Legacy of Prohibition = Dumbass Laws Today

Back in December, I wrote a piece for US News about the long shadow of Prohibition. In it, I noted that today's destructive alcohol culture stems in large part from the repeal of Prohibition: When Americans repealed the 18th Amendment, lawmakers at all levels built a cumbersom legal fence between Americans and alcohol, all but guaranteeing that generations to come would demonize drink.

Great example of what I meant is unfolding now in Iowa (where I live). Iowa guy owns winery. Decides he'd like to use his talents to make beer as well. Sorry, the state says. No can do. Back in 1933, state lawmakers "protected" Iowans from the evils of alcohol by forbidding residents from working in more than one alcohol-related industry at a time.

Those controls are so strict . . . that they have been interpreted to mean that if a husband drives a beer truck for a distributor, his wife can't work in a grocery store or tavern where beer is sold at retail.

In this specific case, the director of Iowa's Alcoholic Beverage Division says that

The fear . . . is that cross ownership would lead to excessive promotion, creating too much public intoxication. The bans were extended to family ties and to employment situations, he said, to make it clear that even indirect ties would not be allowed.

You can read the entire article here. Read it and, ya know, weep......... Got any dumbass laws you'd like to publicize? Send 'em my way.

Steve McCarthy of Clear Creek Distillery In the NYT "Proof" Column

The "Proof" column in the New York Times mostly drives me nuts because it's mostly written by people hell-bent on explaining how horrible alcohol is. True, every once in awhile strays to the Dark Side and features something positive about alcohol. Proof (no pun intended)?

The most recent essay was penned by Steve McCarthy, the guy who founded Clear Creek Distillery in Portland, Oregon.

I LOVE Clear Creek pear brandy. Well, okay, I love everything CC puts out, but especially its pear brandy. Read and enjoy. And if you've got the dough and can find it, track down a bottle of Steve's pear brandy -- take a gorgeous sip . . . and enjoy more!

Really. Fucking. Stupid.

Increasing the beer tax is one of the most logical steps that can be taken in the goal to stabilize addiction recovery services,” said Stephanie Soares Pump, who serves on the Governor’s Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.

Yeah, right. Because, you know, beer drinking = drunkenness. The headline is almost as bad: Beer lovers line up against hefty tax at Salem hearing I dunno. Maybe it's not just "beer lovers" at the hearing? Maybe it's people who favor rational drinking and cultural adulthood..........

Why We Drink, Take Two (or Three?)

A few weeks back, the "Proof" column in the New York Times contained a truly-worth-reading take on alcohol. I commented on it here. I mention it again, because Jacob Grier just posted a short, but cogent, comment about that "Proof" column, also worth reading because Jacob "does" alcohol for a living. He makes a point I tried to make here, although he's considerably more articulate than I was.

Have We Hit the Tipping Point When It Comes To Thinking About Drugs?

I wonder: Will Michael Phelps' cell-phone-documented encounter with a bong prove to be the event that finally -- FINALLY -- pushes Americans into a sensible, rational, adult discussion about drugs, legal and illegal?

Thirty years ago, Phelps would have been crucified (figuratively speaking).

Now? People are arguing that it was no big deal, and getoveritalready, and by the way, let's boycott Kelloggs. (I chose to link to this particular version of the boycott story only because it's completely mainstream. Ain't just a bunch of cranks like me talking about it.)

See, for example, this piece at the decidedly mainstream Big Money blog (and, as always, make sure to read the comments.)

And it's worth mentioning a point that's so obvious it's easy to overlook: When the Phelps story first broke a few weeks back, reporters covering the story assumed that the average reader/viewer/listener knew what a bong was. Thirty years ago? Not only would the average reporter/viewer/listener not known, but even if he/she did, he/she wasn't about to admit it. Prolly because, ya know, statistically speaking, a huge chunk of adult America is the much-hated baby boomer generation, and if you can find a baby boomer who doesn't know what a bong is, well, he/she is either lying or was so boring back-in-the-day that he/she isn't worth the time of day now. If that makes sense.

And another enormous chunk of the American population is the almost-as-large demographic known as the Echo Boom, and I'm pretty sure most of them know what a bong is, too.

Indeed, I think maybe illegal drugs are about to become hip. You wait and see: Any day now, Bill Clinton's gonna say "Oh, sorry, I lied about that. I DID inhale."

State Economies Go Crrrrrash! State Legislators Say Taaaax! [Corrected]

As usual, I'm "attending" to about seventy-five different things at once (write a thousand words today, pick up milk and eggs, think about commissioned piece on beer, acknowledge husband's existence, get some exercise, figure out what to fix for dinner, etc. etc. etc.....)

So: am not doing the greatest job in the world of paying attention to the Big Important Stuff -- but: it's not lost on me that a good number of state legislatures are turning their attention to revenue: how and where to get it. (In you've not heard the news, the state of California is nearly broke and will lay off about 20,000 employees this week. The state of Kansas can't meet its payroll on Friday. And so on....) [Correction: The state of California has told 20,000 employees that they may be terminated; it has not yet laid them off.]

No surprise, all of a sudden those "sin" taxes exude allure and charm. As we all know, cigarettes have taken the brunt of the "we need money so let's tax a sin" in the past few years.

Now it's apparently alcohol's turn. Many states are considering many options when it comes to taxing beer (and other forms of alcohol). But some of the best news coverage of such an attempt is coming out of Oregon.

So, for a good roundup of what's happening Oregon's legislature, see here and here.

And then for an excellent commentary on that activity, see Jeff Alworth at Blue Oregon. (*1)

As always, be sure to read the dozens of comments that Jeff's piece provoked. Jacob Grier, who also lives in Portland, is covering these developments from a different perspective, one that's worth thinking about. Also see his (only slightly) tongue-in-cheek idea for his share of the "stimulus" package.

[Added after the fact: When I originally posted this entry, I neglected to include a link to Patrick Emerson's blog; he, too, is discussing the economics of beer and taxes. He's got many entries on the topic, so here's a link to his blog, and then rummage around for the relevant content.]

To change the subject somewhat: Again, the commentary from Jeff and Jacob [and Patrick] are great examples of the upside to blogging, the internet, and the digitization of modern life. Back in the days of p.i.e. (*2), I wouldn't have known about either of them, and it's unlikely they would have had access to such a broad audience.

_______________

*1: Jeff typically surfaces here at my blog in his capacity at the blogger at Beervana, but in his "other life," he writes about politics at Blue Oregon.

*2: PIE = pre-internet era