Strange Laws

Ella Moss recently sent me an email with stupid laws in other countries inspired by an old post of mine. There are 3 mists, one for the UK, one for the US, and one for Australia.

There are some strange laws in the US, for sure, but none on the list had anything to do with beer. However, the UK started off with an interesting one:

1. You can't get drunk in a pub

A lot of the strangest laws in the UK are linked to alcohol, although they often seem to focus on preventing particular kinds of behaviour while drunk, rather than trying to outlaw drinking altogether. This perhaps says something about the place of drinking in British culture.

If you do want to stay on the right side of the law when you pop down to the pub for a drink, you will need to remember to obey some pretty strange laws that have remained on the books over many years.

Perhaps the most surprising is that it is actually illegal to be drunk on licensed premises!

As well as laws banning driving a car or bike while you're under the influence there are also laws to prevent people from being in charge of a horse, cow or steam engine while drunk.

But my favorite strange law is on the Australia list:

5. You can't crush a beer can between your breasts

Exercising your muscles as you recycle might get you in trouble if you are a woman with the unusual talent of being able to crush beer cans with your breasts.

It is illegal to do this in Western Australia, and it can actually lead to arrest.

A barmaid in Pinjarra was arrested, tried and find a thousand dollars for showing off this trick in public.

If she'd inspired a meme by putting it online, she could have turned a lot of other people into criminals too. [Internet memes are technically illegal in Australia because they don't have a "fair use" clause in their copyright laws. That was #4 on the list.]

Benefits of the Jester King Lawsuit

Last year, Jester King Brewing Company, beer distributor Authentic Beverages and Zax, an Austin restaurant and bar successfully sued the TABC and got the restriction on beer labels changed.  No longer to beer companies have to write a description of their products without using the word "beer".

TABC recently announced that beer label applications are up. In 2011 there were 1,738 beer label applications. They are estimating 2,685 applications will be filed this year. That's a 54% increase. And the changes in the law went into effect halfway through the fiscal year.  I expect that 2013 will see an even bigger increase in applications.

Texas is a big beer market, and one a lot of breweries would love to get into, but they often didn't have the money to make labels just for Texas.

AND it's good for the state.  More money for application fees!

Five Wives Vodka rejected in Idaho

Ogden's Own Distillery, maker of Five Wives Vodka, has been selling their product in Utah since December. Recently, the Idaho State Liquor Division refused to allow an Idaho distributor to sell the product because the name was offensive.

Idaho does allow the sale of Polygamy Porter from Wasatch Brewing, however that product does not fall under the purview of the State Liquor Division, according to Director Jeff Anderson. (Although, a Google search reveals that, according to the Brookston Beer Bulletin lists the State Liquor Division as the agency that gives label approval in the state. If anyone can clarify, please do so in the comments.)

The controversy has spawned a Free the Five Wives t-shirt. Head on over there if you're tired of silly alcohol laws.

Texas Distributors Looove Texas Craft Beer

Over the weekend, I read an article about Silver Star Distributing offering a bounty on No Label Brewing tap handles to their sales reps (Up to $300 a tap handle).  Sales reps are offering cash and free kegs to get those upstart beers out of Houston bars. Here's another article about it.

Of course, that's illegal.  But look for WBDA to push a bill a bill through the Texas Legislature making it legal for foreign breweries to do it.

Another Government Official In Favor of Local Jobs - Too Bad He's in Minnesota

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak just signed legislation that would allow city breweries to sell beer at their taprooms.  This somes on the heels of a a state law that leaves the decision in the hands of each city.  Earlier, St. Paul had enacted similar legislation.

“We’re making it easier for Minnesota beer drinkers to drink Minnesota beer and create jobs here,” Rybak said. “Sales of pints on site will also grow the local beer economy by lowering the barriers for entry for new breweries, which will allow them to hit the ground running. And it complements Minneapolis’ burgeoning local food economy that is creating new businesses and even more jobs.”

I wonder if we'll ever get such a forward thinking politician in Texas.
Join Open the Taps and let's see if we can make it happen.

Beer Runs v. Beer Stings - Which Better Keeps Beer Out of the Hands of Minors?

I used to work in retail outlets that sold beer and wine.  I can tell you the minors have always tried to get beer.  whether it's the fake ID from "Texas Department of Identification", or getting strangers to buy their beer, or just hoping that the clerk will be too busy to ID them, or staging a beer run (a quick "Grand and Go" theft where a minor runs in grabs beer and runs out), minors try just about anything to get the forbidden fruit.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissionroutinely uses stings to catch retailers who sell beer to minors.
We can debate the ethics of these stings all day long (I believe it is entrapment, others believe it's a way to make sure retailers (the clerk loses their jobs when ticketed) won't sell to minors.)

The goal, of course, is to keep alcohol out of the hands of people deemed too young to purchase it.  (And we can debate that subject all day long, as well.)

So who does the state (in a generic sense) target for enthusiastic prosecution?  The retailer.

Most of the time, police won't even do much investigating of a beer run beyond looking at surveillance videos, according to Reno convenience store operators. (The article suffers from a bit of bad editing.  It identifies one business owner (Jim Linscott), but quotes someone named Miller.)  Miller, who has identified the thieves responsible for the beer runs in his store, cannot get the police to arrest them, but they frequently set up stings to see if he sells beer to minors.  "What's the bottom line? Is the bottom line catching us selling alcohol to minors or is it keeping kids from getting alcohol. We think it should be keeping kids from getting alcohol."

The bottom line, unfortunately, is money.  The police know the stores will fire the employee (who has to pay a fine) and pay the store fines just to keep their license, which is more cost effective than chasing down teenagers.  In every legislative session, the State of Texas makes it more illegal to sell beer to minors.  But there are few bills making it more illegal for minors to steal or possess beer.  It's like they think retailers are heartless, evil beings whose only purpose in life is to put beer in your kids' hands.

I know law enforcement does ticket minors for possession of alcohol.  But the penalties for them seem to be a lot lighter.

(To show the effects of a misdemeanor on a person's life, here's the story of Cleo Hill. He'd like to be a nurse, but a misdemeanor from his youth prevents it.  I have a friend who lost his commercial truck license because he sold beer to a minor during a sting at his part-time job.)

I'm not sure what the solution is.  We do need to stop retailers from selling to minors.  But shouldn't we also hold the minors accountable as well?

"Yes, I sell beer in Texas, but if I tell you where you could buy it, I would have to kill you."

I've bitched about this before, and I'm gonna bitch about it again. In Texas, it is illegal for a brewery to tell you where to buy their beer. It's supposed to prevent breweries from establishing tied houses, where only one brand of beer is sold. However, it is being applied to restrict competition, so that MillerCoors and AB InBev, who are in virtually every location, can be assured that no one will be able to buy a competitors beer without a lot of footwork. Or, as an article on Reason.com put it: ". . . a rule that was supposed to discourage monopolies has become anti-competitive."

I'm surprised the Big Boys haven't closed the loophole that let's a brew pub tell people where to buy their beer.

ND Proposal Would Let Homebrewers Sell Their Beer

If HB660 and the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas weren't  big enough windmills to tilt at, here's an idea from North Dakota.  Dan Ruby (R) has introduced a bill into the state legislature that would establish a domestic brewery license that would let home beer brewers sell their suds, offer beer tastings, set up stalls at trade shows, and sell their beer to wholesalers for wider state distribution.

You think WBDT would let that happen here?  Pshaw! They would have their pet legislators kill this bill faster than you can say "We have the best legislature money can buy"!

It's Time!

Pretend the Windmill is the Wholesale
Beer Distributors of Texas, and Sir
Quixote is all the Texas brewers

Every two years, I ask my readers to contact the Texas Legislators and express support for a bill that would allow Breweries to sell a small amount of their product at their brewery, just like Texas Wineries can do.

This year, that is HB 602.

Scott Metzger, of Freetail Brewing in San Antonio, has been proposing a bill that would allow your local brewpub to sell their beer to distributors for sale in retail outlets.  That is HB 660.

Now it's time for you to write your Legislator, and tell them you would like them to support these bills. These folks have to take the Wholesalers Lobby seriously--if they offend them, they will support someone else in the next election, and no politician wants to be voted out of office.  So we have to make it clear that this is what We, The People, want.

Currently, the State of Texas is looking at a $27 billion dollar budget deficit.  Here are some points to mention about the bills:

HB 602 will

• allow breweries to create more jobs by helping fund brewery expansion
• create more tax revenue for the State of Texas

HB 606 

• Brewpubs in other states are allowed to sell their beer to distributors and then into retail outlets
• Texas consumer dollars are paying taxes and creating jobs in other states
• The bill will create more jobs
• The bill will create more tax revenue for the State of Texas

If history is any indication, the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas (WBDT) will oppose HB 602, claiming that only they can prevent sales of  of alcohol to minors! They will lose jobs! They will have less taxes to pay! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

They might oppose HB 606 on the grounds that they will lose sales, which will cost jobs and taxes.  I expect, that since most distributors are tied to one of the Big Three, they will be forced by A-B InBev and MillerCoors to oppose it to protect the big boys' share of market.  Yes, you read that right.  While WBDT controls the legislature, A-B InBev and SABMiller control WBDT.

Texas Beer Distributors won't lose money.  And remember, it was a Texas beer distributors house that was used in Steven Soderbergh's Oscar-winning movie Traffic.  It was a drug dealers house.

Strange TABC Laws

While checking my Twitter feed, I ran across an article entitled What the Hell Does "For Sale in Texas Only" Mean Anyway?.

In order for a winery to be able to slap the word "Texas" on the front of the label, the wine has to have at least 75% Texas juice. For those wines that don't meet the requirements, the state of Texas (really a federal statute) has allowed the wineries to not list an appellation on the front of the bottle, and instead tag the wine as "For sale in Texas only" on the back.

Okay, maybe it's not a TABC law, but it is still strange.

Cool TABC Regulations

Over of the BeerAdvocate Forums, someone mentioned something I kind of knew, but didn't apply to this particular situation: You do not need a membership card to buy beer from Costco or Sam's. It is against State law to restrict access to beer and alcohol sales. So I am able to go to a Costco or Sam's Club and buy their discounted beer without a membership card.

Now, I knew this because several years ago, my Honey Creek brewing partner wanted to advertise that he would put his home brew in his B&B. Being a legal minded fellow, and despite my warning not to advertise any free alcohol, he called TABC. He was told that he could advertise the free home brew. That surprised me; I figured that since he didn't have a license he couldn't advertise. However, the TABC agent said that if he offered free beer to his guests, he must have a way for the non-paying public to access that homebrew 24/7. My friend quickly dropped the matter, while complaining that was a stupid law.

Not so stupid now, though.

List of Wet and Dry Areas in Dallas

Mike Hashimoto of the Dallas Morning News supports bringing some order to "Dallas' mish mash of alcohol laws." To illustrate the insanity of the local laws, he lists where you can and can't buy alcohol in Dallas. If you are heading that way to visit, you might want to print out the list and put it in your purse or wallet.

But, even more interesting, Hashimoto links to a TABC list of all the jurisdictions of Texas. Unfortunately, that won't fit in a wallet.

More Wineism (New Word!)

A new law took effect in September 2009 that will allow Texas wineries to pour and sell their wines at farmers markets and festivals in wet or dry areas, and without the festivals having a liquor license, as long as the wine is bottled in Texas and contains a certain percentage of Texas grapes or juice. The wineries have to get a two-year certificate for each event or market that limits their participation to no more than five days at one location within a 30-day period and no more than three consecutive days at a single location.

This is a disturbing law on a couple of levels. First, this could set Texas' Local Option laws on their collective ears. The Local Option allows each city, country or even precinct in a county to determine whether or not to allow alcohol sales. For example, Mesquite, Texas is dry while the neighboring towns are wet. I know this because Ricky D. Sawyer is both a proponent of the Local Option, and a liquor retailer in the wet community of Balch Springs. He opposes alcohol sales in Mesquite to protect his children. I wonder if he knows that a Farmers Market in Mesquite could sell wine? In full view of his children? This law puts the decision to sell alcohol into the hand of the manufacturer instead of the voter.

Second, what about Mr. Sawyer's business? Doesn't he sell wine? How much more is his license than the wineries' permit? Will Wineries selling wine at a Farmers Market take food off his family's table and money out of his Local Option war chest?

Third, what about wine distributors? Won't they lose money as they would if breweries sold beer? Won't they be unable to encourage Texas winery growth (as the beer distributors testified they do when the brewery sales bill came up last year) they do for Texas Brewery growth?

More wineism (the preferential treatment of wine over other alcoholic beverages). We can go to a winery, pay for samples and buy cases and cases of wine. They will tell us what stores in our hometowns sell their product. But go on the Real Ale Brewing brewery tour, and they can give you samples but you can't buy anything except T-shirts, and they can't tell you who sells their beer. Texas could have a brewing industry as vibrant as our wine industry if only the law would treat vinters and brewers the same. Don't believe me? Check this out!