Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Brew Years Eve

By

At 12:01 a.m., 74 years ago, beer became legal for the first time in thirteen years. Though it would be eight more months until Prohibition officially ended (on December 5), President Franklin D. Roosevelt kept his first campaign promise by encouraging Congress to modify the Volstead Act and they passed the Cullen-Harrison bill, which FDR signed it into law on March 23. The bill allowed the sale and manufacture of low-alcohol beer (3.2% alcohol by weight/4.0% by volume), along with light wines, too. For brewers, it represented a return to brewing and those that had remained opening making non-alcoholic products quickly retooled. Those that had been shuttered for over a decade had a harder time re-opening, but some did manage it. Ultimately Prohibition did irreparable harm the industry as a whole and less than half of America’s breweries did not survive.

And we’re still waiting for an apology from all the temperance nutcases who thought making alcohol illegal would turn society into a utopia. If anything, it made things much, much worse. Virtually every societal ill temperance nutjobs believed prohibition would fix were only made worse. Instead of a more civil, crime-free world, crime actually increased significantly, not least of which directly is directly attributable to bootlegging and bathtub gin. An entire new enforcement agency was created to deal with all the new criminalized behavior by the Volstead Act, made famous by Elliot Ness and his “Untouchables.” And that was in part because corruption became rampant especially among law enforcement and local officials who took bribes and looked the other way while speakeasies operated with homemade and illegal booze. This corruption in turn made the average citizen’s respect for the law evaporate.

All those people who used to work at breweries, wineries, distilleries along with their salesmen, advertisers, marketers, distributors, delivery men, and on and one were suddenly out of a job, causing much economic harm. It’s no mere coincidence that our worst economic depression took place during this same period of time. In every sense this experiment was ignoble and failed to achieve any of its goals.

Originally, and for many years after, brewers referred to April 7 as “New Beer’s Eve” Although the fortunes of many breweries and the industry as a whole ebbed and flowed, overall the number of breweries continued to plummet until the early 1980s, when the microbrewery revolution began to reverse that trend.

The Brewers Association, a trade organization for small and regional breweries, is reviving the holiday under the name “Brew Years Eve” and encouraging their members to host celebrations all over the country. Their website lists hundreds of events by state

From their press release:

While the full repeal of Prohibition came on December 5, 1933, a modification of the Volstead Act legalized beer with 3.2 percent alcohol by weight (4.0 percent by volume) starting on April 7 of that year. In fact, one of the first public delivery of beer went to the White House to honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt who had won the presidency in part because he favored repeal. From April 7 on, the country’s brewers were back in business and Americans enjoyed legal beer for eight months before wine and spirits were once again legitimate.

Today, brewers bring Americans a lot more than just beer. Since the 1970s, the ranks of brewers have grown to include more than 1400 small, traditional and independent craft beer makers. Each contributes jobs and a variety of local and federal taxes to the economy.

To learn more about the history of Prohibition, here are some interesting links:

Alabama Maintains Image of Backwardness?

By

I saw a blog post the other day that made me chuckle by a young entrepreneurial businessman who believes that the finest beers in the world come from Redhook and Pyramid, not that there’s anything wrong with them. But he begins his post with something to the effect that most people don’t think of San Diego as a place to find good beer. You’d have to have gotten stuck drinking beers from 1987 to not notice that San Diego has one of the most vibrant beer cultures anywhere in world, and a handful of breweries there have literally redefined hoppy beers. But what does that have to do with Alabama? Nothing, really, except that in my mind it would be hard to find a place I perceive as more backward, beer-wise at least, as Alabama. It’s a beautiful state and I’ve been through it twice, though I confess that I didn’t stay long. There homebrewing is still not legal, despite federal legalization in 1978! Brewpubs were only very recently made legal there, albeit still under limited circumstances.

In 1937, four years after Prohibition ended, when Alabama reluctantly passed the Alcoholic Beverages Control Act, beer finally became legal again in the Yellowhammer State. Having convinced business owners that if they allowed workers to drink beer over 5% abv (6% today) or in packages larger than one pint that productivity would suffer. And that means approximately 98 of the top-rated 100 beers on Beer Advocate are still illegal in Alabama because they’re either too strong or in a bottle too large, or in some cases both. That’s assuming you live in county that’s not “dry,” meaning no alcohol can be produced, sold or distributed. Approximately one out of every three is dry, with 26 of Alabama’s 67 counties designated dry. There are also some “wet cities” within the dry counties and draft only areas in the state, along with a maze of Sunday laws, too, according to the state’s ABC website.

An excellent grassroots non-profit organization, “Free the Hops,” has been working tirelessly to bring Alabama kicking and screaming into the 21st century. They created a bill, SB 211 (which passed in the Senate), and in the House, HB 1195, with Representative Thomas Jackson (D-Thomasville) sponsoring the bill.

Unfortunately, according to the Decatur Daily, it was defeated yesterday by failing to get the necessary two-thirds votes. The main reason cited in the article was that old canard, “the children.”

Here’s a sample of the genius thinking of Alabama’s elected officials:

“I can’t see us doing something that’s going to encourage people to drink more and get drunk faster,” said Rep. DuWayne Bridges, D-Valley. Bridges said the measure would increase the problem of teenagers drinking by making more potent brew available to them. “Our children don’t need to increase their alcohol consumption,” Bridges said.

Rep. Richard Laird, D-Roanoke, said young people would still find a way to drink the stronger beer. “The only thing this bill will do is just get our young people dead a whole lot faster,” Laird said.

I find it quite amazing that these so-called representatives of the people are so willing to completely ignore the right and wishes of every adult in the state in order to reduce the possibility that one of these extreme beers might fall into the hands of a minor. If that’s the logic, do all wines and spirits likewise have to be 5% abv or less? They don’t, of course, and it’s the usual hypocrisy where beer is demonized while the higher alcohol drinks do not face the same obstacles.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense and even a little experience with beer will tell you, the complex flavors of big beers do not appeal to younger palates. If they want to get drunker quicker they’ll gravitate toward sweeter wines or mixable liquor, both of which are already legal in the state. All this prohibition accomplishes is restricting Alabama adults from the full enjoyment of a product that’s readily available to most of the rest of the world, in effect punishing their own citizens.

This is not the best way to live. When you go too far in trying to protect children that you infringe on the rights of your adult population you’ve jumped into the deep end of fanaticism. I’m sure the feeling is mutual, but I’m certainly glad I don’t live in a place that’s more concerned about what it’s kids could get their hands on than the rights of its adult population.

But there is a silver lining. According to “Free the Hops” and a comment posted by a friend at the BA, news of the bill’s demise may be premature. Here’s how Free the Hops explains it:

HB195 did not make the floor for a vote today. An odd little corner of our constitution known as the Budget Isolation Resolution (BIR) kept our bill off the floor. More on that later, but in a nutshell, our state constitution mandates that at any point before the legislature has passed a state budget, every bill must first pass a BIR vote before it goes for a “real” vote. And while a bill can pass a “real” vote with a simple majority, it must pass a BIR vote with a 3/5 majority. In other words, you need MORE votes to pass a BIR than you need to pass the floor. Therefore, even though we had a solid majority of votes today, it was not sufficient to pass the BIR, and thus we never made the House floor.

Especially surprising and troubling was that certain Representatives who told their constituents they would support HB195 voted “No” on the BIR today. They voted against us. They lied to their constituents. This is a deep matter I will explore in depth, and tirelessly so. I will not rest until the truth is exposed. The fact that AL Representatives lied to their constituents about how they would vote on a particular bill is a matter far bigger than the Gourmet Beer Bill.

Realize that our House bill was not killed. It can still be put back on the calendar and we can get another shot. If we can convince a handful of today’s “NO” votes to abstain or vote yes, this is worthwhile. We are FAR from finished this year.

There are a LOT of questions floating around. A lot of emotions. A lot of comments. A lot of fact-based thoughts. A lot of everything for those of us who started this day thinking we’d see HB195 pass the House. I simply don’t have time to answer every question and address every comment. There is too much to be done.

But know this: I am more energetic and more committed than I have ever been to seeing the 6% limit raised.

Our House bill was not killed today; it simply did not make the floor for a vote. Our Senate bill is still very alive. Our local bills are still very alive. We just have a lot of work to do, me especially. And the result will be over 6% beer hitting the shelves somewhere in Alabama in 2007. We are FAR from finished this year.

So why did the Decatur Daily report that the bill had been defeated? Good question, perhaps Associated Press Writer “Billy” Bob Johnson or the newspaper is against the bill, who knows? I hate to sound the conspiracy gong so early, but it’s more than a little odd. It’s either that or an example of some pretty shoddy reporting.
 

UPDATE NOTE 4.6: This post has been substantially updated thanks to the comment from Bradley. Thanks for that.

Beer Sampling Coming to Wisconsin

By

Surprisingly, in the great state of Wisconsin — okay, you caught me, I’m a Packers fan — retail stores can sample customers on wine, but not beer. But now Assembly Bill 122 is winding its way through the state legislature. So far it has “passed unanimously out of the Senate Affairs Committee and will be scheduled soon for a full floor vote.” If passed, beer retailers will be able to sample customers on two 3-oz. samples.

Retailers and small breweries will benefit most if the bill becomes law, because it will greatly increase opportunities for consumers to try new products, possibly for the first time. Regular Bulletin readers will not be shocked to learn that not everyone is so thrilled about the proposed law. To wit, from an article in the Green Bay Press Gazette.

But some in law enforcement and alcohol abuse prevention fear it’s bad public policy.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of binge drinkers in the country.

“There are a lot of places in our community for people to get a drink,” said Portage County District Attorney Tom Eagon. “People with alcohol issues can’t stop at one or two. One of the ways they deal with their problem is to avoid situations where they will be tempted. A grocery store should be a safe place.”

“A grocery store should be a safe place?!?” What the hell does that even mean? Safe for whom? People who can responsibly enjoy a 3-oz. sample of beer should be punished because others can’t? Does that make any sense? This is the mentality that passes for law enforcement? Let’s restrict all citizens because some people abuse themselves. What great policy thinking. It would appear Mr. Eagon has never been to a bar, because he suggests that having a sample is the same as any of the other “places in our community for people to get a drink.” I’m not entirely sure he understands what sampling is, but I’m certainly glad he’s not looking out for my best interests.

Then, of course, there’s the inevitable “it’s for the kids” gambit.

Some argue, however, that having beer available at the grocery store sends the wrong message to kids shopping with their parents.

“The environment we create for our young people is critical to their long-term health,” said Lauri Rockman, the coordinator of Portage County’s Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention. “We need positive adult modeling. Making alcohol part of a trip to the grocery store is just another way to make it so pervasive and casual in our culture.”

Yes, by all means we wouldn’t want our kids seeing “positive adult modeling” that involves alcohol. She’s fallen into her own neo-prohibitionist trap that sees all behavior involving alcohol as inherently negative. It’s impossible for her to recognize that an experience with alcohol could be positive. But it’s just as reasonable to argue that Wisconsin may have the highest “rate of binge drinkers” (though I can’t imagine how you could accurately measure such a claim) precisely because kids never see adults engaged in responsible, moderate drinking.

And the most egregious part of these nay-sayer’s arguments is that they all fail to account for the fact that in Wisconsin it’s already legal to sample wine and yet none of these predicted problems have come to pass. Groceries are already not safe from wine and kids already see wine pervasively and casually as part of a trip to the grocery store. Has the sky fallen as a result? Let’s take a look outside the window. Nope, it’s still there.

What this does illustrate quite starkly, however, is the very different perceptions people hold about wine vs. beer. Wine, on average, has almost three times the percentage of alcohol as beer, yet there are no (or at least) less perceived societal problems associated with it. Beer, on the other hand, is continually demonized as the root of all evil. The way to change that perception should be simple, and allowing sampling should be a good step toward such change. But that also assumes that beer is not under constant attack which, with so many neo-prohibitionists at work today, it so often seems to be.

Whenever there’s a potentially positive story about alcohol, such as this one, it is undermined. Allowing sampling increases awareness, education and possibly the availability of non-binge beers (because no one’s going to be sampling Corona). That would increase the market share of craft beer and better imports, beers which generally speaking are less prone to quaffing at huge frat parties. This in turn, could lead to more responsible drinking and a lowering of Wisconsin’s binge-drinking statistical infamy. So that should make this a story to be celebrated, shouldn’t it? Yet of the article’s 472-word count, 281 of them — or just under 60% — are given over to people and groups voicing objections instead of examining the positive aspects. I’m sure the newspaper is just trying to be fair and balanced in their reporting. But if that’s true, why doesn’t every negative beer article give the other side of that story? Because there are plenty of responsible, upstanding citizen beer drinkers. We just never hear about them.

License Plates as Free Speech

By

When you read this is happening in Utah, perhaps you’ll be less surprised about it, but it’s my feeling that these sorts of attempts at censorship should be fought wherever they happen. Because however innocuous they appear, they always seem to lead to more serious attempts at curbing peoples’ rights of self-expression. Nip ’em in the bud, I say. It seems the State of Utah will not allow a man to keep his vanity license plate that reads “MERLOT” because, according to a UPI story, it violates the state’s ban on vanity plates linked with intoxicants. A similar AP story on CBS News makes a similar claim.

But if you visit the Utah DMV website, this is all that they say on the subject:

Guidelines and Standards

What are the rules or guidelines regarding the combination and numbers of characters on a plate, or the content of the message on the plate?

In general, the statute forbids any combination of letters or numbers that “may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that would be misleading.” In general, this law prohibits combinations that:

  • Are vulgar, derogatory, profane or obscene;
  • Make reference to drugs or drug paraphernalia;
  • Make reference to sexual acts, genitalia or bodily functions, or
  • Express contempt, ridicule or superiority of a race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage,
    gender or political affiliation.
  • Express or suggest endangerment to the public welfare.

Now, raise your hand. Who thinks the word merlot is “vulgar, derogatory, profane or obscene?” And it clearly doesn’t fit the third and fourth guidelines, either. So okay, let’s look at the second, that it makes “reference to drugs or drug paraphernalia.” Now I realize that alcohol is technically a drug, but I think it has one unique feature that makes it very different from what I assume the intent of that language was, which is that it’s legal.

Now I know there are some fine beers brewed in Utah, but by and large a healthy percentage of the state’s citizens have chosen to voluntarily abstain for religious reasons. That’s a lifestyle decision. I don’t happen to agree with it personally, but I respect it as a personal decision … except when you try to force that opinion on the rest of us. In this particular instance, the “MERLOT” plate has been on a 1996 merlot-red Mercedes for ten years. The owner was told he must remove it simply because one pinhead “anonymous caller told the state that merlot was also an alcoholic beverage.” It’s hard not to find it a little funny that they had to be told that. But it’s not at all funny that there is at least one person out there who had such a problem with a single word he saw on the back of a car. And not only that, but he felt compelled to do something about it. I can’t even imagine the thought process that led him to rat out a fellow human being for the word merlot. How on earth was this person damaged by the sight of it? How could seeing this one word be offensive? I just don’t get it. Did seeing the word tempt him so much that he was in danger of abandoning his commitment to abstinence? If so, it doesn’t seem too strong a commitment. Was he afraid of his children seeing it? If so, he’s not a very good parent if all it might take to corrupt his kids might be seeing the word “merlot.” Did his religious beliefs blind him to the fact that there are other equally legitimate ways in order to live one’s life? Maybe it’s the progressive in me, but I can’t for the life of me come up with a scenario in which this is in any way reasonable.

Believe it or not, there’s a website where a Salt Lake City man has collected vanity plates he’s seen driving around the Beehive state. Apparently the Utah DMV is also unaware that “CHIVAS” and “WHISKEY” are alcoholic, though they have thoughtfully put up a web page of links to other vanity plate websites.

Perhaps the real joke is that the man who owns the car chose the word “merlot” because that was the color of his automobile, not even because it’s also a varietal wine grape. Apparently, he’s go to fight the state on this one, and I, for one, am glad.

Beer Drinkers More Irreligious

By

The neo-prohibitionist organization Join Together is reporting on a doozy of a research study today from the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs entitled “Measures of Spirituality Increase with Sobriety.”

The gist of it is that people who drink are less religious or spiritual than teetotalers. According to Join Together, the study looked at a whopping grand total of 154 (actually it was only 123) people from an “outpatient treatment program for alcohol dependence and abuse” and then extrapolated that data to the general population. The study examined “10 measures of spirituality,” whatever that means. These included “views of God, religious practices such as prayer or church attendance, forgiveness, spiritual experiences, using religion or spirituality to cope, and existential meaning.”

More speculation from the Join Together summary:

The study found that half of the measures of spirituality changed over the six-month study period, including daily spiritual experiences, the use of religious practices, forgiveness, positive use of religion for coping, and feeling of purpose in life.

“While people’s actual beliefs don’t seem to change during recovery, the extent they have spiritual experiences, and are open to spirituality in their lives, does change,” said lead researcher Elizabeth A.R. Robinson, Ph.D. “This effect was also independent of their participation in Alcoholics Anonymous which has a strong spiritual aspect.”

Use of alcohol also declined, with 72 percent of participants successfully avoiding heavy drinking for the six-month study period. Participants whose spirituality increased were less likely to drink heavily, researchers found.

Where to begin? Join Together titles the study summary “Measures of Spirituality Increase with Sobriety,” clearly implying that the less you drink, the more religious you are. But the study itself is titled “Six-Month Changes in Spirituality, Religiousness, and Heavy Drinking in a Treatment-Seeking Sample,” indicating something quite different. The study itself states that the people studied were already in a treatment facility and/or attending AA meetings (where a spiritual aspect is emphasized). That means more accurately that people pre-disposed to abuse alcohol are the ones more likely to trade one addiction (alcohol or drugs, for example) for a more socially acceptable one, like religion. In my experience, such people use this personality trait to replace their substance abuse for obsessive spirituality. I won’t argue whether or not that’s a good thing, though clearly for many it’s preferable to alcoholism and often better for the families effected by alcoholism (for the record, I grew up with an alcoholic and abusive stepfather).

Then there’s the size of the study, a mere 123 people (despite Join Together mis-quoting the size slightly higher) extrapolated to speak for the entire population. For statistics to be meaningful, of course, the sample size must be sufficiently representative of the demographics of whatever population you’re studying. It must be random and there must be demographic diversity of at least several types, be it ethnic, geographic or what have you. The study’s abstract gives no information about the range of who was studied, where they were located, etc., apart from the following: “66% male; mean age 39; 83% white.” But if they were all from the same place, had the same core beliefs, and on and on then it’s meaningless to try extrapolating it out to say something about the entire country. The study was conducted by the Addiction Research Center, itself a part of the Substance Abuse Section of the University of Michigan’s Department of Psychiatry. So it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to think the study may have been conducted at a few or even one rehab facility near the university, further reducing the truthiness of the study’s conclusions. Even if we accept the findings, as a preliminary study with a small sample, no universal truths or really useful conclusions can be drawn until confirmed by additional similar studies using a different sample in terms of size, make-up, etc. But neo-prohibitionist groups like Join Together have no time to wait for details like reality or truth and thus report any study that appears to support their agenda, and even spin them to their own purposes, presumably hoping no one will notice.

Join Together also suggests that the study proves that the more religious you are, the less likely to drink you are. But that conclusion is utter nonsense based on the fact that the study’s subjects were all already in an “outpatient treatment program for alcohol dependence and abuse,” meaning they were already trying to stop drinking. It wasn’t increasing religiosity that made them stop, it was their own efforts at reducing destructive behavior in their lives. There will likely always be certain people who cannot restrain themselves or partake of something responsibly. Some are benign, such as an obsessive hobbyist, a sports fanatic or a collector. Others may be harmful to ones’ self, such as obsessive over-eating. Still others may also be harmful to the persons around them directly, such as smoking; or indirectly, such as an addiction to drinking or using drugs. You probably know people who fit each category. I used to be a wildly obsessive collector, for example, but my wife has largely kept that personality trait in check so that I now collect far less than I used to. And I feel much better for it, but I don’t personally have any difficulties whatsoever knowing when to stop drinking. I am a very responsible drinker, and not just because it’s part of my profession. It’s simply part of the way I am. You may be different. The guy or gal next to you, different too, in their own unique way.

My point is that each of us have a different response to these things, and to make a blanket statement such as you’ll drink less if you pray more is propaganda at its worst. It may feed an agenda, but it’s in no way truthful or honest. And frankly, if you want to advance a position by using faulty statistics then I believe you lose your credibility and whatever sincerity you brought to your position. I know people use statistics however it best serves them, that’s nothing new. But the way Join Together has taken this already questionable preliminary study (at least in my opinion) and selectively used it to support their neo-prohibitionist agenda is irresponsible.

Setting the study portion aside for a moment, I don’t really understand why the neo-prohibitionists — who are usually closely aligned with fundamentalist christian groups — are so against drinking when the Bible is replete with instances of drinking alcohol. There’s the famous story where Jesus turned the water into wine (though it was probably beer, not wine) at a wedding he was attending. And the most important event in many Christian’s minds is the last supper, which is commemorated by one of the most sacred rituals, communion. Jesus poured wine for all of the guests at the supper, telling them it was symbolic of his blood so they would remember him and his teachings. People all over the world repeat that act today, making alcohol an integral part of what it means to be religious in that faith. So why then is alcohol so demonized?

But back to the study. Another problem I have with it is trying to quantify spiritual experience and assuming it’s always positive. The researchers titles of the ten supposed “measures of spirituality” are revealing. They include a “Daily Spiritual Experiences scale, the Purpose in Life scale, S/R practices scale, Forgiveness scale, and the Positive Religious Coping scale.” I’m sure you could get people to assign an arbitrary number to these vague ideas on a daily basis and track the numbers, but how on earth can you ever be sure one person’s “purpose in life” is the same as another persons? The meaning of life has at best a deeply personal definition, that would probably not be the same for any two people. And religious practices? I can only assume that means going to church or praying, etc. But it could also mean lighting incense or taking peyote, depending on the religion. To assume taking any of those actions by themselves will keep you from engaging in addictive behavior ignores that those rituals are also addictive. Have you ever watched people in church going through the motions of worship? When to kneel, when to chant and when to respond with an “amen” are done without thought, out of habit. Apart from social acceptability, how is that different from reaching for a bottle or a cigarette in a habitual response to some stimuli.

The last sentence of the abstract reads. “The results of this descriptive study support the perspective of many clinicians and recovering individuals that changes in alcoholics’ S/R occur in recovery and that such changes are important to sobriety.” That means that it’s something of a self-fulfilling prophecy since the study is said to confirm what anecdotally was already assumed or believed to be true, that religiosity is linked to sobriety. But at least one other study done by the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions at the University of New Mexico concluded that the opposite was true. That study, “Atheists, agnostics and Alcoholics Anonymous,” looked at 1,526 alcoholics (or more than 12 times the Michigan study) attending AA meetings and found that “God belief appears to be relatively unimportant in deriving AA-related benefit, but atheist and agnostic clients are less likely to initiate and sustain AA attendance relative to spiritual and religious clients.” That means people don’t like to have beliefs forced on them and thus stay away from such organizations. It also seems to indicate that religiousness does not equate to levels of drinking among alcoholics.

I’m not against these studies per se, but their capacity for misuse is increasingly rife in these divisive times. As a result, I think they must be examined very carefully, especially when they so often are said to say one thing but on closer examination either do not or are flawed in some other way so as make the argument made based on their findings meaningless. To accept everything we read without questioning it is to invite manipulation, blind acceptance and coercion.

I’m in the middle of reading a fascinating book right now entitled “What Is Your Dangerous Idea?” It’s edited by John Brockman, who created the Edge, an online think tank of sorts, whose mission is the following. “The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.” Each year, a question is posed to the loose membership and last year’s was the book’s eponymous title. There are over a hundred short (about two pages on average) essays by some of the world’s best minds relating their dangerous idea, which is defined as ones which threaten or challenge the collective wisdom of the age. A historical example might be the Copernican revolution that replaced the earth with the sun as the center of the solar system. I think my own dangerous idea might be that there is no one right way to live or view the world. This is dangerous because so many people seem committed to the idea that everyone must believe as they do, and failing that should be pushed aside at best or, at worst, killed simply for disagreeing. To not notice how polarized the world has become of late it to not have been paying attention. This is true even of so seemingly inconsequential an issue as drinking alcohol, where there are entire societies and religions that forbid it. And it appears that they won’t rest until we either capitulate or die. I think this idea transcends religion, nation identity, race or ethnicity. Choosing how to live should be a matter of personal choice, from the big things like what to believe down to the smaller ones, like whether or not to enjoy a beer.

But Neo-Prohibitionist groups have chosen to dedicate themselves to taking away that choice from people like me and you. Such groups are growing in power and influence and will not rest until they achieve their goal of another Prohibition. They appear willing to say or do almost anything to achieve that goal, as their twisting and use of this flimsy study illustrates. They care only about their agenda, and not one wit about how you want to live your life if it’s in any way different from their own views. And that, in the end, is as scary a future as I can imagine, where all my decisions on morality, what to think, what to believe and how to live are made for me. Let’s not let that happen. I need a drink.

Choosing Responsibility

By

Join Together is a neo-prohibitionist group that is run by the Boston University School of Public Health. I say that, because they are funded primarily by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and in my opinion Johnson was an extremist nut job, especially with regards to alcohol. But Join Together does a great job of collecting news reports about their cause and so I get their newsletter so I, too, can keep track. Most of the missives I get are about new studies, horrific accounts of binge drinking, essentially anything that supports the neo-prohibitionist agenda. But today’s was a little different and may represent something of a shot over the bow to reversing the trend toward another Prohibition.

John M. McCardell, Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont has founded a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility, with the goal of educating the public about binge drinking and furthering the debate for lowering the drinking age in the U.S. from 21 to 18. McCardell, of course, saw his share of drinking on his college campus and brings a unique respectability to the debate which I think will make it harder for anti-drinking groups to dismiss out of hand, which is their usual tactic for anyone who disagrees with them.

From the Join Together news summary:

McCardell said that college officials who think that they have campus drinking under control are “delusional,” adding that most officials are politically restrained from being honest about student drinking. He said his research shows that the age-21 law has had little positive impact on student drinking, adding that trends such as declining DWI rates could just as easily be attributed to other factors. “This is by definition a very emotional issue, but what we need is an informed and dispassionate debate,” McCardell said.

McCardell said the current law makes it hard for parents and schools to teach about responsible drinking. “You either become an arm of the law, which you are not about, or a haven from the law, which poses a fundamental ethical dilemma,” he said.

“I think the 21-year-old drinking age is a disastrous failure,” he said. “Many colleges are worried that if they talk about alcohol with their freshmen, they will be charged with condoning underage drinking.”

“This is not about giving more beer to young people,” said McCardell. “This is about opening our eyes to the social reality around us.”

That’s the chilling effect the decades of proselytizing against drinking by MADD and other neo-prohibitionist organizations has caused. I find it profoundly sad that this is a topic that people are afraid to talk about honestly. What good does it do our society when politicians, school officials charged with the care of our nation’s youth, trade organizations and companies that make alcoholic beverages are effectively muzzled from debating the neo-prohibitionist agenda? Because to these extremists you’re either with them or against them, there is no middle ground. But no topic should be off-limits for discussion, especially when the debate leads directly to public policy decisions. Imagine what would happen if any beer company came out in favor of lowering the drinking age, which clearly would be in their business interests. They’d be excoriated: charged with encouraging underage drinking, picketed and boycotted, and probably accused of clubbing baby seals. What chance at re-election would any politician have who had the temerity to even suggest looking into this issue? I’d put them at slim to none.

And that’s what I really hate about extremism, they take a position that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy. It seems as if we’ve lost the very ability to have reasonable disagreements with others and still respect them, their opinions or even their right to hold them. We live in an almost completely polarized society, and that’s doing none of us any good.

However unpopular McCadell’s organization is bound to make him with neo-prohibitionists, he’s starting to make some waves. The Associated Press profiled the new group in a syndicated article last week. In the AP story, Choose Responsibility suggests the following.

[McCardell] said federal and state laws that raised the drinking age to 21 did little to keep young people between the ages of 18 and 21 from consuming alcohol. Instead, the laws drove drinking underground and — over the last 20 years — have helped fuel a surge in binge drinking, he said.

“We need to, I think, take our heads out of the sand and open our eyes to the reality and say to ourselves ‘Aren’t we better off trying to educate young people about alcohol and trusting them to exercise adult responsibility in the same way that we trust them when they are appointed to juries or sent to Iraq,” he said Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, MADD disagreed, pointing to the same contradictory statistics they always cling to. But like most advocacy groups, they use — and sometimes distort — only those studies that support their agenda and ignore or marginalize those that support the opposition.

Also last week, Inside Higher Ed, a blog focused on post-high school education, profiled Choose Responsibility in a piece entitled “An Honest Conversation About Alcohol.”

Choosing Responsibility has also set up a blog, Rethinking Drinking, in which they will track this issue in the media and across the web. They’re just getting started, but already there’s a lot of good information there. For example, Grace Kronenberg, Assistant to the Director at Choose Responsibility, posted the following, which gives a great foundation to the reasons and background about what they’re doing.

Ever wonder why we have a 21 year-old drinking age?

The primary reasons cited by supporters of the law:
 

  • It saves lives by preventing alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 18-20 year-olds and the rest of the population.
  • Since the developing adolescent brain is affected differently by alcohol than the adult brain, the 21 year-old drinking age protects adolescents and young adults from its potentially negative consequences.
  • It prevents adolescents from gaining access to alcohol. Some research has found that the earlier one starts to drink, the more likely he or she will experience alcohol dependence and related problems later in life.

 

Seem bold? We thought so too! Our research has shown that the arguments above are overstated:
 

  • There is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between the 21 year-old drinking age and the decline in alcohol-related fatalities. While its proponents may claim that the 21 year-old drinking age is solely responsible, we found that many factors–increased seat belt use, development of airbag and anti-lock brake technologies, advent of the “designated driver,” and stigmatization of drunk driving to name just a few–had the effect of making our roads and vehicles safer over the past two and a half decades.
  • The claims of neurological research on alcohol and the adolescent brain have, in many cases, been overstated. Statements like MADD’s “teenagers who drink too much may lose as much as 10 percent of their brainpower” often exaggerate the findings of research findings based on data gathered from rat populations, leading to an oversimplified and alarmist approach to very complicated neurological research. Stay tuned here for more information on alcohol and the brain…
  • The context in which one first consumes alcohol is as, if not more, important as the age of initiation. Age is just a number. Scientific and anthropological data from around the world have shown that the context in which alcohol is first consumed cultural attitudes toward drinking are much more important in determining whether or not an individual will have alcohol-related problems later in life.

 

[used with permission]

And on the course they’ve set for themselves.

Why 18?

Besides the fact that much evidence cited in favor of the 21 year-old drinking age is exaggerated or misinterpreted (see above), there are several arguments against it:
 

  • The 21 year-old drinking age is an abridgment of the age of majority. By 18, Americans are legally adults and are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come with that role but one: the freedom to choose whether or not to consume alcohol.
  • The 21 year-old drinking age marginalizes the role of parents in the process of teaching and encouraging responsible decisions about alcohol use. There is near-consensus cross culturally that parents play an indispensable role in introducing their children to responsible alcohol use. The 21 year-old drinking age effectively eliminates this important parental role, forcing parents to either break the law by serving their under 21 year-old sons and daughters alcohol at home or to risk having their children’s first exposure to alcohol be at an unsupervised college or high-school keg party.
  • Under the 21 year-old drinking age, fewer young people are drinking, but those who choose to are drinking more. This alarming rise in the rates of binge drinking on campuses and in communities around the nation has caused a major, national public health problem. Almost daily, we are bombarded with horrific stories of heavy drinking teens and young adults. Between 1993 and 2001, 18-20 year olds showed a 56% increase in episodes of heavy drinking, the largest increase among American adults. The recent media barrage could not be more clear: the 21 year-old drinking age does not keep young people under 21 from drinking, and drinking dangerously.
  • The 21 year-old drinking age breeds disrespect for law and ethical compromises. The vast majority of people who drink in the United States began drinking before age 21, testament both to the inefficacy of the current law and of the rampant disrespect for its provisions. Because the law is inconsistently enforced and easily circumvented by underage drinkers and those who provide them with alcohol, it has created a climate that makes it all too easy for young adults to obtain and consume alcohol without realizing the legal and ethical consequences of their actions.

 

[used with permission]

Perhaps my deepest disagreement with 21 being the drinking age stems from when I was eighteen and a member of the U.S. military. We were permitted to drink alcohol on the base but the second we stepped off of it, we were treated like children once more, and were unable to even drink a beer. It was infuriating to be able to vote and die for my country but still not be able to legally drink a beer. At eighteen, we were told we were adults but not treated as such and did not realize the full benefits of adulthood for another three years.

By contrast, most other first world countries either permit their citizens to drink at a younger age or leave it to tradition, parents and local custom. Without the great taboo that exists here, most kids abroad seem to have a much healthier approach to drinking and binging is far less of a problem. When alcohol is part of the culture and not stigmatized, there is less abuse. When families learn to drink together, alcohol cannot tear them apart because those rituals are a part of them. Here, we separate drinking from family activities with, predictably, the opposite effect.

If nothing else, America is a nation of laws, which is both a good and bad thing. But we tend to create laws for everything and over time have gone completely overboard in the sheer number of laws under which we’re all expected to live. For every problem, a new law is passed. Does it actually fix the problem? Not usually, in my experience, and just as often makes it worse with some unintended consequences.

There’s an idea in Taoism which speaks to this problem. In his Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu says the following at chapter 57.

Conquer with Inaction

Do not control the people with laws,
Nor violence nor espionage,
But conquer them with inaction.

For:

The more morals and taboos there are,
The more cruelty afflicts people;
The more guns and knives there are,
The more factions divide people;
The more arts and skills there are,
The more change obsoletes people;
The more laws and taxes there are,
The more theft corrupts people.

Yet take no action, and the people nurture each other;
Make no laws, and the people deal fairly with each other;
Own no interest, and the people cooperate with each other;
Express no desire, and the people harmonize with each other.

Said another way, in Brian Bruya’s brilliant translation.

Therefore the Sage says:

“I take no unnecessary action, and the people change of their own accord. I am tranquil and the people are orderly of their own accord. I don’t trouble them, and the people are prosperous of their own accord. I am not greedy, and the people become simple of their own accord.”

Politicians seem to think they play some kind of special role in society, making up all kinds of rules and regulations according to their own ideas and then imposing them on everyone else. If people in power can rule through non-action, tranquility and no-desires, then there might be hope for peace in the world.

What does that mean for the debate on the drinking age? I think that by setting such an arbitrary point at which one day you’re not mature enough to handle alcohol but one day later you are is actually causing more underage drinking than it’s preventing. I drank as a minor. Almost every single person I grew up with drank as a minor, a condition which I suspect continues to this day. What damage did it do in the big picture? Generation after generation, children will continue to try whatever they are told is most forbidden. That’s just human nature. But by criminalizing it, going to such fantastic lengths to keep it from happening and making it impossible for families to choose how to teach their children about responsible drinking in the home we have created a society with a very unhealthy relationship with alcohol. And it shows, especially when you contrast us with other cultures.

Alcohol has played a vital role in humanity’s growth from hunter gatherers to gleaming skyscrapers, and quite possibly may have been the inspiration for civilization itself. But by the misguided efforts of a few who want to remake the world according to their own views, the rest of us have been saddled with the cumbersome, unwieldy system we have today that tries to regulate, restrict and, if possible, obliterate that heritage. At a very minimum, we should be able to talk about it. I’m glad that one more organization, Choose Responsibility, is entering the debate.

Bud TV Under Fire

By

The first time I logged into Bud.tv, I had a heck of a time gaining access and proving that I was over 21 despite the fact that I’m more than twice as old as the age of consent. Presumably, that was because I’ve recently moved and I had to use my old information to get in. Frankly, it felt a little creepy thinking they had all of my personal information. I suspect that most people think that’s a small price to pay for keeping minors out of the website. I don’t agree, of course, and have grown weary of having to prove I’m an adult over and over and over again.

But as difficult as I — and many others it seems — found it was to register for Bud.tv, apparently it’s still not difficult enough for the attorneys general of almost half the states in the country. Here are the states who think it’s too easy for kids to get into Bud TV:

  1. Alaska
  2. Arizona
  3. Connecticut
  4. Delaware
  5. Illinois
  6. Iowa
  7. Kansas
  8. Louisiana
  9. Maine
  10. Maryland
  11. Nevada
  12. New Mexico
  13. New York
  14. North Carolina
  15. Ohio
  16. Oregon
  17. South Carolina
  18. Tennessee
  19. Vermont
  20. West Virginia
  21. Wyoming

Plus two U.S. territories:

  • District of Columbia
  • Puerto Rico

    • .

The twenty-three attorneys general have written to Anheuser-Busch requesting “better tools to make sure underaged viewers aren’t accessing its new Bud.TV site.” Apparently name, zip code and birthdate aren’t invasive enough because a clever kid could know that information about their parents or another adult. It seems they won’t be satisfied until at least people have to enter “their name and full address, or a driver’s license number, exactly as it appears on a government-issued ID.” But that’s still not enough, as they’d also like to have a postcard sent to the person’s address or have someone phone the house to insure the registrant is “legal-aged adult, and not a child below the drinking age.” The states believe that because A-B is creating the content for some reason they “have a higher responsibility to ensure that youth are not exposed to the marketing on [their] site.” Using that logic, why haven’t these states sent similar letters to every network and cable channel that creates original programming? Why not hold every media that creates its own content to the same principle? Or are only businesses that advertise as well as “creating the programming” held to a higher standard?

That seems absolutely preposterous, especially when you consider that all this effort is being proposed not to keep alcohol from falling into a minor’s hands, but merely to keep them from watching TV on the internet. To go to such great lengths to keep kids from watching the same commercials they can see by turning on the television seems ridiculous, but all too typical. Of course, there is more than just commercials on Bud.tv. There are also several inane tv-like episodic shows. From what I’ve seen so far they seem more tame than the average HBO show, and with no apparent nudity or swearing. From the descriptions of the shows, it’s possible some have mature themes but it doesn’t appear any worse than the average evening cable show.

But here’s a kicker:

Maine attorney general G. Steven Rowe, who helped to spearhead the effort along with Louisiana’s Attorney General Charles Foti, said he didn’t have any evidence that underage children are accessing the Web site, but said it’s clear that more could be done to safeguard children.

So all this strutting and puffing doesn’t even have any basis in reality. It’s just a headline-grabbing stunt to “protect the children” from a threat that doesn’t even exist.

Here’s how Media Post Publications’ “Just An Online Minute” (free subscription required) for today questioned their logic:

But, while it’s probably true that people under 21 can access Bud.tv’s content, it’s unclear why this poses such a problem for the authorities. After all, minors have been exposed to the company’s marketing for years.

Consider, in addition to advertising on programs like the Super Bowl — certainly viewed by people under 21 — Anheuser-Busch has served as official sponsor of dozens upon dozens of professional sports teams, ranging from the Chicago Bulls to the Carolina Panthers to the St. Louis Cardinals (who play their home games in Busch stadium).

It’s hard to imagine that watching a clip on Bud.tv will somehow prove more powerful with minors than the company’s myriad ads and other marketing efforts in the offline world.

There’s nothing I find particularly compelling on Bud.tv, and I’m usually no great fan of A-B’s business practices, but this political stunt by these states is yet another contemptible, shameless and public deceit pretending “it’s for the children.” Curiously, only three of the top twenty beer-producing states (as of 2005 statistics) are among the signatories, but twelve of the bottom twenty are. Coincidence? Most likely not, as following the money will rarely steer you wrong. Notice Missouri is absent from the list of complaining states, as is Wisconsin and Colorado, where the number two and three biggest breweries are located.

So no matter how you slice it, I can’t see where the problem is that all these states were so quick to complain about. First, the attorneys general admit there’s no evidence whatsoever that kids are watching Bud.tv. Second, it’s already more difficult to gain access to the website than any other free site I’ve ever visited. Third, once you make it to Bud.tv, there’s no pornographic, violent or overtly adult content that children need to be protected from. At worst, it’s the sort of stuff you’d see on cable television. If anything, these states’ stunt will probably backfire and generate more buzz and traffic to the Bud.tv website than if they’d just kept their pens in their pockets.

So I find myself in unfamiliar territory, siding with A-B when they say the following:

‘Despite these extraordinary efforts, some have urged us to make the age verification process more difficult and even more invasive of people’s privacy,’ said a company spokeswoman, Francine Katz, in a statement.

I felt the current age verification was already pretty “invasive of people’s privacy,” certainly more than I felt was appropriate or necessary. Think about it this way. The internet, in terms of parenting, is really not much different than television. It is and should be up to parents to decide what their children see and at what age or time in their lives. Trying to protect children from perceived harm is no business of the state or federal government. It’s a lazy parent that wants to turn over control of what their child can watch to the powers that be. I think these attorneys general might want to spend more time with their own kids instead of telling me how to raise mine. Perhaps then they’ll see fit to spend their time and resources more wisely, going after true criminals and others who would do the people of their states real harm, instead of some vague potential for children possibly seeing something intended for adults. Seriously, who would you rather see the top lawyer in your state prosecute; the killers, robbers and rapists or the website that your kids might hack into and watch innocuous short films on a tiny two by three inch screen?

More Children and Beer

By

This month on the website “On Milwaukee” it’s Bar Month and this editorial today caught my attention because of all the recent talk regarding children and beer. The piece is by staff writer Molly Snyder Edler and is entitled “Motherfest: Kids and beer bottles.” The whole article is interesting, but I love the conclusion:

The children of vegetarians own Burger Kings, Waldorf school graduates wind up working in the media, and kids who sip their parents’ beer could become contemporary prohibitionists. As parents, all we can do is trust our gut, hope the wheel turns in our favor and remind ourselves that, in the end, it’s our job to keep therapists in business.

Edler’s whole take is refreshing in its honest and fresh approach to what is more often than not an off-limits topic. It should be something that is discussed and debated, but neo-prohibitionist proselytizing and power have made it largely a one-sided affair making people with opposite (and I believe more rational and reasonable) opinions increasingly reluctant to stand up to the growing neo-prohibitionist agenda. Unfortunately, that’s always been a recipe for disaster when good people remain quiet while a vocal minority won’t shut up about their cause, however misguided or unpopular.

The OLCC vs. Humanity

By

Several people tipped me to this. According to the Oregon Brewers Festival website, after 19 years of it being a family event of sorts, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) will no longer allow minors at all at the Oregon Brewers Festival. Minors were allowed in previous years, though last year they were required to wear these ridiculous orange stickers. Not surprisingly, this has sparked a lot of discussion among the Oregon Brew Crew and on Beer Advocate’s forums. What did surprise me was that there were people out there who have so internalized the puritan propaganda of alcohol and children not mixing that they believe this is a good idea. That separating society into two parts, one that’s kid friendly and one that’s adults-only, is somehow a desirable way to orient the world.

Some of the most alarming are:

  • “I’m sorry, but no one under 21 has any business being at an event with “brew festival” in the name.”
  • “If I could afford micros over swill, I could afford a babysitter so that I could enjoy a brewfest without stress of watching my kids. There just has to be a better place to take the kids than something like a brewfest.”
  • “Why would anyone want to have their kids in a place where people are drinking anyway? You never know what might happen and what you might expose your kids to. It’s also a pain in the ass having strollers all over the place or having to mind yourself or edit yourself because a kid is around. Drinking experiences are meant for adults. It’s no ones fault but your own if you choose to breed. Don’t punish the rest of us because you have to have everything cater [sic] to you because your [sic] a parent now.”

Wow, I find these comments pretty frightening and unenlightened. But let’s look at the sentiments themselves.

According to the first person, no family should ever attend a beer festival. It’s simply not possible. I apparently have no business being there with my wife and our two young children. I have to make a choice, it’s either beer or my family. I guess I can’t have both. Heaven forbid we spend a day in the sun by the river with a picnic lunch and enjoy some good beer, too. How dare I wish to share such an experience with my loved ones and show them how beer is an integral part of society, not something separate to be feared, avoided or worst of all, binged on after the arbitrary prohibition of age is removed. The nerve of me for wanting to show my children what responsible drinking looks like so they can model such positive behavior when they get older.

The second comment is even more of a head-scratcher. This person appears to assume that the only reason someone might take their family to a beer festival is they were too poor to afford a babysitter. Is is possible he can’t conceive of someone actually wanting to spend time with their children? If he finds parenting too stressful to involve his kids at a fest, by all means he definitely shouldn’t, but I don’t understand why he feels the need to restrict the rest of us who actually like having our family members around us. Are there better places to take the kids? Personally, anyplace my family can all be together is a great place. Sometimes we do things I want to do, sometimes the kids get to decide. That’s what families do, they take turns and share experiences so everyone’s life is a little richer and more varied. Just because I’m a parent now doesn’t mean I have to spend all my weekends at Chuck-E-Cheese.

But it’s the last one that really deserves attention, because it’s so unbelievably laced with ignorance and selfishness disguised as advocating freedom for adults. So, one by one, then.

Why would anyone want to have their kids in a place where people are drinking anyway? You never know what might happen and what you might expose your kids to.

Why would I not want my family to be where I am? Why would I care if adult things are taking place in the presence of my children? I make my living from alcoholic beverages, should I be ashamed of that and shield my kids from knowing what they are? What could I possibly “expose” my kids to that they can’t see on television. And frankly, what better place for them to be “exposed” to things than at a place where their parents are there to explain, interpret and teach them about life. I don’t understand the mentality that believes children must be locked away and protected from everything the world might throw at them. That’s how you raise a child who can’t deal with anything different, or adapt to new challenges and situations or is just plain afraid all the time.

It’s also a pain in the ass having strollers all over the place or having to mind yourself or edit yourself because a kid is around.

Ahh, poor baby. Now I’m really feeling bad for this person. She has to be inconvenienced by not having wide open spaces to walk around. There might be things in her way, restricting her free movement. She might have to take a couple of steps to one side and walk around a stroller. Wow, what a hard life she has that she’s actually concerned about how that effects her and makes her life so difficult. And why does she feel she has to act or speak differently if children are around? Does she normally swear like a drunken sailor when there are no children about? And now I’ve burdened her by bringing my kid within earshot of her so that she feels like she has to think of another way to talk, and I can just imagine how difficult that must be. Assuming for a moment that I care if she swears around my kids — I don’t — is it such a burden to her delicate sensibility that she has to express herself more genteelly?

Drinking experiences are meant for adults. It’s no ones fault but your own if you choose to breed. Don’t punish the rest of us because you have to have everything cater [sic] to you because your [sic] a parent now.

Wow, it’s my own “fault” I chose to start a family. I hope she’s not still blaming her parents for making a similar decision. Apparently I’m punishing her because I decided to further the human race. I suppose we should all be pleased that this particular person chose not to breed. In a later comment, she actually claims to still “love” the little tykes, just not if they’re in her way or are a buzzkill to her having a good time. Without getting too melodramatic, what does she think would happen to the future of the human race if everyone decided to just get drunk and not have children, which is apparently her ideal society. Because ostensibly wanting a world where both children and adults can co-mingle is a selfish desire.

Where exactly did she get the idea that “drinking experiences are meant (exclusively) for adults?” Travel to almost any nation on the earth and you’ll find in a majority of them that alcohol and entire families coexist quite seamlessly, and with far fewer problems with binge drinking than we experience. But that’s the price our society has to pay. Keep children from seeing responsible drinking and make it the huge forbidden taboo that it is, and you see what happens. Not only does it create adults who can’t see the value in teaching their children how to be adults and engage in so-called adult activities responsibly but you also create people so selfish that to suggest that they might have to curb their behavior in public is akin to them being punished. What a tough life this woman has that she can’t stand to be dictated how to behave because there are children present. Does it mean that she walks through life avoiding children so that she can be herself and not mind what she says or what language she uses? Are there no adults that might not appreciate her endless cacophony of profanity she feels free to use in kid free zones? She must be a joy to be around.

Happily, not everyone is like this woman. Many people do see the OLCC’s draconian laws for what they are. For example.

Though I have but one wee one, I have LOVED the fact that my family — all 3 of us — can partake in my passion the last weekend of July. We always have gone just as the festival opens on Saturday — when the lines are non existent and the college “let’s get smashed” crowd is still comatose from the night before. While there will always be irresponsible morons where ever you go, for the most part it’s a wonderful family experience.

And.

I just don’t buy your argument that if we can afford micros, we can afford a baby sitter. Drinking the good stuff is a passion and a luxury and it’s BECAUSE it’s a family event that I can afford the indulgence.

We hear it over and over and over again, but I can’t stress enough my belief that responsible drinking starts at home and there is NOTHING wrong with including families in events where alcohol is present. Though there may be drunken boobery as far as your eyes can see, the real young ones will only pay attention to what YOU are doing. And if what they see is an adult drinking beer responsibly, then THAT is what they will learn.

I love Oregon and the fact that, for the most part, Portland is a pretty enlightened society, but rulings like this are an embarrassment and a reminder that, great as it is, our lovely city really isn’t THAT much different from the rest of the country.

One aspect this debate also overlooked is that the OLCC does allow minors to be present at wine events. For example, as one brew crew member relates.

The OLCC discriminates against beer drinkers as they allow kids to wine events. There will be 65 wineries at the Oregon Seafood & Wine fest next weekend and kids are welcome. Please don’t hesitate to let them and your governor know how you feel being unfairly treated as a beer slob, instead of as a wine snob!

So it’s not really enforcing Oregon’s minor posting law as the OLCC claims, or else children would not be permitted at any event that is predominately a drinking event as the law states. It’s again about unfairly treating beer as a negative in society while allowing wine to be perceived as a positive. How else to explain it?

Or as legendary beer writer Fred Eckhardt put it:

This is the same jerk who ruled that the Great American Distillery Festival could only allow THREE (that’s right THREE) quarter ounce tastings of the distilled liquors there. THREE. This at a festival where one could then BUY as many full strength mixed drinks as he/she wished for, while appearing sober, but sane sampling? Forget it. These guys have far too much power. IT’S A CLASS ACT IN STUPIDITY. THE OLCC IS regulating these things in a PUNITIVE MANNER. That’s not rational. If this A**hole would check he’d find that no self respecting child on the planet would drink anything as hoppy and dark and roasty as ANY craft beer. Kids don’t like this kind of beer. Like dry wine, it’s an acquired taste and it doesn’t really come until one is almost old enough to graduate from College.

The fact is that very few of the bigger beer festivals, in this country at least, do allow minors so there really aren’t that many opportunities to annoy non-breeders by traveling with our children. So it’s especially troubling to see one of the few that still was relatively kid-friendly change to adults-only. Frankly, I think this sends the wrong message about beer. It should not be restricted and separated from society because it is a part of society. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and does society a great disservice.

If you’ve been to the OBF, as I suspect many who’ve commented have not, you’d know it’s held in a very large space with big circus-sized tents and large open grassy areas overlooking the Willamette River. There’s plenty of room for both adults and families with children. There is plenty of food available and other activities, as well. It could easily be turned into much more of a family event if not for neo-prohibitionist agendas. The irony that this debate is raging around Portland should not be lost on anyone. There are more breweries within Portland’s city limits than anywhere else in America, meaning a good portion of the town’s economic health can be attributed directly to beer. Usually following the money would lead you to a government that actually cares about an industry contributing to its fiscal stability. But the wild card here is prejudice. Prejudice against vice, against the perception that beer is a social evil. And the number one tactic of neo-prohibitionist groups, as well as many other similarly misguided causes, is that old canard of protecting the children. As I’ve said many times here before, don’t you believe it. Family values is a euphemism for imposing a rigid set of values on everyone else. Because the truth is every family has its own set of values. And mine include enjoying a sunny day at a beer festival along with my wife and kids. Will my being there ruin the experience for someone else? If it’s that woman I’m punishing with my wanton procreation, I certainly hope so.

Fanning the Flames of Phony Fears

By

The mainstream media, well El Paso, Texas anyway, is once again fanning the flames of fear with distorted statistics. They’re using the same misguided survey by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) which others have already shown to be faulty at best and purposely distorted at worst, including Free the Grapes and myself, not once, but twice.

I’m sure this isn’t the only community newspaper trying to fan the flames of another prohibition, but they’ve used some clever tactics in their piece, whether inadvertently or not, that bear examining.

First let’s look at the title that Diana Washington Valdez of the El Paso Times uses for her story: “Youths use Web to buy beer, liquor.” Notice how wine is absent from the title? She does mention wine at the end of the first paragraph, but for the many people who only skim the headlines it reinforces the carefully managed stereotype of wine as angelic and beer and spirits as demonic. I don’t necessarily think this sort of thing is done consciously, but it shows how ingrained those perceptions really are. If you want to catch peoples’ attentions with a headline, pick on liquor and beer, wine won’t generate the same level of fear.

The article trotted out these recent gems:

Millions of underage youths are buying alcoholic beverages over the Internet or know someone who does, according to a survey commissioned by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America in Washington, D.C.

The association also found that 20 states are easing up on the sales of alcohol from Web sites — without adopting corresponding measures to prevent youths from using such sites.

“This is a dangerous situation,” said Stan Hastings, association chairman. “For the first time, we have hard evidence that millions of kids are buying alcohol online and that the Internet is fast becoming a high-tech, low-risk way for kids to get beer, wine and liquor delivered to their home with no ID check.”

The survey is unique because news about the alarming trend comes from an organization that represents the alcohol industry.

This “millions of underage youths” is simply poppycock. The figure is just plain wrong. See my earlier post to take a closer look at how they arrived at this figure, but suffice it to say it’s not using anything resembling a scientific method.

What I find more interesting is that last sentence that while acknowledging that the study was done by an organization which, in their words, “represents the alcohol industry,” the author accepts that at face value. Not only doesn’t she question whether there’s any ulterior motive, but she even suggests that because the WSWA dd the survey that the results are more “alarming.” This is a person, mind you — I think they call them re-port-ers — whose job it is to find out and report the truth. Apparently never once did it occur to ask “why” the WSWA might have even sponsored such a survey. Now why is one of the five Ws in journalism, so I don’t think I’m off base here to expect her to ask that question.

Of course, if she had looked into the WSWA’s agenda, she would have discovered she had no story. Because the WSWA has just as much interest in scaring parents as the El Paso Times does. They don’t want internet sales of alcohol for one very simple reason: it will cut into their monopoly on alcohol sales. The WSWA represents the interests of wholesalers whose business depends on their maintaining exclusive territories to sell their wine and spirits. If someone else can sell alcohol in the same place they do, it will mean they’ll have to compete on price and they’ll no longer have a monopoly. So is it very surprising that a study they commissioned would find that sales they’re not making money on constitutes a problem? And, of course, the surest way to find support for yourself is to align yourself with protecting children. It’s always about the kids, never about the money.

Then the article turns to local concerns:

Another research finding is that little enforcement exists in this area, something that ought to concern parents.

Lt. Mark Decatur, an enforcement official in El Paso for the Texas Alcoholic and Beverage Commission, said the TABC conducted an operation two years ago aimed at identifying Web sites that made it easy for teenagers to buy alcohol.

“We found that a lot of people sold to kids over the Net,” he said. “The investigation used the children of TABC employees (as decoys) that used their parents’ credit card to place orders. Since then, we have taken steps in Texas to make changes in the law to address this.”

Of course, placing orders is not the same as the kids actually receiving any alcohol. They claim to have taken “steps” to address this problem, but unless I’m missing something, it’s been illegal to sell alcohol to underage kids for quite some time now, and delivering alcohol to any destination requires an adult signature. So if busy delivery persons don’t get the required signature, how is that the fault of the internet? And why should it inspire any fear whatsoever? It’s certainly not causing many arrests. As Texas liquor control spokesperson, Carolyn Beck, notes, “the commission does not have any enforcement actions on record for the past two years related to online alcohol sales to minors.” That’s because there are bigger problems, such as “[o]ne in five retailers are willing to sell to minors when they are looking right at them.” That’s obviously not something the WSWA cares much about, since they still reap the rewards of those underage sales.

The author concludes that “[f]or determined youths, none of these checks are impossible to get around.” Which begs the question if trying to stop internet alcohol sales doesn’t work, then why try to restrict such sales entirely since that keeps adults from obtaining goods which are legal for them. If what she says is true — and I suspect it is — what is the point of her article?

I grew up well before the internet age, and I had little trouble getting beer as a teenager. I’m not an alcoholic today. I work; I pay my taxes. By all accounts, I’m a responsible member of society. So what harm did underage drinking cause me? I rebelled a little bit, tried something forbidden at a time when I was struggling to find my identity. I was fumbling toward becoming an adult even before I really knew what that meant. So what? Let’s not forget our esteemed president went so far as to drive drunk and still grew up to be president. So perhaps this isn’t the big problem so many imagine it to be?

Perhaps when my kids hit their teens, they will likewise rebel a little bit. I hope not, and I’ll do my best to keep them safe, but there is a certain inevitability to it happening in one form or another. In the end there are a lot more things keeping me up at night besides whether they can buy beer over the internet. That so many people seem to care so deeply about this relatively insignificant problem, especially while there are so many other more pressing problems in the world today, says more about us than I care to think about.