer unless it isn't selling.

I lived in Arizona for many years, and had no problem finding special beers in grocery stores or liquor stores.  The variety in an Arizona grocery store like A.J.’s is actually impressive.  If there is some wine or beer I couldn’t find at the grocery store, it was always available at a liquor store.  This is how liquor stores thrive in markets where they must compete.  Forcing the liquor stores to compete against grocery stores gives the consumer more choices.  It also helps smaller brewers, because liquor stores look to carry variety which grocers cannot.  Competition is good.

• Liquor stores fill niches grocery stores cannot.  This means more variety.
• Oregon and California allow grocers to sell full strength beer, and both have thriving craft beer industries
• More competition means better prices and better selection for the consumer

Beer is not a utility, so why allow the monopoly?

The reason liquor stores fear the new law is because they will lose a monopoly they have enjoyed since prohibition.  Monopolies rarely benefit the consumer or business.  If liquor stores have no reason to compete, it is actually more difficult for small craft brewers to get shelf space.  Monopolies mean less variety, not more.  This hurts the craft brewing industry.  Opening the beer market will result in more competition, better selection, and better beer prices.

So tell me what you think in the comments below!  Should Colorado protect the liquor stores’ monopoly and keep the prohibition-era law, or should they open the beer market and allow everyone to sell full strength beer?

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Pissed for a quid
2. Colorado is the largest beer producing state
3. ND proposal may allow homebrewers to sell beer

A few months ago, Vaune Dillmann owner of Mt. Shasta Brewing Co. tried capping his beer with the slogan “Try Legal Weed”.  Anyone who has ventured out in society past the Republican National Convention knows “weed” is a slang term for marijuana.

You can put your weed on it... or can you?

“Weed” in this case is actually a reference to the city Weed, California; however, even the citizens are not oblivious to its double meeting.  The city sells t-shirts which say “High on Weed”.  The “sly” reference did not escape notice from the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

The federal agency barred the brewery from using the bottle caps and slogan citing drug references are not allowed on alcoholic beverages.  Apparently someone somewhere in Washington thinks people might get confused and smoke a bottle or something.

Well after a very rough few months for the brewer, his company, and his family the TTB backed down from the fight.  The brewer will be allowed to use the slogan “Try Legal Weed”.  The TTB assistant directed noted in a letter to Dillmann the phrase related to the microbrew and does not mislead the consumers with the word “weed”.

It’s most likely the TTB backed down due to a possible lengthy and expensive lawsuit and massive support from the internet.  The story spread like a weed fire across the globe, even in countries like Saudi Arabia where both weed and alcohol are illegal.

Dillmann and his family struggled through the ordeal, but the happy ending is sales are “high” and have doubled since the brew-ha-ha began.

(Source: LA Times)

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Why can’t I have boobies on my beer label?
2. HB 1192 and the battle over full strength beer
3. Craft brewers need your help

The 21st amendment ended prohibition against alcohol, unless, a local law exists that restricts its sale, transportation, or use (section 2 of the amendment).  Basically, local laws around alcohol supersede federal laws (this however, is most assuredly NOT the case with the many state laws passed relaxing rules around drug use—specifically marijuana—as the DEA likes to remind everyone).   As a result, there are some bizarre differences across the U.S. in the legality of alcohol, the weirdest, arguably, is the existence of the “dry” county or town.

It might look like a nice place to live, but if it's somewhere like Texas, Kansas or Oklahoma you might want to check the local laws first.

Dry counties and towns are entire counties or specific towns that forbid the sale, and usually the production, marketing, transportation etc… of alcohol.  In half of the counties in Mississippi, even driving across these places with a beer in your car (unopened of course) is illegal.  The law stands even if you do not plan to stop.   In some Alaskan communities, possession of beer is also crime.  You read this paragraph right.  In some places in America, it is illegal to have a beer in your possession.

To make things more confusing, some counties are “moist” which has multiple meanings including: they restrict the sale of alcohol to restaurants, bars, or “private clubs”; you can buy low alcohol content beer but not hard spirits; there’s a cap on the ABV of beer sold (sorry Avery).  There are also wet towns inside dry counties; although I’ve yet to come across dry neighborhoods (towns seem to be the finest scale).

Getting wet or dry

Either a location has traditionally been dry and no one ever cared enough to change it, or it’s come up for a vote at some point and the majority of residents have voted to make it dry.  Arguments for banning or maintaining a ban on alcohol include creating a “family atmosphere”, reducing crime, and maintaining property values.  Considering most dry counties are in Bible-belt states, one has to acknowledge the religious ties as well.

Some towns and counties have voted to change from dry to wet or moist.  In 2005, Rockport, Massachusetts residents voted in a majority to allow restaurants to sell liquor, but still ban bars and liquor stores.  Sometimes the alcohol issue has come up multiple times and towns have switched back and forth along the wet to dry continuum.
Communities going from dry to wet or moist usually do so to encourage tourism (as the case in Rockport), to increase revenue, or to just make life easier for residents.

Where are the dry counties?

The greatest number of dry counties can be found in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Is Canadian beer stronger in Canada than in the USA?
2. Homebrewing Is Illegal
3. Idaho vs the Ethereal Enigmatic Euphoric Movement Toward Civilized Hedonism

Legal Weed Beer

If you haven’t heard, Vaune Dillmann, owner of Mt. Shasta Brewing Co. in Weed, California ran into an issue with his bottlecaps.  The bottlecaps are offending the U.S. Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) with the statement “Try Legal Weed”.  Most everyone else thinks the bottlecaps are funny.  Dillmann says it’s a joke based on the name of his home town.  The TTB states Dillmann crossed the line. The government contends the bottlecaps are a drug reference. Well duh!  So what?  It’s funny.

The government claims the bottlecap’s drug reference is misleading to the consumer as to what is contained within the bottle.  Apparently there are tons of people out there who will think the beer might contain pot and make them high.  Sounds silly, but I’ve had people tell me that Coca Cola contains trace amounts of cocaine (it hasn’t contained cocaine since 1929).  So why doesn’t Coca Cola need to change their name?  Lucky for Coca Cola, the TTB and state alcohol agencies do not regulate soda.

The real question is why does the government care about this?

Thou Shalt Not

The TTB regulates what you can put on a label.  Some of the regulations make sense.  You can’t say your beer or wine cures cancer unless you can back it.  These aren’t vitamins or health supplements after all.

Here is the list of restrictions for a beer or wine label.

1)    Any false, ambiguous, or missing statements which can mislead the consumer.
2)    Any statements disparaging a competitor’s product.
3)    Any statement, design, device, or representation which is obscene or indecent.
4)    Any statement, design, device, or representation of or relating to analyses, standards, or tests, irrespective of falsity, which the appropriate TTB officer finds to be likely to mislead the consumer.
5)    Any statement, design, device or representation of or relating to any guarantee, irrespective of falsity, which the appropriate TTB officer finds to be likely to mislead the consumer.
6)    Any pictures or statements that led the consumer to believe the person (in the picture or endorsement) endorses or produces the product.
7)    Any statement (other than a statement of alcohol content) that leads you to believe the beverage is intoxicating.

Number seven is my personal favorite.  You can put on the side of the bottle, “don’t drink this and operate machinery while intoxicated”, but you can’t say “this will get you drunk”.  Seriously.

The real heart of the issue is number three.  You can’t put something indecent on the label.  Unfortunately it is some guy in the government who gets to decide what’s considered obscene.  He might be cool or he might be the most uptight person in the world.  There is no way for the brewer to know.  You might consider something obscene, but others may find the label acceptable.  For example, is profanity considered obscene?

In 2001, the State of Colorado said yes it is.  Flying Dog Brewery’s Road Dog Ale label was rejected because the label said “good beer… no shit”.  The ACLU and Flying Dog Brewery sued stating the State of Colorado violated their First Amendment rights.  Colorado agreed to discontinue the label restrictions, however it is ultimately a state right.  Kansas can have completely different rules and restrictions.

Bad Frog beer was banned in several states because the frog on the label was holding up its middle finger.  This means in some states the middle finger is considered offensive. Ironically the issue went to the courts in New York, a state where the middle finger salute is almost a salutation. The courts ultimately decided in favor of the frog and it’s middle digit “free speech”.

Free Speech for beer

If you are for free speech, then anything should be allowed.  Free speech not only protects what you want to say, it also protects the speech you don’t like.  You can’t state some speech is acceptable, while other expressions are not.

Of course not all speech is protected.  As we stated earlier, you cannot make ridiculous claims on the bottle.  You cannot mislead the consumer.  This is the purpose of the regulations.  The claim “Legal Weed” might mislead a consumer into believing marijuana is contained in the beer is a stretch.  There is a fine line between what should be regulated and what should not be regulated.  Where do you draw the line?

Some labels are rejected because they contain nudity.  These rejected labels were not Penthouse pictures of some hippie chick showing off her muffin.  They were tasteful nude pictures, something you might see in an art gallery.  Should the government prevent nudity on beer and wine labels, a beverage which is inherently “adult”?

Is this painting art? Is it ok for a wine label?

Won’t someone please think of the children?!

The most common and valid question is, would you want your child to see the label?  Sure a child should not be inside a liquor store, but how about a grocery store?  If you are lucky enough to live in a state where they sell alcohol in grocery stores, selling labels with nudity could be offensive.  We can’t expect grocery stores to place roped off areas like the porn section of a video rental establishment.

Santa’s Butt Porter

The question of children has come up before.  Maine’s Bureau of Liquor Enforcement denied a label application from Shelton Brothers of Belchertown because the image contained an “undignified or improper” illustration.  The “undignified or improper” illustration is Santa’s butt.  The butt is fully clothed and there is no butt crack showing.  It is just a drawing of Santa from behind.

Santa's Butt Porter is a cartoon character, so the government tried to block use of the label

The drawing wasn’t really offensive.  The concern was children would see their beloved Santa on a beer and think the beverage was for them.  It’s a cartoon character selling alcohol.  Is that ok?

The Maine Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Belchertown, Massachusetts company in U.S. District Court in Portland accusing the Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement of censorship.  Maine reversed the decision on the Santa’s Butt label and two other labels (which displayed women’s breasts), but they did not change their regulations.  The lawsuit will need to continue to decide if the labels are protected under the First Amendment.

Solutions

In most cases, after long lawsuits the breweries and wineries are ultimately winning.  It is difficult to support censorship in the United States.  You can only censor until the issue eventually goes to the courts.  Is this something we really want our government to spend our tax money on?  These issues in the court are rather expensive.  Doesn’t the government have more pressing issues like education or health care?

The government should not concern itself with the picture on the label or any statements, unless the contents of the label truly are misleading.  We don’t want alcohol to become the next homeopathy.  False advertising needs to be illegal.

Personally I think the free market should decide.  If you decide to put the latest Hustler Honey on your label, most supermarkets will not carry it.  You’ll have troubles marketing your beer or wine.  Eventually you will need to change your label.  The problem solves itself, and the government does not need to be involved.   The best part about letting the market decide, sales will determine if the label is offensive.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Changes soon to be required for labels
2. Do beverages really need new labeling?
3. Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control pays homebrewer a visit

I missed out on the grandfather date for legally drinking 3.2% beer in Colorado by a little over a year.  It was weird having friends who could legally buy alcohol who were under 21 years of age.  I always felt it was unfair I could not buy alcohol, just because I was a bit younger.  You can hunt, vote, marry, live on your own, purchase porn (or even perform), have sex, have abortions, get a credit card, enter into legally binding agreements, hold public office, be executed, get sued, own a business, employ others, and even go to war and die for your country.  You just can’t buy a beer.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required every state in America to legislate and enforce 21 years of age as the minimum age to possess and consume alcohol.  The Federal Aid Highway Act takes 10% of highway funds from every state which does not set the minimum age at 21.  Fair or not, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21.

What’s Changed?

These laws have been in effect for more than two decades, but what has the change accomplished?  Proponents for the laws will point out alcohol related deaths have decreased since the law went into effect.  This is true; however, all alcohol related deaths have decreased for almost all ages.  Tougher DUI laws and drunk-driving education, better cars equipped with airbags, and other alcohol awareness programs have reduced the number of alcohol related fatalities in all age categories except in one notable category, 21 to 24.  It appears the law just raised the ages of those killed.

Some might argue a lower drinking age will result in higher rates of drinking as an adult.  There is no research to demonstrate this.  Research actually shows the desire to drink alcohol after 21 wanes with each year.

No one should ever drink and drive, but 18 is the wrong solution

Research also shows underage drinkers are more likely to desire spirits over beer and wine.  This is most likely because spirits give “more bang for the buck”.  A bottle of vodka is easier to sneak around or mix with orange juice than a 6-pack of beer.  You can get alcohol poisoning from beer, but it is much more difficult.  I would rather let them have the beer.  Beer becomes the beverage of choice quickly after the age of 21.

Another problem with the higher drinking age is kids go to college and are exposed to the “forbidden fruit” with little to no guidance.  Without the education and experience they might have learned from their family, they are more prone to over-indulgence.  This puts them at greater risk, because they know drinking is illegal.  “They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can’t call because they know it’s illegal,” says Vermont Senator Hinda Miller.

Bad choices, not alcohol, are to blame

The real problem is how alcohol is viewed in America.  In countries where alcohol abuse is not a problem, alcohol is seen as neutral.  Other cultures teach their youth how to drink in the safe environment of the home.  In these countries, the legal drinking age is lower than America.  Alcohol education needs to come from the family, not a mandate from the government.

So what age do you consider someone an adult?  America is a free country where adults are allowed to make their own choices, for better or worse – but not minors.  An 18-year-old is considered adult enough to vote for people to lead our country, but not buy a beer.  Is an 18-year-old an adult or not?

How old to fire a gun?!?

A 12-year-old can carry a gun and hunt and kill game.  Am I the only person who finds this scary?  I’m not advocating a 12-year-old be allowed to purchase a beer, but it is strange our country thinks a gun is safer than a beer in the hands of a child.  The reality is the child has the gun under adult supervision and is required to take training before the child is granted a license.  Why is the same approach not applied to drinking?

Who can better teach a child about alcohol than their parents?  The government thinks it is better for people to start from scratch at 21.  It is illegal in many states for a parent to provide their child an alcoholic beverage.  Personally I think I am a much better choice to teach my child about alcohol.  No wonder 21-year-olds do not know how to drink – but with our laws they have nine years of practice with a gun!

No beer, but here hold this gun!

And they are in luck!  We have a great job for those who know how to use a gun.  I cannot believe we allow young men and women to fight in wars, but we don’t allow them to drink.  I cannot describe how offensive I find this contradiction of “adulthood”.  When I was a teenager I got into this argument with my father.  His response at the time, “we don’t go to war that often”.  America went to war in the first Gulf War two years later.

An 18-year-old is old enough to give their life for our country, but not old enough to buy a beer.  As of date of writing this article, 696 soldiers have died in Iraq and were not old enough to buy a beer.  Here are 696 very good reasons why we should lower the drinking age right now to 18. These men and women did die for our country, but still were never trusted with a beer.

696 reasons to lower the drinking age to 18

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. My goodness, my Guinness!!
2. World’s worst hangover
3. Looking for a winebar in Austin?

In Alabama, the state government was considering a bill to raise the legal alcohol limit in beer from 6% ABV (alcohol by volume) to 13.9% ABV.  You read that right, it is illegal to purchase or distribute beer higher than 6% ABV.  This eliminates most craft beers.  The bill to raise the ABV limit is in the Alabama state senate, but is currently stalled.  Southern Baptists and Anheuser Busch in Alabama are lobbying to block the effort (now there are strange bedfellows).  There are no bills for consideration to allow homebrewing.  Homebrewing is illegal in Alabama, and comes with a $2000 USD fine and up to a year in jail.

It sounded crazy that the government would actually enforce homebrewing laws... until it happened.

Too much publicity for AL homebrewer

Scott Oberman, a homebrewer, was contacted by L.A. Times reporter Stephanie Simon about homebrewing in Alabama.  He thought this article could give good exposure to the homebrewing cause, and help raise awareness.  The article, complete with pictures and full names, detailed homebrewing in Alabama.  The article spread across the internet and was seen around the world.  Score one for the homebrewers?  Not so fast.

The article also caught the attention of the Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control board (ABC).  Guess who paid Scott Oberman a visit?

It seems that the ABC wants to give Oberman a warning.  The ABC agent told Oberman that he was sent by the Montgomery, Alabama office to make sure Oberman was “clear on the homebrewing laws”.  They had information they wanted to share with him, and he needed to sign for it.

Breakin’ the law

Make no mistake, Oberman was breaking the law.  He admitted that he was homebrewing in Alabama and he was distributing the beer to friends.  His beer was even stronger than 6% ABV.  It was a dumb move on his part; he was almost begging Alabama to do something.  You might call this civil disobedience, but we all know how Alabama deals with civil disobedience.

Now Scott Oberman fears for his life.  He stands to lose joint custody of his daughter, and his security clearance job.  “At this point, I am very close to the decision to completely give up the best hobby in the world until such time that it is no longer illegal here in AL. This is a decision that I have not taken lightly, but my family has to come first.” says Oberman in a Free the Hops forum .  If Alabama wanted to, the state could quickly ruin his life to make an example of him – all because he makes his own beer.  He doesn’t want to test the case in court.  That was never his intention.  He is now facing the reality that he must give up the hobby he loves.  Can you believe this is happening in America?

Legal in other states

Making beer is legal in most other states.  If he lived in Colorado, no one would even know his name.  When I last wrote about the legalization of homebrewing laws , most scoffed that the law would never be enforced.  Technically the law is not being enforced, since I doubt they will persecute Oberman.  Still Alabama is making an example of Oberman, and a man’s hobby will be taken away.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Homebrewing Is Illegal
2. New homebrewers, just one tip
3. My 100 plus drinking buddies

After prohibition home winemaking was legalized by federal law.  The lawmakers in 1933 forgot to add “and/or beer” when writing the new law.  There are two reasons no one corrected this flaw.  The first is because large breweries lobbied against it.  The other reason was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) wanted to keep the law in place so they could prosecute home distillers before they distilled their liquor.  That “anti-loophole” remained in place for 44 years.

Finally everyone got tired of drinking crappy beer and pushed to get the law changed.  This is the history every homebrewer knows.  What you might not know is the changed law provided the right for states to ultimately decide if it should be legal.  Hard to believe, but some states have different laws than other states.  Sure it is weird that you can’t turn right at a red light in Texas, but are the “important laws” really different?

Even though Jimmy Carter made homebrewing legal, it's still not legal in all states

Not legal in Utah or Alabama

Then someone mentions Utah and their theocracy .  Oh yeah, you think, but you can’t really count Utah.   That state is just weird.  In 2008, the Utah representatives passed a resolution to legalize homebrewing, but the bill is currently held up in the Utah senate.  Some see this as a stalling tactic in hopes that the bill will die.  Either way, homebrewing in Utah is currently illegal.  Hopefully the law will change within the next few weeks.  So you can’t make beer in Utah, but you can elsewhere right?  No.

Alabama is fighting a similar battle.  In Alabama, not only can you not brew beer at home, you can’t even buy a beer that is higher than 6% ABV unless you are on a military base.  Military bases are subject to federal law, not state law.  As in Utah, religion is fighting the battle against the homebrewers.  What is the Alabama Southern Baptists argument against homebrewing?  “Beer corrupts the mind, body and soul”.  And of course, they pulled the “think of the children” card.    It is scary that religion in America could influence on laws that restrict personal behavior in 2008.

The list does not stop at Utah and Alabama.  Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma all do not have laws that protect the right to brew beer at home.  Kentucky and Oklahoma even have stiff penalties for producing alcohol.  In most cases, the state just does not specify the legality either way.  While the laws in these states were written to prevent distillation, the laws can be interpreted to prosecute homebrewing.

Homebrew laws are not clear in other states

Several other states the law is very unclear.  In Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and New York no one is really sure if it is legal or not.  These states have laws that could be interpreted either way and the laws have not been tested in court.  Louisiana law comes close to being tested with State v. Jordan, 20 So.2d 543.   In 1944 Dennis Jordan was arrested for making homebrew; however the State Supreme Court ruled making four bottles of homebrew did not equal manufacturing beer.  If a police officer decides to arrest you for homebrew in the other states, the ruling can go either way.  Do you feel lucky?

In South Carolina and West Virgina, the laws are even weirder.  In South Carolina, you can make beer as long as it is not over 5% ABV.  No tripels for South Carolina!  West Virginia law it is unclear how the law applies to beer.  You can possibly make “non-intoxicating beer”, but the law is fuzzy if homebrewers need a license.  “Non-intoxicating beer” is beer that is 6% ABV or lower.  Again you’re at the mercy of the court is someone decides to arrest you.

There are groups, like the American Homebrewers Association, that are trying to reverse or clarify the laws in many states.  You can always check the current status of your state on their site.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Utah wants to force sale of piss warm beer
2. South Salt Lake to reduce the number of bars
3. Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control pays homebrewer a visit

Just when I think that society is finally coming to their senses about the outdated blue laws, Utah has to keep things interesting.  The theocracy in Utah cannot ban alcohol outright, the 21st amendment protects drinkers, but they can do things to make it difficult on those who indulge.  What is the Utah theocracy’s latest hair-brained idea?  Ban cold beer.

This is one of those stories you would expect to read on April 1st, but sources confirm that the state senate is seriously mulling the idea.  The lawmakers, Utah’s public representatives, are seriously considering banning cold beer.  Their thinking (or lack thereof) is this:  If you can only buy piss warm beer, you might not drink right as much or at least not right away.  This law directly targets the beer demographic that can’t make it out of the store parking lot before drinking.  I’m sure living in Utah will drive you to this point.

One lawmaker confirmed the story, and jokingly suggested that you can accomplish the same thing by selling frozen beer.  At least someone there has a sense of humor.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Homebrewing Is Illegal
2. South Salt Lake to reduce the number of bars
3. How to get out of a DUI/DWI

“Washington already allows people to make their own beer and wine, so I think allowing them to produce, consume and even sell modest quantities of distilled spirits should also be allowed,” Sen. Marr said.

The bill 6292 creates a new entity, “Craft distillery”.  According to the bill, a “Craft distillery” means an establishment that produces within Washington twenty thousand gallons or less of spirits per year using a pot still and in which more than fifty percent of the raw materials used in the production are grown in Washington.

The license is $100, which should make it very easy to open a craft distillery.  While the bill introduced by Sen. Marr does not apply to homebrewers, it might open the doors for home distillation in the future.

The bill also states the “use of purchased neutral grain spirits shall be prohibited by a craft distillery unless those neutral grain spirits are made in Washington state”.  The purpose of the bill is to encourage the use of local agricultural products.

© 2008 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Craft brewers need your help
2. HB 1192 and the battle over full strength beer
3. Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control pays homebrewer a visit