Beer Battle

 | 

Here in Alabama we beer drinkers are still warring with the state. We won our most recent engagement, however. On May 16, the governor signed a bill allowing our favorite elixir to be served in 25.4-ounce, rather than 16-ounce, containers.

Of course, the goal of the state had been to keep large quantities of beer out of the lower colons of our young people. This assumes a school system that doesn’t teach that 2 times 16 is 32 and 3 times 16 is 48 — both larger than 25.4.

A couple of years back, in 2009, we legalized beers with over 6% alcohol. So we’re definitely making progress.

The opposition filibustered the large-bottle bill, ranting that alcohol had “broken up many families.” Yeah, I guess. So has fried chicken.

“Dear, pass me that drumstick.”

“But you ate the first one, and I want that remaining plump piece of chicken. Here’s a nice, crispy neck for you.”

The drumstick consumer throws the bone of the first — now deceased — drumstick at his “dear” dinner partner. (Not the half-full beer bottle, which she served without a glass.) Obviously, a freshman sociology student could observe this tension brewing for weeks.

And remember, all you legislators, he threw the chicken bone — not the beer bottle. So what’s beer got to do with it? More importantly, what’s the state legislature got to do with it?




Share This

Comments

Visitor

Maybe Alabamans' can get their idotic anti-immigrant laws overturned.

What an embarrassment to have a senoir exec of Mercedes, that stuck their necks out to hire thousands, get arrested and thrown in jail over such silly laws.

Hopefully, this is not how Alabama wants to treat those that bring jobs to it's state. If so, you won't have too many people lining up for that kind of treatment.

Johnimo

State regulation of alcohol is replete with foolishness. In my home State of Montana a liquor license now goes for $400,000 and up, there being a quota system which limits the supply of licenses and allows legacy holders to transfer them at a premium. The idiots in the State legislature are too blind to figure out how to end the system. Give me a call, I have a plan.

Steven C.

While Ted Robert's reflection the 'beer battle' in Alabama is a humorous attempt, it is a serious matter for consumers in Tennessee also.

Having migrated from California to Tennessee, the liquor laws are one of the few areas where Californians have an advantage.

In Tennessee, due to historical blue laws and heavy liquor lobby actions, prices for liquor in Tennessee are much higher than many other states.
The only alchoholic beverages that are allowed to be sold in regular retail stores, such as supermarkets and convenience stores, is beer. All wine and "hard liquor" (whiskey, vodka, rum, etc.) can ONLY be sold in a state licensed "package store". In the town where I live, Clarksville TN, there are only 12 "package stores" for a population of 150,000.

Since 2007, when I moved here consumers have attempted to get laws passed allowing wine to be sold in regular retails outlets. Both times they have failed due to lobbying from the liquor industry and package stores.

They trot out the old familiar reasons. "If we allow wine in stores, underage children will drink." This argument is assinine on its face, as Tennesse has MANDATORY proof of age requirement for ANYONE who purchases liquor. I am 58 years old, and they still card me at the stores. The place where it is less likely they will ask me? The hard liquor package stores!

They trot out the argument "If we allow wine sales in regular stores, the package stores will go out of business and people will lose their jobs!" So it's OK to allow your "package stores" to rip off the comsumers to keep you in business? Sorry, maintaining your monopoly should not be any argument for allowing consumers to have the freedom to choose where they buy their wine.

I don't see it changing any time soon. But the retailers have been trying to make a dent in the liquor lobby's armor and I hope they keep trying.

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.