Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Today Alcopops, Tomorrow Beer

By

Join Together, another one of those pesky neo-prohibitionist groups, is still crowing about the California Board of Equalization‘s wrong-headed decision last week to tax FMB’s (flavored malt beverages, a.k.a alcopops) using the same schedule as spirits. This will mean, beginning in mid-2008, makers of FMBS will be required to pay about 25% more in taxes. Neo-Prohibitionists groups who pushed this issue believe that making alcopops more expensive will somehow reduce underage consumption.

As I’ve said before, it’s quite easy to see why the BOE would vote in favor of higher taxes, especially during a statewide budget crunch, but even at that it was a narrow 3-2 decision. Insiders present at the meeting tell me that the BOE hinted at al present that in ruling they way they did, they were giving all concerned parties a chance to take the issue to the legislature where the BOE made clear they believe it should be decided. I’ve heard an unconfirmed story already that the anti-alcohol Marin Institute has talked to the state speaker, fully expecting his support, only to be shut down in no uncertain terms. It’s no surprise we’ve haven’t heard that side of the story from them.

Knowing that makes it much harder to swallow Join Together characterizing the ruling as “groundbreaking.” Their headline, Alcopops are Liquor, Not Beer, Calif. Tax Board Rules, is misleading at best and an out and out lie at worst. The BOE did no such thing. They only ruled that alcopops should be “taxed” as spirits, not that they “are” spirits. A small point, perhaps, but I think illustrative of how willing these groups are to torture the truth and bend it to their will.

Speaking of lying, here another pernicious one:

Michael Scippa, advocacy director for the Marin Institute, told Join Together that up to 90 percent of the alcohol contained in alcopops is derived from distilled spirits, and that California law states that a beverage with any amount of detectable alcohol from such sources is considered a distilled product, not a beer product.

“Up until now, alcopop manufacturers have gotten away with a cynical manipulation of California’s alcoholic beverage laws, mischaracterizing their products – which derive most of their alcoholic content from distilled spirits – as though they were beer to permit them to be sold cheaply and broadly throughout the state,” said Scott Dickey, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Public Law Group, which provided free legal services to the campaign to change the alcopops classification. “The BOE’s decision is a big step forward in holding alcopop manufacturers accountable for this deception.”

That’s not true, they are malt beverages with flavoring added. Distilled spirits are not added and it is not where their “alcoholic content” is derived from. They are most closely related to beer, which is precisely why they they are called flavored malt beverages and why they have been taxed like beer. Their alcohol content is likewise about the same as the average beer. They are fermented like beer and then chemical flavoring compounds are added, which give FMBs their distinctive sweet, fruity essence. Unlike attorney Scott Dickey’s assertions, which in fact are mischaracterizations, FMBs are exactly what their name suggests, no one has deceived anyone.

When Diageo first presented Smirnoff Ice to me in my capacity as the beer buyer for Beverages & more, they were quite candid about their reasons for launching the new product. Since they were prohibited from advertising their brand in certain media and likewise not permitted to sell their brand in certain stores, at least in California, such as convenience stores, gas stations, etc. By making an alcoholic product that was not spirit-based, they could now do so and it would further allow them to promote, market and advertise the core brand of Smirnoff to a wider audience. I think the fantastic success of Smirnoff Ice, and their countless imitators, surprised Diageo as much as it delighted them. But it was created precisely NOT to be a spirit, and if they had used distilled spirits in its manufacture, that would have defeated its original purpose.

Unlike the assertion of Marin Institute executive director Bruce Lee Livingston, whose grasp on reality seems to be slipping, that “[f]or generations, Big Alcohol has evaded proper taxation on these products,” they have been taxed at the exact rate they should have been for what the product actually is. And as I pointed out previously, Smirnoff Ice was introduced in 2001 and a generation is about thirty years. Clearly math is not his strong suit.

Now I’m no fan of FMBs. I don’t like them. I don’t like the way they often subvert young people’s conversion to craft beer. From a purely business point of view, I understand why the parent companies have used them to build their brand awareness while creating new profits at the same time. But I have been hearing a disturbing number of people inside the brewing industry willing to throw them under the bus, short-shortsightedly failing to recognize that the attack on FMBs is not an end unto itself, but merely the first battle in a much longer war. Don’t believe me? Just wait, do nothing, and see what happens.

I have it on good authority that the next salvo from the Marin Institute will be to ask the legislature/BOE to reclassify all malt beverages over 6% abv as distilled spirits! That means any strong beer like Belgian tripels, dubbels, bocks and doppelbocks, barleywines and even some IPAs will all be considered distilled spirits for taxation. I’m sure they’ll be spinning it as an attack on malt liquor, but some of our most cherished styles of beers will fall under such a definition, making them either more expensive or economically unfeasible for the breweries to continue making them.

Distillation, of course, is a specific process for separating, in the case of liquids, different components with different boiling points. There are a few kinds of distilling, such as freeze distilling, pot distilling and reflux distilling, and each of them does roughly the same thing or yields similar results. Liquids distilled are separate and distinct from either beer or wine, of course, as the process deviates wildly at one point and the resulting spirits are generally much, much stronger than either. Types of distilled products include absinthe, bourbon, brandy, calvados, cognac, gin, ouzo, rum, schnapps, scotch, tequila, vodka, whisky (and whiskey) to name just a few of the more common examples. Other non-alcoholic or lethal products which are distilled are gasoline, kerosene and paraffin.

So trying to call strong beers distilled spirits is not really in keeping with reality. Spirits — and wine for that matter — is generally much more alcoholic than beer, so trying to paint even a 10% strong beer with the same broad brush as whisky is akin to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn’t work. But it really has nothing to do with reality — or concepts of fairness — but instead is the drawing of the next battle line in a war whose goal is another national prohibition. We have to be vigilant of these groups and what they’re trying to accomplish. It’s our very complacency and disorganized apathy that they’re counting on to succeed. You can color me as reactionary as you like, but no harm can come from committing ourselves now to defeating the well-organized campaign for another prohibition. If we succeed, life continues as before. But if we lose, we’ll have no beer to cry into. Don’t let that happen.

 

MADD Hopping Mad Over Movement to Lower Drinking Age

By

On the heels of a growing debate and movement to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, MADD has issued an “Action Alert” to its members and affiliate neo-prohibitionist groups asking them to let their friends, family and legislators know the “facts.” Though in reality what they’re hoping to do is reinvigorate the moral zealots and remind legislators that common sense and following the will of the people are anathema to staying in office. Politicians don’t like to be portrayed as being for underage drinking, but that’s exactly what would happen to anyone with the temerity to express an opinion other than their own.

They must be feeling the heat from people speaking out against the current drinking age, because their rhetoric seems more vicious than usual. And their press releases use the word “fact” an awful lot despite not really offering anything new or anything that is actually a fact. To my way of thinking, if you can reasonably debate something claimed to be a fact, then it’s not really a fact in the first place. Here are the three points on which they hang their latest argument:

  1. Almost 50 high-quality studies have found conclusively that the 21 minimum drinking age decreases alcohol-related fatalities by 16 percent
  2. The brain continues to grow into the early/mid-20s and that drinking before this can damage the brain irreversibly
  3. In most countries with lower drinking ages, intoxication is much more common among young people than in the United States

So let’s look at these so-called “facts.”

1. There’s nothing conclusive about these studies and many experts believe that alcohol-related fatalities were already in decline before the drinking-age was effectively raised in 1984. Then there’s how you define “alcohol-related fatalities,” which in many cases includes passengers who’d been drinking or even victims. So that means that if a sober person accidentally ran over someone who’d been drinking, it was counted as an alcohol-related fatality. That hardly sounds like a high-quality study to me. Most, if not all, of these studies suffer from the same sorts of problems. They’re hardly ironclad facts that everyone agrees upon.

2. This is a beautiful one. Fear is always a great tool of propagandists. Apparently all of the people of the rest of the world have damaged brains, as does everyone of my generation who drank before reaching the age of 21. Except that virtually every other country’s kids beat the pants off of us at math, science and other academic measurements. Imagine how smart the rest of the world would be if only they didn’t allow their kids to drink. I guess they’d all be super-geniuses. If this was really the danger they make it out to be, no country on Earth would allow drinking before the brain fully formed. I’m going to assume this is only a problem if someone drinks to great excess and that would more properly be curbed by making it legal earlier and teaching responsibility and moderation both through parental modeling and learning in the home.

3. This claim is mostly based on a European study that appeared to show higher “intoxication rates” but the study itself, in it’s conclusion, said only that “the pattern of alcohol consumption reveals that frequent drinking is most prevalent among students in the western parts of Europe, such as the British Isles, the Netherlands, Belgium but also in Austria, the Czech Republic and Malta. Very few students in the northern parts of Europe drink that often (my emphasis).” “Frequent drinking” and “intoxication” are two very different things. The definitions are not necessarily comparable and, as such, these are hardly facts.

One interesting side note is that the only example given by MADD (on their new propaganda website Why 21) — which they also call the best example — is to “look at what happened in New Zealand.” They continue:

“In 1999, New Zealand lowered its purchase age from 20 to 18. Not only did drunk driving crashes increase, but youth started to drink earlier, binge drinking escalated, and in the 12 months following the decrease in legal drinking age, there was a 50 percent increase in intoxicated 18- and 19-year-old patients at the Auckland Hospital emergency room. Clearly, Europe has serious issues with youth alcohol use.”

Hmm, how to put this delicately? Apparently being a teetotaler makes you unable to know anything about geography. Last time I checked, New Zealand wasn’t anywhere near Europe, not even in the same hemisphere. Talk about keeping your facts straight, they don’t even know what countries are in Europe. Is it possible many neo-prohibitionists are also flat-earthers and don’t believe in maps? That would certainly fit my perspective of many of them.

Another howler in the Myths & Facts at Why 21 is in their explanation about why being able to vote or die in the military are not sufficient reasons to also be allowed to drink. They note that different “rights have different ages of initiation,” such as the minimum age to get a hunting license, drivers license or even get married. They then state that “these minimum ages are set for a reason” and list the reason for the drinking age as the following:

In the case of alcohol, 21 is the minimum age because a person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. Drinking alcohol while the brain is still developing can lead to long-lasting deficits in cognitive abilities, including learning and memory.

Anybody ever heard that as the reason why the drinking age is 21? Me neither. That certainly wasn’t how they sold it in 1984. Back then it was supposedly to reduce drinking and driving. But the WMD story didn’t fly I guess so now it’s regime change in the guise of developing brain scares. Again, if this was anything other than smoke and mirrors, the rest of the world would have sat up and done something about it, too. Can you really believe that only Americans love their children enough to protect them? Who is naive enough to believe Europeans or the rest of the world wouldn’t rush to protect their own kids’ developing brains if a true threat actually existed?

Another thing that doesn’t fly is the ages for hunting licenses, driving, buying tobacco and legal consent for sex and marriage. All of those occur before one becomes a legal adult, which happens at age eighteen. So those rights are regulated to people who are not yet considered adults. It’s done by adults to protect people who it is believed need such protection. The over 18 examples they give are the ages one can be elected to Congress and minimum age requirements imposed to rent a car or hotel room. The minimums for Congress (25), the Senate (30) and President (35) were set down at a time when living to 35 made you an elder statesman. I can see no reasonable sense in which this is comparable to the drinking age. Trying to insure more experienced men and women would represent us in government bears no relationship to at what age you can drink a beer. And the minimums to rent a car or stay in a hotel are industry standards and are about liability and risk management. They have nothing whatsoever to do with rights or the law. It’s not illegal to rent a car if you’re under 25, it’s just that no major car company will take your business. It’s a decision fueled by commercial interests, not a mandatory law imposed by our government.

So as far as I can tell, all of the under-18 regulated behaviors and the over-18 ones MADD uses in their rationalization, be they constitutional or business-oriented, are in no way related to the idea of what it means to be an adult. And that, I think, is the crux of the argument. I don’t think anyone would dispute that to vote or to fight and possibly die defending our nation makes you an adult. If participating in our democracy or fighting for it doesn’t make you an adult, then I don’t know what else possibly would or, indeed, could. At 18 you can also enter into contracts, gamble, hunt, buy cigarettes, drop out of school, have sex and/or get married without your parents consent. Really, the only legal good I can think of that’s denied eighteen-year olds is alcohol. And as the rest of the world does not deny its adults in this way, one can only conclude that fanaticism and moral zealots have gotten their way. That a few souls have decided it’s time to show the MADD Emperor’s nakedness, I can only say “what took you so long.”

 

MSNBC On the Drinking Age

By

MSNBC had a very interesting article about the recent surge in support for lowering the drinking age to from twenty-one to eighteen again. Apart from nations that don’t permit alcohol at all — usually for religious reasons — we have the highest age for allowing drinking of any country in the world. For the vast majority of nations, it’s eighteen. To me it’s as simple as if you can vote and die as a soldier defending our country, you should at least be able to drink a beer. I’ve never heard a convincing rebuttal to that. In my opinion, it should be a part of how we define adulthood.
 

California Redefines Distilled Spirits

By

California’s Board of Equalization took the surprising move today (by a one vote margin) of redefining distilled spirits using some very odd language. The new definition, which takes effect in July 2008, was re-written in an effort by neo-prohibitionist groups to tax FMB’s (flavored malt beverages, a.k.a. alcopops or malternatives) at a higher rate under the pretense of keeping them out of the hands of children. The idea that by making them more expensive they’ll be less attractive to younger and underage drinkers is, of course, prima facie ridiculous. I can understand the state’s angle because it will produce more revenue for them, but that it will help cure underage drinking is pure fantasy. California State Controller John Chiang went so far as to say “taxing flavored malt beverages as liquor will also help reduce their popularity with young people by simply pricing the product out of their reach.” Tell that to the sixteen-year old punks driving around Marin County in new BMW’s that they won’t be able to afford Smirnoff Ice anymore. What utter hogwash.

Even if I accept such tortured logic, why should everybody — older adults included — be punished with higher prices and why should those companies arbitrarily now have to pay significantly higher taxes? I think McDonald’s happy meals are destructive to the health of our nation’s youth. Should we charge McDonald’s a health tax on every happy meal so they’re so expensive no one will buy them anymore, for the good of our children? I think Coke is rotting the teeth and insides of millions of kids. Should a bottle of Coca-cola cost $5.00 to compensate for the health risks and keep children from buying them? Would it then be fair that the rest of us have to spend $5, too, to buy a coke and a smile? Why should every product we don’t want kids to have be more expensive for the rest of us just so they may not be able to afford it? It just doesn’t make sense. But that’s effectively the logic at work here. Is that really how we want to orient our society?

Here is the new language:

Regulation 2558. Distilled Spirits. Define distilled spirits to include any alcoholic beverage, except wine, which contains 0.5 percent or more alcohol by volume from flavors or ingredients containing alcohol obtained from the distillation of fermented agricultural products. (emphasis added.)

What’s troubling about this decision is that this new definition could — which means probably will — be interpreted to include some beer aged in oak barrels as well as certain other craft beers as distilled spirits. If subject to the much higher spirits tax, it will make them either prohibitively expensive or, more likely, effectively force brewers to stop making them altogether. And that would effectively quash some of the most innovative beers being produced today.

According to people who attended the hearing, it appears likely that this issue may be challenged in the courts and/or be dealt with through the legislature. Neo-prohibitionist groups, of course, are already claiming victory and sending out celebratory press releases, such as the one I received from the Marin Institute, who referred to the votes as “historic” and applauded the “strong leadership” of California’s state controller John Chiang. Apparently they regard a strong leader as someone who does their bidding.

Here’s some more back-patting from the press release:

“This is an enlightened step forward in controlling underage consumption of alcohol,” said Bruce Lee Livingston, MPP, Executive Director of Marin Institute. “For generations, Big Alcohol has evaded proper taxation on these products. Now, the state will benefit and the health and well-being of our youth will be improved.”

I find it curious that they even use the word “enlightened,” since that brings to mind the Enlightenment, a time that couldn’t be more removed from the sort of tactics neo-prohibitionists are using now. To enlighten, means to “to give intellectual or spiritual light to” something, or in older parlance to simply “shed light upon.” Trying to remove alcohol from society in order to impose ones own morals on everyone else is the very opposite of enlightened.

Then there’s his “[f]or generations, Big Alcohol has evaded proper taxation on these products.” (my emphasis.) A generation is generally considered to be about thirty years. FMBs first appeared a little over ten years ago, fifteen at most. And they really didn’t become all that popular until the introduction of Smirnoff Ice, which was in 2001. That was only six years ago, not quite the at least sixty years that Chiang’s “generations” implies.

“Public policy trumped corporate-influenced politics today,” said Michele Simon, Director of Research and Policy at Marin Institute. That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. Another is ‘fear mongering moral crusaders hijacked democracy in an effort to advance their own narrow agenda by pretending to care about the welfare of children and trumped common sense and reason today.’ It’s all how you choose to spin it.

Now personally I’m no fan of FMBs, either, and I also think they subvert young people from discovering the joys of craft beer, but I don’t believe making them more expensive is in any way useful. If the true goal of the neo-prohibitionists really is to keep them out of the hands of children (as they claim), a more effective strategy might be to keep kids from drinking sweet soda and developing a fondness for sweeter drinks in the first place. Then alcopops would not have the same appeal for them as they get older. Plus it would have the added benefit of keeping kids healthier by reducing their intake of sugar, high fructose syrup and other harmful chemicals in today’s soda-pop. But I don’t think this brouhaha really is about the children, but rather is anti-alcohol merely using children as a justification that’s easier to sell than another prohibition.

And that’s why I’m particularly troubled by the vague language of the new definition. Because I believe this is just another first step in a larger and more sinister effort not just to control children’s access to FMBs, but to restrict access to all alcohol. Today it’s FMBs, tomorrow … who knows what. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case. If it was just about the taxes I wouldn’t like it, but at least I’d understand it. The way the neo-prohibitionist groups have been pushing against FMBs makes it obvious that it’s about more than just money. That they’ve persuaded the state of California to take this step and play into their hands is quite disturbing, to say the least.

 

Researchers Target Beer As Binge Drink of Choice

By

There’s more nonsense coming from the CDC, the Center for Disease Control (the same government yahoos who refuse to acknowledge mercury’s role in my son Porter’s autism, as well as millions of other children) who is publishing a study in next month’s American Journal of Preventive Medicine suggesting people are more likely to binge on beer than other types of alcoholic drinks. The CDC apparently surveyed 14,000 binge drinkers in 18 states who told them that they like beer best. Of those surveyed, 67% preferred beer, 22% liked spirits and 11% were winos with a taste for the grape or premixed drinks (don’t ask me why they lumped those two types of drinks together) with 74% of “binge drinkers” having beer either exclusively or in combination.

Of course, it all comes down to your definition of binge drinking, which they define as “five or more drinks in a row.” Now let’s just think this through for a moment. Beer has an average alcohol content of maybe 4.5% abv. Wine has around 14% and spirits, while harder to pin down, has as alcohol percentage far above wine or beer. So of those three types of drinks, which one is it most possible for the greatest number of people to drink five or more of in a single sitting? Anyone, anyone? Bueller, Bueller? Even if you don’t compare equal amounts of liquid consumed but just typical servings it’s considerably easier to down a six-pack of beer than six glasses of wine, six shots of whisky or even six mixed drinks. So it shouldn’t take a genius or even a doctorate to predict that the lowest alcoholic drink would be consumed more often by people on a binge. After all, it’s not really much of a binge if you pass out in under an hour. Not to mention beer outsells wine 4 to 1 and spirits by a considerable margin, too, so why wouldn’t you expect that to remain consistent among “binge drinkers,” too?

Why blame the drink? What is the point of this ridiculous exercise? Should beer be treated differently because more people abuse it, but keep wine and spirits untouched, since their drinkers are among the sophisticated upper class? With beer being more popular why wouldn’t it be proportionally involved in instances of abuse. You would expect that to be the case. I can’t help but thinking “yeah … and … so what.” Once alcohol enters your bloodstream your body doesn’t discriminate between what form it originally came in — inside you alcohol is just alcohol — a chemical compound: C2H5OH. It’s merely societal features that determine which drink people choose.

So what possible policy changes might flow from this study? It just doesn’t make any sense. This seems like a case where the statistics don’t really mean anything useful. All the study appears to do is confirm what you’d expect would be the case if you think about it for a few seconds. Good thing our tax dollars were channeled into something anyone with a high school diploma should have been able to figure out. Is the CDC setting up conditions for neo-prohibitionists to promote making beer harder to access than wine and spirits, the way the state of Tennessee recently did? Heaven forbid we suggest ways to reduce “binge drinking” that involves lowering the drinking age in line with the rest of the civilized world or allow parents to educate their children on how to drink responsibly by introducing it in the home. Those kinds of ideas — which should be taken for granted — are rarely, if ever, even discussed by policymakers and politicians.

An article in Forbes, via HealthDay News, stated that the “study also found that beer was the primary choice of binge drinkers who were most likely to cause alcohol-related harm, such as drinking and driving.” Of course, that could just as easily be that someone with five beers in them is in much better shape to drive (not that I’m saying that they should drive) than someone with five glasses of wine or five glasses of vodka. It’s as if they’re targeting beer precisely because it’s not impairing people enough.

The Forbes piece continues:

“This study isn’t looking at alcohol consumed by people drinking responsibly, or moderately; this is alcohol consumed by people drinking five or more drinks in a sitting, so almost all of them are going to be impaired — if not overtly intoxicated,” Naimi said in a prepared statement. “This is exactly the kind of drinking behavior that leads to so many deaths and secondhand problems that inflict real pain and costs on society, not just the drinker.”

What that statement ignores is what it means to “drink responsibly, or moderately.” That idea has changed over the years. People’s attitudes towards drinking — and driving — used to be much more tolerant. Have lives been saved by changes to the law and to its more statutory enforcement? Possibly, but I remain somewhat skeptical of what statistics have been offered and continue to believe that even if that is indeed the case, that the price that our society has paid as a whole is too high. Education and altered attitudes quite possibly could have done the same thing, without the draconian measures MADD undertook creating a world where people are literally afraid to have a good time.

When I was first old enough to drive (and then drink) five beers over a few hours would not have made me impaired by the then standard of 0.10% blood alcohol level (BAC). By my weight, I could consume seven drinks in one hour and still be under that BAC level. Even under our present standard of 0.08% BAC I can theoretically still have six drinks in one hour and be legally able to drive. That means even if I decided to become a “binge drinker” I could legally do so, and possibly even drive. But most binges involve greater periods of time and thus could conceivably involve even more drinks. I would much rather have my five drinks over several hours of conversation, food or games than quaff it down as fast as possible. But that’s what education and being a responsible adult can do for you. I find it highly insulting that if I have five pints of beer over the course of an evening’s enjoyment that I am branded a “binge drinker,” with all the derogatory associations that entails. I hold down two jobs (one paid, the other a labor of love), pay my taxes, am involved in my community and my children’s schools. I vote, I support local businesses and frequent my local library. But for some I’ll always be an unrepentant deviant because on occasion I drink a half dozen pints in one day? Bullshit.

In the modern, post-MADD, world, the bar for drinking responsibly is growing lower and lower and it is quite clear the neo-prohibitionists will not be satisfied until all alcohol is again removed from society. In a recent story (sent in by Seth. Thanks Seth.) from the San Francisco Chronicle, MADD doesn’t even want people drinking on Amtrak trains, even though there’s no driving involved. Is this study more fuel for the neo-probs? If so it’s more than a little unsettling that my government is helping the cause of another prohibition with my tax dollars. After all, it’s my country, too. Love it or drown your sorrows.
 

NOTE: Davis on Draft also has a nice rant on a different version of this story, his was from MSNBC.

 

Tennessee Scopes Out the Future

By

When I turned 21, oh so many years ago, the state I grew up in — Pennsylvania — still didn’t have pictures on their driver’s licenses. As a result, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board had their own method for insuring that no one under the age of 21 could get served. It was called a PLCB card, though we called our “drinking card.” A few weeks before you reached the magic age when you could drink in public, you went to one of those old photo booths where you got four black and white photos for a few ducats, filled out a form and returned it to any State Store (which in Pennsylvania is the only place where you can legally buy wine and spirits off-premise). Then anytime after your birthday, you returned to pick up your laminated drinking card complete with cheesy photo. I still have mine. Naturally, once they started issuing photo driver’s licenses, the PLCB card was discontinued.

Around that same time, MADD railroaded through the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which effectively took the decision about a minimum drinking age away from the states and created a federal standard by tying it to federal highway subsidies. That was 1984 and since then the drive to make it harder for everyone to get their hands on alcohol in the name of protecting children only grows worse. MADD and the neo-prohibitionists seem never to be satisfied.

So around that same time signs started appearing on retail counters by the cash register that said something like “If You Look 25, You Will Be Carded” or words to that effect. I was around 25 at the time and while it was a little annoying and inconvenient, the novelty of being able to prove my status as an adult hadn’t fully worn off yet. Also, I knew that at 25 many people look young enough to actually be underage, so I could at least understand the rationale for it under the heightened scrutiny the MADD-era had ushered in. But then a curious thing happened. A few years later the sign read “If You Look 30” and then a little later “If You Look 35,” loosely keeping pace with my own aging. It became increasing irritating on those few occasions that I left my wallet at home and looked nothing like a 21-year old. It’s oddly Orwellian to me that I have to have my “papers” on me at all times, constantly having to prove my identity or my status as an adult. At law, we’re presumed innocent but at alcohol we’re presumed underage unless we can prove otherwise.

Now that I’m well into my forties, I’m still routinely carded at some places even though my hair is graying, thinning and I have a goatee that is almost entirely gray and white. I’ve had people tell me that I should be flattered to appear so young but that really has nothing to do with it any longer. Even when I did look younger I felt it was a very weak argument. What’s flattering about constantly having to prove I’m not a child? Most establishments card everybody today not because they can’t tell who’s young and who’s not, but because they’re rightly scared of governmental regulators and what might happen to their bottom line should a minor accidentally slip through their net and get some alcohol. I’ve been old enough to drink more than half of my life now and look almost nothing like the gawky, awkward kid I was 27 years ago. The idea that I still have to prove that I am 21 because MADD and the neo-prohibitionists convinced the state that stopping kids from drinking was more important that my being treated like an adult, and they in turn made the penalty for sellers of alcohol so out of proportion that they have no choice but to overdo enforcement, pisses me off more than I can tell you.

  

As an aside, something I never noticed before is that we are the only nation in the world where you have to be 21 to drink legally. In every single other country, the age is below 21, the vast majority of countries set the age quite sensibly at 18. In two countries it’s 20 (Iceland and Japan) and in South Korea it’s 19. In many European countries the minimum drinking age is 16 (including Belgum, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands). Ten sovereign states, including China and Portugal, have no minimum at all. I knew as a society we were ridiculously conservative and puritanical, but I didn’t realize that the moral bullys had saddled us with the highest age in the entire world at which we confer full adulthood on our citizens. I think I just assumed we were among the most backward nations, not the out and out leader of looneyville when it comes to the minimum age for alcohol (setting aside, of course, those countries that don’t allow alcohol for any of their citizens). Sheesh, how embarrassing.

But now the state of Tennessee is poised to make it mandatory that every single person in the state must “show the proper I.D.” (a phrase that fairly begs to be said in a thick, German accent) with no exception. One foot in the grave? Too bad, prove you’re an adult. Grey-haired Grandpa out with his grandbabies in tow? Too bad, you just might be wearing old man makeup. U.S. Senator, a position you can’t hold unless you’re at least 30 years old? Too bad, no exceptions. It’s called the “The Tennessee Responsible Vendor Act” and it goes into effect on July 1. As is typical with these neo-prohibitionist programs, it claims to be designed to combat underage drinking. That is, of course, a completely deceptive lie insofar as it will do nothing of the kind. Making a 90-year old person so obviously over 21 that only a person with an I.Q. below 50 (such as someone with a moderate mental disability or a neo-prohibitionist) will not stop one underage person from obtaining alcohol. What it will do is make it more difficult and annoying for everyone, instead of just the people “lucky” enough to look younger.

In their press release of “Success Stories,” the neo-prohibitionist group Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center celebrates their victory in getting this law passed and characterizes the law as “an innovative and strong step in the fight against underage drinking. The mandatory ID provision of this law is the first of its’ kind in the country and establishes Tennessee as a national leader on the initiative to stop underage drinking.” Yet they fail, as does every single other account of this law, to say exactly how or why requiring “anyone purchasing beer for off-premise consumption to present identification” will in any way reduce underage drinking. I think there’s a good reason no one is discussing why this law will reduce underage drinking. It’s because it doesn’t stand up to any logic or scrutiny, so it’s best to just use meaningless platitudes.

The continual raising of the age at which you have to prove that you’re an adult does absolutely nothing to alter the daily millions of individual exchanges between customer and retailer, apart from the ones involving legal adults who are far removed from the threshold age. Kids will always find a way to get alcohol. It’s their very resourcefulness that insures they’ll be successful adults, too. They can still get a fake I.D., of course, and getting an adult to buy beer for a minor isn’t going to stop. Then there’s stealing from parents, neighbors and the like. Kids in my day always found a way, and today’s generations are no different. Making me show my I.D. does nothing to keep the 19-year old behind me in line from using his fake I.D. It’s like all the increased security at airports. It gives only the illusion of actually doing anything to stop terrorism and makes life difficult for everybody in the process.

That Tennessee will be the first state to enact a law making it mandatory that every person wishing to legally purchase alcohol must definitively prove their status as an adult every single time they want to do so is as dubious a distinction as being the first state to … let’s see, how about sue a teacher for teaching evolution. It’s really difficult to not make comparisons to the Scopes trial, because it points out such backward thinking, in my opinion. I have some good friends from Tennessee, so I know it’s not everybody there.

But everything I’ve written about so far isn’t even the worst part. So strap in as I reveal the next part of this law. I don’t want to be responsible for any injuries when you fall out of your chair. Ready? Here goes. The Tennessee Responsible Vendor Act does NOT apply to wine or spirits, just Beer! Yup, that’s not a typo. Grandpa can buy a fifth of Jack Daniels or a bottle of Old Thunderbird without being carded. But throw a six-pack of barley pop up on the counter and it’s a whole new ballgame. The law covers just off-premises consumption, meaning retailers. Restaurants and bars (known as on-premises) are also exempt, so essentially the law targets just people buying beer to drink at home or otherwise in some private or public setting (like a picnic in a park).

According to the Knoxville News Sentinel, some retailers have already begun carding everybody, such as Roadrunner Markets, and they seem publicly on board.

John Kelly, chief operating officer for Roadrunner Markets, implemented the policy last year. Carding everyone makes it less likely that a clerk mistakenly sell beer to someone who is underage, he said, and regular customers quickly got used to having to show an ID. Most now arrive at the counter with their identification in hand.

“The universal carding law means that all retailers are on the same page,” said Kelly. “There will be consistent training of clerks. Customers can expect to have their ID checked at any store in Tennessee that sells beer.”

Of course, they really have no choice so kowtowing makes the most sense, since they want to remain in the good graces of state agencies that have the power to regulate them. That’s the same reason these laws get passed in the first place. No politician who wants to be reelected would dare oppose new laws that claim their purpose is to curb underage drinking.

The idea that beer is singled out like this is infuriating, to say the least, and shows in stark relief the bias against beer that exists in our society. And as the comment above about “regular customers quickly [getting] used to having to show an ID” shows, most people will just passively comply regardless of their personal feelings, not that they have much choice. How do you make your objections known in any meaningful way?

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to oppose these laws simply because they’re sold using protecting children as the carrot, bait no one can afford not to take. Truth and logic count for nothing against the emotions of keeping kids safe. That’s why neo-prohibitionists use this tactic, because they know it’s effective and is difficult to counter. That it’s dishonest doesn’t seem to matter one wit, a fact I find particularly onerous given that so many neo-prohibitionists are also very religious. I guess the goal of another prohibition has its own morality in which the ends justify the means, the slipperiest slope of all.

The ray of hope is that the law expires after one year so that lawmakers have an opportunity to “review its impact.” Perhaps it will enough of a fiasco that it will not be renewed and likewise will not inspire other states to follow Tennessee’s lead.

 

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.

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.

Not Just Age and Taxes

By

Science Daily asks “When Are Minimum Legal Drinking-age And Beer-tax Policies The Most Effective?” in reporting on a new study about to be published in the May issue of “Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.” The study, “The Joint Impact of Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Beer Taxes on US Youth Traffic Fatalities, 1975-2001,” was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a government agency and branch of the N.I.H. Their mission statement is to “provide leadership in the national effort to reduce alcohol-related problems.”

The study looked at the two most common ways in which government has tried to reduce alcohol-related societal problems: through the minimum drinking age and raising taxes on beer (notice how wine and spirits get yet another pass?). Most significant is the finding that “[w]hen it is illegal for youth to buy and consume beer — as it is now in all 50 US states — higher beer taxes are less effective.” Hear that Oregon legislators (and every other state official trying to extort money from small brewers)?

“Our findings suggest that some of the varying results across past research may simply indicate that a given public policy may not have the same effectiveness in all places and times,” said William R. Ponicki, one of the study’s authors. What that doublespeak means is essentially that for any given policy decision, many other factors determine whether the policy will work as intended or not. It’s not just a simple matter that raising the drinking age will cure underage drinking or that making beer more expensive will either. And that’s just looking at two very broad factors. Imagine all the others at work but not examined, such as peer pressure, alcohol’s perception in our culture, accessibility, and on and on.

What that suggests to me is that MADD and the other neo-prohibitionists were and are misguided in pushing for a higher minimum drinking age, tougher access for legal adults, higher taxes for alcoholic beverages and all the other harebrained ideas on their agenda without having any real notion of how they’ll effect society or even if they have a chance of working. There’s absolutely no reason that legal adults should have to pay more for legal products or have a harder time legally buying them, especially when such measures have not been shown to be effective in reducing any perceived problems. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of being in their petri dish of experimental legislation to mold society to their wishes. It’s my world, too. And yours, as well. We should try to remember that, I think, when fanatics try to remake it for their own benefit and worldview.