Yesterday the California Board of Equalization made a troubling ruling that has the potential to threaten the production of all barrel-aged beer in the state. The changes were urged by neo-prohibitionists in their misguided attempt to have Alcopops taxed at the higher distilled spirits rate instead of as beer (or more technically malt-based beverages). But the language, perhaps unintentionally, makes it possible to be applied to any beer that’s been aged in a used wooden barrel. Here’s the relevant language from the ruling:

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 will be classified as a distilled spirit for tax purposes.

Brewers will be “required” to “prove” their beer doesn’t meet that criteria, meaning they’ll have to submit a form for every current and new beer they produce, a ridiculous requirement at best. Effectively they’ll have to “prove” each beer they make is really a beer, and not something else. Guilty until they prove themselves innocent. And who better to monitor that than a tax organization, with little or no brewing knowledge? Since distilled spirits are taxed at a much higher rate, they’ll have no incentive whatsoever to act fairly. To me, this has disaster written all over it. In California, we’re facing a huge budget deficit and beer makes a convenient bogeyman to help pay for other people’s mistakes.

Also, under the ruling the Board of Equalization will give itself the authority to define and implement regulations applying to alcohol, a power previously reserved for the legislature (and enforced by the ABC). That, too, I find disturbing. Tax authorities regulating alcohol do not exactly have a good track record.

But let’s get back to calling a beer a distilled spirit just because it touched wood that used to have one in it. I can’t even fathom why, apart from economic greed, that makes any kind of sense. It’s just wrong on so many levels.

I may spend time abroad in a foreign land and be forever changed for the experience. Perhaps if I go for any length of time to … let’s say Canada, I might start paying closer attention to hockey, or even curling. Maybe I’ll start calling a case of beer a “two-four,” spelling colour with a “u,” hanging prints by one of the Gang of Seven in my home, or quoting Louis Riel, eh? But I’ll still be an American. The same is true for beer. A stout may spend years in a bourbon barrel, taking on rich vanilla character and other flavors from its time in the wood. But it will still be a 5% abv stout. To suggest it will turn into Maker’s Mark, even just for “tax purposes,” is an insult to common sense.

Aging beer in wooden barrels has, of course, become quite common and I’d say many, if not most, California craft brewers are making a beer of this type at least from time to time. And there are several that have made names for themselves with their barrel aged beers, such as Russian River and the Lost Abbey, to name two prominent ones. Their entire business will be under threat if the ABC decides to apply this ruling to these beers. The higher taxes will make them too expensive to produce.

The EU did something similar a year or so ago, when they tried to implement a requirement that all breweries meet a standard of cleanliness, inadvertently threatening all lambic breweries, whose wild yeast microcosms would have been destroyed under the proposed regulations. I’m pretty sure an exception was worked out, but the general public has a bit better appreciation for beer in Europe than on our shores.

Paranoid? Maybe, but I love these beers far too much to leave it to chance. Something needs to be done, but at this early stage I don’t even know what or who this can be appealed to. I’ll keep you posted. But I’m sure your local state representative will be involved. Find out who yours is now, and be ready to send him a letter or e-mail. Hopefully, I’ll have details soon on what we all can do.

According to a breaking news press release I received from the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reached a verdict in the lower court’s earlier decision in Costco v. Hoen (Washington State Liquor Control Board), reversing a majority of it, which, according to the NBWA, “thereby affirm[s] the right of the states to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment – a system that works to protect the citizens of each state. While NBWA is still reviewing the totality of the Court’s opinion, it appears that state regulation has been validated.”

Disappointingly, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s report on this begins with the following loaded sentence. “A federal appeals court Tuesday dealt Costco Wholesale Corp. a setback on whether the giant warehouse club operator could lower prices of beer and wine for its customers.” I realize that was in the business section, but so much for impartiality. Swallowing Costco’s propaganda entirely, to say they sued the state so they could lower prices to consumers is at best not telling the whole story and at worst and out and out fabrication.

Of the nine laws and regulations Costco claimed restricted competitive practices, U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman agreed and ruled over a year ago in their favor. Today’s appeals ruling reversed eight of those, with the exception of the post-and-hold requirement. It appears likely that it may now be appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the PI, “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the state Liquor Control Board could prohibit discounts, ban central warehousing of beer and wine by retailers, require wholesale distributors to charge uniform prices to all retailers and require a 10 percent markup. The state had said if Costco won it could put into question the systems other states use to control alcohol consumption and safeguard the collection of taxes. At least 30 other states or jurisdictions had filed briefs in support of Washington.”

Reuters, on the other hand, more even-handedly stated that Costco “lost a bid on Tuesday to overturn Washington state liquor rules that control pricing and discounts.”

The Seattle Times and the Wall Street Journal have also now weighed in with stories of their own.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Costco’s 2006 triumph attracted a lot of attention because it suggested that major changes might be in store for the nation’s complex system of regulating alcohol sales. Changes in Washington state could have a ripple effect, because most states have similar laws.

Costco is challenging a regulatory architecture that dates to the repeal of Prohibition and was designed partly to discourage overconsumption of alcohol. Makers of alcoholic beverages sell to a distributor, which marks up the price and trucks it to a bar, restaurant or store, which then sells it to a consumer.

Costco is deciding whether to appeal the ruling. “We are pleased that the central part of the anticompetitive restraints provisions was struck down,” said David Burman, a Seattle-based lawyer handling the case for Costco, referring to the “post and hold” provisions. “It will be good for Costco members and other consumers.”

Seventeen other states have post-and-hold laws, Mr. Burman said. He added that he thinks Washington lawmakers “will likely” consider overturning other provisions.

Washington alcohol regulators may appeal the part of the ruling favoring Costco. “The state got a pretty good deal. It has to decide whether it can live with a regulatory scheme that sort of has one component plucked out and thrown away,” said Richard Blau, a lawyer who specializes in alcohol law with GrayRobinson, a Florida law firm. Regulators could leave it up to state lawmakers to address that aspect of the court’s decision.

The other reason that this so-called “regulatory architecture” was partly created, in addition to discouraging overconsumption, is to level the playing field among different sizes of businesses so that advantages were not given to larger businesses by virtue of their superior bargaining position and resources to make larger buys. That was the real reason Costco went after these laws, not because they were concerned that their customers might be paying too much for the beer and wine they sold. You’d have to be pretty blind to reality to swallow that one as their motivation, yet in mainstream media story after story that continues to be the reason stated.

There was an interesting item in yesterday’s USA Today called Frustration Over Liquor Laws Brewing. The story details just a few of the battles around the country to update their state’s antiquated alcohol laws, which in many cases haven’t been updated since Prohibition’s repeal in 1933. I’m sure the neo-prohibitionists will be fighting these tooth and nail, employing their usual bag of dirty tricks, but perhaps it’s finally time to stop playing defense and pick up the ball. In Mississippi, for example, it’s still illegal to sell beer in excess of 6% abv. The argument against raising it, predictably, is, according to William Perkins of the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board, that an “intellectual argument ignores the ill effects of alcohol.” Well, I’d sure hate for logic or intelligence to interfere with his world view, but you can buy wine and liquor in Mississippi already and, unless it’s some weird watered-down varieties, those are all well above 6% so please tell me how that makes any sense whatsoever? Not to mention there are plenty of positive health claims that can be made not only about beer, but the moderate use of alcohol in general. If Perkins’ thinking shows nothing else, it’s illustrative that logic plays no role at all in the anti-alcohol league’s canon. By any means necessary seems to be the only rule. So perhaps it’s time to mount an offensive. After all, a good defensive very well may be a strong offense.

The only explanation I can come up with for this is that Baptists must live in some kind of parallel universe. According to today’s Baptist Press, Baptists in Texas, and presumably everywhere else, are mobilizing their forces to protest a grave new threat to their youth. What horror could possibly be the cause of this dire situation that threatens not only their very way of life, but the very lives of their children? Apparently the theme park in Arlington, near Dallas/Fort Worth, Six Flags Over Texas, has applied for — gasp — a liquor license in order to sell beer at certain locations in the park.

Now I don’t want to make light of someone else’s cherished beliefs, but listen to what the Baptist Press is reporting:

“Do we really want to send our youth groups — our church youth groups — to places where alcohol is served?” local Christian leader Linda Rosebury asked in an interview with KCBI-FM, the radio station of Criswell College in Dallas.

Do you mean the world? Because the last time I checked alcohol could pretty much be found anywhere you look. Have they heretofore been living in some Utopian fantasyland where there is no alcohol, like Iran? Can they really be saying anywhere that alcohol might be found is a dangerous place? Yes, apparently.

The sale of beer, Rosebury said, threatens the park’s image as a safe place for families.

So the real world, where beer is sold each and every day, is unsafe? If so, why are those families still there? Do people really walk around, see some heathen drinking a beer, and decide that it’s no longer a safe place? I’m pretty sure that you could live right next door to someone who drinks and still feel perfectly safe. In fact, my own next-door neighbor no longer drinks, and I believe he doesn’t feel that I’m a threat by virtue of my proximity to him in any way, shape or form.

You can even get a beer at Disneyland, and if they can pull it off and maintain their annoyingly hypocritical squeaky clean image, why not Six Flags? Perhaps Disneyland is not part of the Baptist parallel world?

I realize I’m probably being insensitive, but I can’t help myself. I find this sort of nonsense so patently ridiculous that I can’t really take it seriously. If you don’t want your child to even “see” a beer, don’t let him go to Six Flags, make him a shut-in. Shield him from every imagined horror you perceive out there in the world. I’m sure he’ll turn into a terrific young man or woman, with no problems whatsoever. I would personally never abuse my own kids in that way, but I’m not about to tell you how to raise your children.

As of January 8, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) has gotten 600 phonecalls and twelve letters of protest regarding Six Flags ability to sell beer to adults. On February 17, state officials will decide whether or not to hold a public hearing on their application and the Baptist Church is trying to get enough of its members to complain so that they’ll have the hearing.

Some of the current complainers are urging the TABC to “conduct an alcohol impact study to determine the threat to public safety.” Isn’t beer sold enough other places in the universe, including many other theme parks, that we can figure out with reasonable certainty what the impact would be? It would be zero, of course.

The people from Six Flags, naturally, have “pledged that such sales would be handled responsibly and would safeguard guest safety,” just like every other public place that serves such legal beverages as beer. In their own defense, Six Flags also offered the following.

Noting the park’s pledge to offer quality guest services, John Bement, Six Flags in-park services senior vice president, told the Southern Baptist TEXAN, “For quite some time, many of our guests have requested beer as an option while dining or visiting the park. In fact, several of the parks in the Six Flags system already provide such amenities and have done so successfully and responsibly for many years.”

How utterly reasonable. I’m sure that will mollify the faithful. Hardly, an attorney from the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention spells out exactly how to lodge a protest, and even offers some helpful legal arguments that one can use in their complaint.

Heaven forbid anyone with a different view of the world might want to go to Six Flags. Apparently this is their world, the rest of us just drink in it.

There was an interesting little piece in Canada’s McGill Daily today, about their alcohol laws. I knew about them to some degree and was at least aware that beer from one province couldn’t necessarily be sold in another without a high tariff. Essentially it’s the same as if you couldn’t sell beer from Oregon in California without a ridiculously high tax that made, for example, Deschutes Black Butte Porter as expensive as Westmalle or Chimay. Naturally, it was done this way to protect local and regional businesses from outside competition but it seems weird that Canada would feel that way about their own provinces. But perhaps we just take the interstate commerce laws we have here for granted. Are the majority of other countries set up with porous state borders or are they protectionist? I’ve never really looked at that, does anybody know? I’ll be interested to hear what my Canadian friends think about this. Stephen? Alan? Greg? Anyone else?

I’m trying to catch up a little with interesting items sent in by Bulletin readers. Last week my cable modem went down and it took a few days for the cable company to come out and replace it, so I missed a few days. It continues to amaze me how dependent I am on internet access, far more than the telephone or cable television or even my car. Despite the fact that I was born when Eisenhower was President, it’s hard to remember what it was like before the internet was such a ubiquitous feature of our modern world. I feel naked without my laptop. Anyway, this comes from Doug in Hawaii (thanks Doug) and is the Wall Street Journal article about Larry Bell’s brewery and his distributor fight in Illinois. I saw the original Journal article when it came out, but I don’t have online access to the WSJ. Happily, it was reprinted on the free site Small Biz.

Beyond Bell’s specific travails, the larger issue of franchise laws is discussed. Franchise laws are one of those things that people in the industry are familiar with but which get very little public attention. They should, because by and large franchise laws are not good for small breweries. There, of course, exceptions — good distributors who care and do a god job with smaller breweries. But in my experience I’ve heard far more horror stories about distributor mistreatment of craft brewers than the other way around.

Distributors love franchise laws, of course, because for them, in many cases, they are a legal stranglehold and something of a disincentive for distributors to actually do a good job promoting a particular brand. In some states, Nevada for example, once a brewer signs up with a distributor, no matter how bad a job they do by law they cannot switch distributors without the distributor’s consent (something which is almost never given). My understanding is that franchise laws were originally enacted to protect distributor’s from spending years building a brand in a particular market only to have the brand go to a competitor. But in most states, distributors — which despite their rhetoric are large businesses — have deep pockets to lobby politicians and get favorable legislation to protect their business at the expense of smaller, weaker microbreweries. As the Wall Street Journal touches on, that balance of power is just beginning to shift slightly, but entrenched power tends to hang on far longer than anybody ever expects, so I’m not persuaded things will change for the better anytime soon.

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.

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.

A friend and colleague sent me this story from his local area around Washington, D.C. (thanks Gregg). Rustico Restaurant & Bar, a great beer restaurant in Alexandria, Virginia, began serving “beer-sicles” last week. They make frozen beer pops shaped like the Popsicles you remember for $4 or a larger cone size for $6. They’re made from 99% beer using all-natural ingredients, executive chef Frank Morales claims, and he created the new pops with the help of the restaurant’s Beer Director, Greg Engert. Don’t you just love the idea that a restaurant has a beer director?

Executive Chef Frank Morales with his new beer-sicles. photo © Associated Press

So far, four flavors have been offered. Fudgesicle (made with Bell’s Kalamazoo Stout), Raspbeer-y (made with the very sweet St. Louis Framboise), Plum (made with Chapeau Mirabelle) and Banana (made with Chapeau Banana). Since their debut last week, they’re a big hit with customers, and men especially, Morales noted. Apparently they worked on the right combination of ingredients for weeks before being satisfied, so I guess that 1% ingredient is quite an important one. So what otherwise seems like a simple idea — freeze beer in a Popsicle mold — may actually hinge on a particular secret ingredient. Of course, I’m open to experimentation. Unfortunately, according to the AP story, the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control believes that “the beer-sicles might violate state regulations” which state that “the law requires beer to be served in its original container, or served immediately to a customer once it is poured from its original container.” Apparently the Virginia ABC is investigating, but their initial reaction appears to be that it violates state alcohol law.

This is apparently because the purpose of that law is so the ABC can keep tabs on where the alcohol goes along it’s journey from manufaturer to consumer. According to Philip Disharoon, the special agent in charge of the Alexandria division, he’s worried that he “would have no way of knowing where the beer product came from.” The idea that they may have to stop making these just because the Virginia ABC can’t track the path of the beer from bottle to mold to freezer to customer, all in a single location, strikes me as bureaucratic nonsense. I imagine that may have been more of a concern during bootlegging days, but I have a hard time believing it’s much of an issue any longer.

Virginia’s alcohol laws do include an exemption for beer used for “culinary purposes” (3VAC5-70-40), which would appear to make it legal for Rustico to continue selling beersicles. Since it appears that they’re already using beer in many of the dishes served at the restaurant, perhaps they’re already covered. The regulation does give the ABC broad authority to “refuse to issue or [t] suspend or revoke such a permit for any reason” which seems rather unfair, to say the least. But that’s the nature of many alcohol laws, in which fairness is rarely a priority. Also, alcohol used for cooking must be kept completely separate from beer that’s for sale to patrons, which also seems quite ridiculous.

But the more you examine each state’s own arcane alcohol regulations, you realize that over time they’ve become bloated bureaucratic gibberish that few people can understand, even among the state employees charged with interpreting them. I know firsthand that in some states ABC employees will give different interpretations to the same regulation, leaving brewery and restaurant/bar owners completely baffled as to what the law actually says or how to comply with it. And even relying on one state employee’s interpretation can land you in hot water if another’s interpretation is different. That certainly seems fair, doesn’t it? At the very least, you’d think they could either get their stories straight or at least respect their colleagues interpretation that someone relied on in good faith. But sadly that’s not the way government works, especially when it comes to the hot button issue of alcohol.

But the idea of beer-flavored Popsicles seems a natural. Perhaps the folks that own the trademark on the name Popsicle, which is Unilever (although in 1993 they changed their name to the more appetizing Good Humor-Breyers® Ice Cream Company) could make beer-flavored Popsicles for adults that we can all buy at the grocery store. Can you just imagine the hue and cry from neo-prohibitionists when beer pops show up in the frozen food section? It would almost be worth it just to see them come unglued. Plus, I just love the idea of a green, 100 ibu, real honest-to-goodness Hopsickle.

UPDATE 7.22: Two new news sources also include video of the beersicles so you can see what they look like and see a bit more about how they’re made. The first is from WLBZ in Bangor, Maine and the second is from CBS 3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

UPDATE 7.22 - #2: Courtesy of Reason magazine, Senior Editor Radley Balko went to Rustico this afternoon hoping to try a beer-flavored Popsicle but was told “they’re no longer serving them. At least until the state alcohol control tyrants give them the okay.” Apparently they’re trying to figure out how to cook the beer and/or add more ingredients so it will fall under “culinary purposes” as I detailed above. Sounds to me like the Virginia ABC has lost touch with reality. If freezing beer in a mold, with a stick, and serving it as a dessert doesn’t qualify as a culinary use, then I have to conclude it’s not about the law anymore, but about control. That’s the word everybody forgets in “ABC,” but it stands for “Alcoholic Beverage Control.” State agencies take that part of their job perhaps most seriously of all in their zeal to do their job. These agencies really should work with alcohol manufacturers and retailers because for the most part all they want to do is comply with the law. But many times, because of the nature of bureaucracy, an adversarial relationship is created over time and the agencies spend more of their resources on enforcement and punishment, forgetting that they’re charged with keeping alcohol in society in a safe manner, not controlling it to the point of killing it.

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

Here’s the press release from SYLB: Georgia’s beer consumers and brewers are facing a threat that could adversely impact the business operations of in-state breweries and consequently your access to Georgia’s craft-brewed beer. The Georgia Department of Revenue is proposing to adopt a new rule that would severely restrict beer tasting for attendees of brewery tours (please refer to the Synopsis for the actual rule language). The Department will consider adoption of this rule on Tuesday, June 19 – now is the time to make your voice heard in opposition to this rule. Please read the following information which includes a message from Terrapin Beer Co.’s John Cochran who has been working with Georgia’s small production breweries to oppose this measure. You will find all the information you need for contacting the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue.

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

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

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

From John Cochran of Terrapin Beer Co.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Commissioner Graham

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

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

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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