Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Georgia Action Alert

By

I almost missed posting this before it’s too late. According to the new grassroots organization, Support Your Local Brewery, there’s legislation in Georgia that will be bad for small brewers and their ability to offer samples of their beer at their brewery during tours. The vote is on Tuesday, June 19 so if you’re in Georgia contact your Congressperson as soon as possible, and no later than the end of the business day on Monday.

Here’s the press release from SYLB:

Georgia’s beer consumers and brewers are facing a threat that could adversely impact the business operations of in-state breweries and consequently your access to Georgia’s craft-brewed beer.

The Georgia Department of Revenue is proposing to adopt a new rule that would severely restrict beer tasting for attendees of brewery tours (please refer to the Synopsis for the actual rule language). The Department will consider adoption of this rule on Tuesday, June 19 – now is the time to make your voice heard in opposition to this rule.

Please read the following information which includes a message from Terrapin Beer Co.’s John Cochran who has been working with Georgia’s small production breweries to oppose this measure. You will find all the information you need for contacting the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue.

John has also included a suggested message to send, and Support Your Local Brewery suggests you visit the Beer Serves America web site for detailed information on the economic contribution of Georgia’s beer community to state coffers. Please consider including some of this information in your message to underscore the valuable economic contribution being made, which in no way should be jeopardized.

Thanks for your support in protecting Georgia’s brewers and beer consumers.

If you want to read the a synopsis of the bill itself, you can view it at the SYLB website.

From John Cochran of Terrapin Beer Co.:

All Georgia breweries need your help. We recently received notice that the Georgia Department of Revenue has decided to change the rules that apply to tours at breweries in Georgia. The new proposal calls for a limit of a 2oz pour of each beer style on the tour with a maximum limit of only 16oz. The 16oz pour is only possible if we have eight different styles of beer to offer on the tour. If a brewery only has four beers available to taste, then only 8oz can be poured at the tour.

It is the belief of the Georgia breweries, and our wholesalers, that the proposed rule change would effectively kill the tours. Since the breweries have spent significant sums of money on tasting rooms for the purposes of conducting tours this investment would be lost. In addition it would cause the layoff of employees who now operate as tour guides and could cause serious harm to the bottom line of all breweries. The tours are our main marketing tool and by losing the ability to continue tours as they are currently structured, we would lose customers, lose sales, and find it much more difficult to continue in business.

If you have enjoyed tours at Sweetwater and Atlanta Brewing in the past and you would like to continue to enjoy tours at those locations and at Terrapin Beer Company (tours starting this fall if these proposed changes do not take effect) then please take the time to help fight for our rights.

Atlanta Brewing, Sweetwater and Terrapin have worked together to craft a response to the proposed rule changes. If you agree with us that the proposed rule change is egregious and will harm the brewery tours and thereby harm our businesses, please take the time to send the attached response to the Department of Revenue, as indicated below.

E-mail your comments to regcomments@dor.ga.gov and be sure to include a reference to “NOTICE NUMBER AT-2007-1” on any correspondence you send.

The SYLB also helpfully has a template of a short letter you can use to send, which I reprinted below:

To: Commissioner Graham

Re: Notice Number AT-2007-1
560-2-2-.61

The Georgia Department of Revenue has proposed a significant change in the states’ long standing policy on service limitations for brewery tours. The proposed new rule will adversely affect my decision as a customer of the breweries, to attend the tours. By doing so it will also put at risk the brewer’s investment in facilities designed to attract and accommodate tour attendees such as myself and will severely limit the marketing and sales of the brewery’s products. I oppose adoption of the proposed rule change and respectfully urge the department to withdraw proposed rule 3a.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE

If you can help out, please send in your comments as soon as possible. The craft beer community thanks you for your help.
 

Olympia Brewery Finds a Buyer

By

Olympia Brewery in Tumwater, Washington has been fallow since 2003, when Miller Brewing shut it down. The following year they sold it to a startup who planning on bottling water at the former brewery. But they ran into financial trouble and were forced into an involuntary bankruptcy. A deal has now been submitted for approval by the bankruptcy court for a Seattle company, the Benaroya Company, to purchase the brewery for $45 million. A hearing will be held July 5 at which time motions will be heard and a decision made. So far, there’s no word as to Benaroya’s intentions for the property, whether they want to refurbish and open the brewery or raze the 120-acres and develop it. It would be nice to see open again as a brewery, but I doubt that’s what will happen. It’s possible that Benaroya could break up the land into pieces and someone could buy the brewery grounds while they develop the rest into something else, it just doesn’t seem likely that buyer will step forward with the resources to bring the brewery back into shape. I’d certainly like to see it saved, for no better reason than the last time I was there was on my honeymoon.

Criminal Parenting

By

crime
I suspect this rant will win me few friends and probably more than a few enemies, but sometimes you have to say what’s on your mind. I’ve only seen a little about this story — Parents locked up for son’s boozy 16th — all of it curiously from the press outside of the country, so I can only comment on what facts I do know. It seems a Virginia couple had a 16th birthday party for their son back in August of 2002 and served some beer to him and a few of his friends. Yesterday, after the Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal in late May, both went off to jail to serve 4 1/2-year sentences, six-months for each kid at the party with measurable levels of alcohol.

At the party there were around 30 people between 12 and 18 years old. Of those 30, nine apparently had “measurable levels” of alcohol in their system. The fact that they used the careful phrase “measurable levels” infers that they were well below the already questionable 0.08% which arbitrarily defines what it means to be drunk. To me it sounds like they gave the kids a taste of beer in a controlled setting. As reported in the Brisbane Times, the couple was “[c]oncerned that the teenagers would drink without supervision, [so] the parents said they had bought alcohol with the understanding that the teens would spend the night at their place and collected half a dozen car keys to prevent drunk driving.” Under a less Draconian society than ours, that doesn’t strike me as particularly unreasonable. But we live in a society that generally does not allow parents to use their own judgment about how to raise their children. Now I want to be crystal clear that I don’t think for one second that they should have given beer to the other kids, not under today’s climate especially. While I can almost understand why some of those parents might be upset, had my son been there I would not have been troubled in the least. As for their own son, well that’s another matter. The fact that learning to drink responsibly in the home, the way it’s done throughout most of the rest of the world, is illegal here says quite a lot about our society and its commitment to raising mature, self-reliant adults.

The fact that Paris Hilton got a mere 45 days for repeatedly flaunting the law and this couple got 4 1/2 years for showing poor judgment once, even though they were at least trying to keep people safe and off the roads, is also illustrative of how out of whack our justice system has become. The idea that they deserved jail time seems ludicrous to me. But then I don’t see alcohol as the great social ill that so many people do. I have a hard time thinking of them as criminals, and for very personal reasons. When I was a kid not that long ago, my mother and stepfather acted in much the same way, as did other parents of my peers. My mother, for all her flaws, was a nurse and one of the most caring people I knew. While in nursing school she spent one of her rotations in the ER and saw more than her fair share of drug overdoses. When I started high school and began going to parties, she despaired that I would take up drugs. So she offered me a deal. If I agreed to never do drugs she would keep the basement refrigerator stocked with beer for me and my friends. Needless to say, I took the deal and spent many happy and safe nights with friends drinking responsibly in my basement. We had a pool table, television, sofas and privacy. That my mother would be a considered a criminal today — and indeed technically was then too, I suppose — strikes me as absurd. She was correct in assuming that I would drink and that there was nothing whatsoever she could do about it short of locking me under the stairs. It wasn’t just me, it was just the times, at least to some extent. Almost everyone I knew drank at least on the weekends. Some of my friends’ parents even knew that their kids were drinking at my house with my parent’s consent and knowledge. They felt better knowing where their kids were and that they were safe with people they knew rather than out driving around and/or out with strangers. These people were all criminals? They were bad parents?

In our post-MADD society that’s certainly how they would be viewed today. But I don’t accept that they loved their children any less than parents today simply because they chose their own way to deal with underage drinking. I recall one of our graduation parties — this was 1977 — that one of my fellow seniors threw. Her parents, along several others parents of seniors, were there and they provided several kegs, which were in the backyard. In the basement there was a true home theater (the father was a projectionist by trade) and he was showing Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein on film. Of the 435 people in my graduating class, it seemed like most of them were there that night. If this scene unfolded today the parents would be hauled off to the hoosegow, as the case with the Virginia couple. Yet it was safe and incident free, like virtually all the parent-chaperoned parties I attended. But one of the consequences of strictly interpreting law in such a way that the letter of it becomes more important than its spirit is that it criminalizes parents for making choices that fall outside the agenda set by neo-prohibitionists and other conservative interests that want to control every aspect of society with their own set of moral values.

When my kids reach their teen years, I would love to be able to teach them about responsible drinking firsthand. But given that doing so might give the state the so-called authority to take them away from me, I won’t risk it. I find it deeply troubling that I can’t decide for myself how to raise them or teach them how to be an adult. The notion that our government can do a better job from afar is preposterous. The best I can hope for is that they’ll see my wife and me drinking responsibly in our home; with meals, on sunny afternoons on the back deck, and so on. Hopefully they’ll also see my many friends in the brewing industry likewise drinking responsibly at the few remaining beer festivals that still allow children. Maybe seeing that will allow them to model responsible behavior and ignore the ridiculous propaganda spewed out by the neo-prohibitionist groups. It would be far better if I could slowly taste them on alcohol so they know what it is, how to choose it and how to enjoy it responsibly. We give 16-year olds learner’s permits so they can learn how to drive with an experienced adult. People should be able to do the same thing with alcohol without fear of being arrested or worse.

Instead, my kids will undoubtedly get most of their information from the media and their peers — despite my best efforts — and most of it will be wrong. Many kids today raised under such conditions understandably become binge drinkers. Anyone with an ounce of sense sees the connection between a lack of education and irresponsible drinking by teens and young adults. Future politicians, hoping to distance themselves from the results of their own lack of education, will call this time in their lives a “youthful indiscretion.” They will likewise fail to see that such an environment was been created by the very people and laws that set out to stop underage drinking. All they’ve succeeded in doing is to make the problem far worse. The Virginia couple heading off to jail has had their lives ruined by a system that made them criminals for trying to do the right thing. Is it really so unreasonable to believe that their son would have wanted to celebrate his 16th birthday with alcohol? I did. Most of the people I know did. It’s only wrong because we — or I should say you and you and you — have decided it’s wrong. It hasn’t been wrong through much of humanity’s history. It isn’t considered wrong right now in many parts of the world. I have no trouble believing this couple reasonably thought they were keeping their son and his friends safe that night. And they very well may have. But that obviously counted for naught. The couple is divorced now. Their son will be turning 21 later this year, in August. His parents’ lives have been ruined. I’d love to know the effect all of this has had on him and his friends who had a nip of beer five years ago. Have they all become alcoholics? Hopeless hooligans and ruffians? N’er do wells destined to be a burden on society for the balance of their lives? Doubtful. It’s more likely they’re normal college-age kids no different from everyone else around them. Apart from the attention this case probably got locally, I doubt it’s had any effect on their lives whatsoever. So in the end two parents who were trying to do the right thing and likely caused no real harm whatsoever ran afoul of neo-prohibitionist agendas and the laws they’ve spawned, and in the process had their lives destroyed. If that’s justice, maybe it’s time she took off the blindfold.

Wisconsin Wants More Beer Taxes

By

Another state is looking to enhance their revenue by tapping brewers on the shoulder. According to a report in yesterday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “[t]wo Democratic legislators vowed Monday to try to tap the state’s beer drinkers by seeking approval of a fivefold increase in Wisconsin’s $2-a-barrel beer tax, which has not been raised in 38 years.” Berceau wants to raise the tax to $10 per barrel supposedly to fund programs to “fight drunken driving and treat alcohol addiction and mental illness.” As recent studies have indicated though, such raises rarely result in the goals intended. I’ll never understand why responsible drinkers and brewers who contribute positively to the economy are routinely targeted for this kind of punishment because of a few bad apples. We don’t tax sugar makers and soda companies to fund health centers to treat obesity. We don’t ask people who can enjoy one piece of chocolate cake to foot the bill for over-eaters and the health costs they add to society, nor should we. Berceau wants the tax on a six-pack to be 18 cents, up from its previous level of 3.6 cents, which would add as much as $48 million to the amount people would have to spend to buy the same amount of beer.

“Wisconsin’s beer tax hasn’t been raised since ‘man walked on the moon,’ said Berceau, whose efforts to raise the tax have failed in the past,” suggesting she’s been in bed with her sponsors for some time. Those sponsors, some of whom presumably have made campaign contributions, include “the Wisconsin Prevention Network; the American Society of Addiction Medicine; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; the Mental Health Association of Wisconsin; and the National Association for the Mentally Ill of Wisconsin.”

According to the national Beer Institute, Wisconsin ranked sixth in beer consumption in 2006, with an average of 38.2 gallons consumed for every person 21 and older. Wisconsin’s $2-a-barrel tax is third lowest in the nation, behind the 59-cent levy in Wyoming and the $1.86 tax in Missouri.

Celis’ Return to Texas Doubtful

By

In his regular column, The Beer Sphere, in the Dallas/Forth Worth Star-Telegram, Barry Shlachter reports that the “long-anticipated collaboration between Belgian brewing legend Pierre Celis and Texas’ Real Ale Brewing Co. has fallen through.”

From Shlachter’s column:

“Just too many obstacles,” said Brad Farbstein, president of the Blanco-based micro-brewery.

Real Ale’s proposed “Brussels” line of ales based on Celis recipes was scuttled because the state interpreted the deal as violating Texas’ contract brewing regulations.

Complicating the arrangement was Celis investing in his daughter’s drinking establishment in the Austin area, Farbstein said. Texas’ three-tiered system — production, wholesaling and retailing — forbids participation in more than one sector.

Well that’s certainly bad news. It would have been nice to see Pierre return triumphantly to the states.

Neo-Prohibitionist Math

By

Sadly, the United States is not the only country with people who want others live according to their morals. A British Bulletin reader sent in a BBC article about Alcohol Concern, a UK neo-prohibitionist organization that refers to itself as the “national agency on alcohol misuse.” In the article, “Call to stop children’s drinking,” they, of course, use the “it’s for the children” strategy and it’s peppered with plenty of alarmist language about an increase in drinking among 11-13-year olds and citing that “[i]t is currently illegal to give an alcoholic drink to a child under five except under medical supervision in an emergency.” Now what might constitute such an emergency I can’t fathom but the only reason I can see for including it is that it implies that the whole of English parentage is putting beer in their baby’s bottles. It makes it easier to push an agenda when you hammer home the extremes rather than the truth. Of course, alcohol laws are different in the UK. Here’s an overview.

The group Alcohol Concern is also asking for a whopping 16% raise on taxes for alcohol products. And they also want alcohol education to be added to the National Curriculum, which in and of itself is not a bad thing but at the same time they want to restrict parents’ ability to educate their children about alcohol in the home. “Alcohol Concern would include meal times at home in the ban on giving alcohol to young people.” So what that suggests is they believe the government should be deciding what alcohol information should be given to kids and parents should have little or no hand in raising them. Now does that make any sense at all? Since when is the government in a better position to teach your children about anything better than you are? As Karen Gardner, who operates the Parenting Cafe, puts it in a rebuttal:

Parenting is about preparing your children for life.

I’ve just helped my 11-year-old son open his first bank account. When I get to a road with my four-year-old, I get him to decide when it’s safe to cross. It’s the same with alcohol. On your 15th birthday you don’t suddenly develop the ability to deal with alcohol, but by the time you’re 15 you are going to parties where alcohol is flowing. If Alcohol Concern got their way, you’d be sending them out with absolutely no experience of drinking at all and they’d go out and sink four vodkas.

The thing that really concerns me about this law is that if it’s made illegal, parents will tell kids, ‘You can’t drink, I’ll go to prison’. Then a child goes out and does drink too much and needs to call home for help, but feels they can’t in case they get mum or dad into trouble. I understand that some teenagers are going out and binge drinking in town centres, but parents who let their kids do that won’t care about a law anyway. All the law would do is stop responsible parents from trying to educate their children. It would infantilise parents.

Perhaps more troubling, though, is Alcohol Concerns own education materials. They also run a website, Down Your Drink, which purports to help people figure out whether or not they drink too much. Toward that end they also offer a three-question quiz to determine your level of drinking.

Forget for the time being that your weight or general health plays no role whatsoever in the equation, as absurd a notion as I can imagine, but then real education is not the goal. My own “drinking pattern indicates a possible increased risk of alcohol affecting [my] health.” Well, that’s not a surprise, but it doesn’t take into account that I’m a big fella or that I’m most often drinking as a part of my work. No matter, they want to alarm and proselytize, not educate.

You have to answer “Never” or “Monthly or less,” “1 or 2” and “Never” to be considered “drinking sensibly.” If you have 1 or 2 drinks 2-4 times a month (that would be a pint or two once a week or less) and you too could be at an “increased risk of alcohol affecting your health.” How absurd. Of all the possible ways to answer the questionnaire, only two will get you an answer of being a responsible drinker. As far as they’re concerned having one or two drinks monthly or less with no episodes with six drinks in one session is exactly the same as having “10 or more” drinks “daily or almost daily.” How is such inflexible thinking in any way helpful or useful?

But there’s one more absurdity to tackle. Take a close look at how they define “a drink containing alcohol.” They consider “1 drink” to be either “1/2 pint of beer,” “1 glass of wine” or “1 single measure of spirits.” So what that means is that 8 ounces of beer, with an average alcohol content of 4-5% ABV, is the same as one glass of wine, whose alcohol content average is around 14% ABV. I’m not sure what the average glass of wine holds, but even at 4 ounces it would pack more of a punch than twice as much beer. Now that’s some pretty fancy math. I’d love to know how they came up with that standard where a pint of beer is twice as bad as one glass of wine.

No wonder they believe there’s such a problem. When you define almost any amount of drinking, no matter how responsibly small, as being a potential health risk — and ignoring any of the many health benefits — then naturally you will believe there’s an epidemic of drinking problems. But then it’s more likely that you believed that to begin with and are using skewed reasoning and questionable statistics to support your agenda and make it sound more scientific. It’s called lying with statistics and it’s not that hard to do, especially when the mainstream media reports it as fact without questioning it either, which happens more often than not.

Take a look at their research team here at the left, undoubtedly a bunch of models. They’re too politically correct in terms of the mix of young and old, male and female, and racial percentages to be the real research team. And those lab coats are hilarious. But that’s the propaganda of trying to make it seem more serious, more worthy of believing. Don’t fall for it. If all looks too perfect or convenient, it probably is. Few issues are as black and white as they try to paint this one.

Drinking is obviously a huge problem for the people who already don’t and want the rest of us to stop. There are and always will be people who will abuse anything, both benignly and harmful alike. But the answer to dealing with such people should never be to take the object of abuse away from everyone. You don’t end up fixing the problem but instead make it worse, plus you end up punishing the people least deserving of such punishment, the ones who can enjoy things responsibly. Prohibition has never worked for anything. Laws prohibiting murder were among the first laws society ever agreed upon, and it hasn’t eradicated killing yet. You teach people it’s wrong and hope for the best. The same is true concerning alcohol. You teach your children about what it is, how to enjoy it responsibly and how not to abuse it. Take that away, and your kids will be ignorant binge drinkers rebelling against society the first chance they get. But the neo-prohibitionists don’t seem able to grasp this and instead want a Stepford society that forces rather than educates. It uses scare tactics and lies instead of reason and understanding. It would be ridiculous were it not for the growing number of people who think it’s okay to want to tell me and you how to live. Why can’t these people just live how they want to and leave the rest of us alone?

Buckeye Victory

By

Again, vacation put me behind the curve on this one. I learned two weeks ago that there was trouble brewing in Ohio when KevBrews e-mailed me and a BA staff member told me about it at CBC. Even then, it looked like the language that would have been so detrimental to brewpubs wasn’t going to make it through, but I tend to be cynical about these things so I continued to worry.

It turns out the BA‘s new grassroots organization, Support Your Local Brewery, had things well in hand. Here’s their story:

Victory in Ohio Thanks to Support Your Local Brewery Members!

On April 19, Support Your Local Brewery was alerted to a potentially devastating piece of legislation on the fast track in the Ohio House of Representatives. A bill dealing with issues relating to the direct shipment of wine was amended to include language that would have essentially stripped self distribution and direct to consumer sales by breweries and brewpubs.

With a floor vote scheduled in less than 24 hours, Ohio members of the Support Your Local Brewery network were alerted and generated dozens of grassroots contacts to legislators’ offices. By April 20th, the offending provision had been pulled from the bill. Your efforts, coupled with the outreach carried on by many Ohio small brewers, turned this threat back, one which would have almost certainly hamstrung many breweries and potentially closed many brewpubs.

Thanks to all those who answered the call, acted in the best traditions of Support Your Local Brewery Beer Activists and helped to ensure the continued success of the Buckeye State’s small brewing community. Cheers!

KevBrews also received an e-mail response from Jon A. Husted, the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, confirming that the anti-brewpub language had been removed from the budget bill. I’m certainly glad that so many people could be marshaled to the cause in such a timely manner, but the speed with which the entire episode arose left me feeling disconcerted about when this will happen again and whether we’ll be as successful or lucky. I’d like to be able to just say “relax, don’t worry, have a beer” but that little voice inside my head won’t let me, the bastard.

Trouble Brewing in Ohio

By

There’s a new budget bill before the Ohio state legislature that was intended to allow self-distribution of wine to retailers along with mail order wine. That’s all well and good, but somebody snuck into the amendment a provision “barring brew pubs from selling takeout bottles and sealed jugs of beer.” The author of the budget amendment, House Finance Chairman Matt Dolan (Republican), claims to have no idea how or who put in the anti-brewpub language.

The Wholesale Beer & Wine Association is reluctantly supporting the measure (they’re opposed to the direct sale of wine), but only if the brewpub language is deleted.

It was first noticed and reported on April 20, and by the next day several trade groups were in talks with lawmakers. On Saturday, the Cleveland Plain Dealer was editorializing how bad it would be for the state’s small brewers and had elicited a promise from the bill’s sponsor, Matt Dolan, “keep the brew pub provision out of the bill.”

Curiously, some early reporting highlighted the benefit to the wine business while ignoring the potentially mortal blow being dealt to brewpubs and the beer community. Luckily, most are now reporting about the problems that will be created by the newly inserted language, such as an AP report entitled “Wine-sales amendment called flawed.” It appears likely now that the anti-beer language will be removed, but if you’re in Ohio, I’d recommend contacing your representative and urging him or her to make sure that it does get taken out. We can’t be too careful about these things. As this episode so aptly illustrates, neo-prohibitionists will stoop low to damage the beer industry if they think they can get away with it

When the dust settles on this, I’d really like to see them investigate who it was that was so hostile to beer and tried to effectively kill Ohio’s brewpub business. We should all know what or who we’re up against in the fight against neo-prohibitionists, but it’s even worse when they don’t show their face and work clandestinely under cover of darkness.

If There’s a Will …

By

The San Francisco Chronicle reprinted one of George Will’s editorials, “Licensed to Drink,” from the Washington Post. In it, he critiques Choose Responsibility, the new advocacy organization founded by John M. McCardell Jr., the former Dean of of Middlebury College in Vermont. Having watched young people at his college, he decided that the drinking age of 21 was making the problem worse rather than helping it, which was the goal of raising it. I don’t often agree with George Will and in my opinion he’s sometimes a right wing nutjob, albeit more articulate than most, but he has some thoughtful ideas expressed in this piece, and surprisingly he isn’t against it. Given that he was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan, who gave in to MADD and came up with “Just Say No,” that was a something of a surprise to say the least. But this is a debate that’s not going away, and it’s interesting to hear about from so unlikely a source.

Victory for Families

By

Excellent news from Oregon: the OLCC will allow minors to attend the Oregon Brewers Festival with their parents. Here’s the press release:

The Oregon Brewers Festival (OBF) is pleased to announce that, as in the past, minors under age 21 will be allowed all-hours access to the 20th annual Oregon Brewers Festival, provided they are accompanied by a parent. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission granted permission for minors/parents to attend after receiving a new OBF compliance plan. The internationally-recognized craft beer festival will be held July 26-29 at Tom McCall Waterfront Park.

“After thoroughly reviewing the Oregon Brewers Festival’s amended proposal, we believe it meets our licensing and enforcement concerns regarding minor patronage at the 2007 festival,” explained Rudy Williams, OLCC deputy director. “We appreciate the OBF’s willingness to work with the OLCC to help satisfy the public safety interests of Oregonians.”

“We are thrilled that the OLCC has made this decision,” said Art Larrance, founder of the OBF. “The festival has a long-standing history of being a family-friendly event. We promote responsible drinking, and as a result, we have responsible attendees who come together to celebrate our local culture.”

Minors will only be allowed at the OBF with a parent; guardians are not acceptable. Minors are informed of and encouraged to attend the root beer garden, in which complimentary handcrafted root beer is served in cups (no mugs allowed) for all minors and designated drivers.