Vermont looks at lowering the drinking age

I used to care more about the legal drinking age when I was younger, but now I understand why the it's 21.

I don't understand how they can legally say that you can't drink at age 18, but I think it makes sense to try to discourage immature people from drinking. And everyone under the age of 30 is immature.

This week, a committee of the Vermont Senate approved a bill to have a task force weigh the pros and cons of rolling back the drinking age there to 18.

Organizations and lawmakers in other states are considering similar ideas.

In South Dakota, a lawyer had drafted an initiative petition to allow 19- and 20-year-olds to legally buy beer no stronger than 3.2 percent alcohol.

In Missouri, a group is using the Internet social networking sites Facebook and Meetup to try to collect more than 100,000 signatures to get a measure on the ballot to lower the drinking age to 18.

In South Carolina and Wisconsin, lawmakers have proposed allowing active duty military personnel younger than 21 to buy alcohol.

And last year, former Middlebury College president John McCardell started Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit that favors allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to legally buy alcohol once they've completed an alcohol education program.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is against these proposals, saying the higher age limit has saved thousands of lives since the 1984 enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The act required states to raise the age to 21 or lose federal transportation money. South Dakota was the last state to comply, in 1988.

Read the full story on Yahoo! News.

Healthy beer idea stolen from brewery

According to the Courthouse News, the Cleveland brewery Brewmandu is suing a former employeed for stealing their idea for healthy beer. The beer has "vitamins and nutrients to protect the liver and offer increased nutritional content to combat the negative effects of alcohol consumption."

I think it's a good idea. I've always wondered why they don't put vitamins and minerals in stuff that's bad for you, like candy. Mmmmm, Mike & Ikes with Vitamin C.

In fact, I'm going to invent my own healthy beer and call it Vitamin Beer™. Ha! Now that it's written somewhere, you can't steal the name.

I can't find any records for Brewmandu anywhere on the web, so it must be a really small or really new brewery. The brewery that the employee started himself, Lott Bier Works, also doesn't seem to exist anywhere. The Lion Brewery, which is the evil employee's partner, does have a website, but they don't mention the healthy beer anywhere.

I guess it will be awhile before we can buy Vitamin Beer™ in stores.

Law & Order

I hope it isn't true that Detective Lennie Briscoe killed his wife. I always though he was a tough but honest cop.

Great Dane can now sell their own beer

Starting last week, the Great Dane Pub and Brewing Company started selling their own brand of beer at its Hilldale restaurant in Madison.

The brew pub opened its third Madison location last year, but was unable to sell its own beer there because of a law dating back to the 1930’s that prevented them from selling at more than 2 locations. So Great Dane had been selling their competitors' beer, and their brew kettles at the Hilldale location remained dry.

A provision in the new Wisconsin state budget now allows to brewpubs to sell their own beer at up to six locations without using a distributor. They can also to brew up to 10,000 barrels of beer per year, an increase from the 4,000-barrel limit under previous laws.

But the beer distributors successfully lobbied to add restrictions to the provision that prevent breweries from making both a lot of beer and serving food. So brew pubs that are successful in making beer (so they eventually reach that 10,000 limit) have to stop serving food. And successful breweries can’t open a restaurant at their site or at another location.

So who would think that’s a good idea – telling a brewery that they can’t open a restaurant? The beer distributors do. They don’t want places serving their own beer. They want their money, so they want to distribute all the beer. But since beer at a brewery doesn't need to be distributed, they made it illegal instead.

This limits business unfairly, and is a stupid law. What started out as a good idea (allowing Great Dane to serve their own beer – a no brainer) turned ugly once the distributors got their hands on it.

I’m not aware of any businesses that effected so far – supposedly all breweries operating before the law went into effect have been grandfathered in and are still allowed to sell food. But any new breweries won’t be able to sell food. We'll see how it works out.

Sam Adams backs down, Sam Adams victorious

Here's an update to the Sam Adams vs. Sam Adams case I wrote about last month.

Sam Adams the beer was suing Sam Adams the guy running for mayor of Portland because some radio station registered some Sam Adams related websites on behalf of him.

Initially, the beer company said it would infringe on a trademark for their product and confuse beer customers. But after a short legal battle, the company backed off.

"They say they've been using this trademark since 1984," Sam Adams the man said. "I've been using it since 1963."

Boston Beer's Helen Bornemann said she didn't know there was a real Sam Adams running for mayor when she sent the letter.

The radio station planned to officially give the domain names to Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams this week.

Sam Adams the Beer vs. Sam Adams the Man

The online edition of the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Portland city commissioner Sam Adams decided to run for mayor.

Some local radio hosts registered the Web addresses http://www.samadamsformayor.com and http://www.mayorsamadams.com, and promised to give them to Adams if he discussed his mayoral platform on their show.

The radio hosts then received a cease-and-desist letter from the Boston Beer Company last week. “Boston Beer has used the trademarks SAM ADAMS and SAMUEL ADAMS since 1984,” said the letter.

The radio hosts — who detail the “brew-ha-ha” here — have responded by broadcasting the sound of a Sam Adams pint being poured into the toilet.

Stupid Brew Pub Law Update

As I discussed in an earlier post, under current law, a Wisconsin brew pub can operate only two locations if it produces more than 4,000 barrels of beer a year. That is stupid. Why limit businesses like that?

Great Dane Pub & Brewing Co., a Madison-area brew pub operator, opened its third location earlier this year, but is not allowed to serve their own beer there. So instead, they have to serve their competitors' beer. That is stupid too.

Earlier this year, Great Dane asked for a change in the law to lift the production limit to 10,000 barrels and allows up to six locations. That sounds like a good plan, except that 10,000 is too low, especially for places like Lake Front Brewery. But it's still a good start.

But the beer distribution industry (who has strong connections in Wisconsin government) doesn't like brew pubs and microbreweries because they are able to distribute their own beer.

When they heard about Great Dane's proposal, they were quickly able to get a provision added that bans a licensed brew pub operator from also owning a brewery that produces beer for packaged sales.

It also prevents breweries that are currently producing over 10,000 barrels from obtaining a restaurant permit. And if a brewery is under the 10,000 barrel limit, the brewery will be able to get a restaurant permit but will never be able to grow above 10,000 barrels unless they give up the restaurant.

The budget proposal also includes a provision banning Wisconsin wineries from selling their vintages directly to restaurants, liquor stores and other retailers. Instead, wineries would be forced to sell through wine wholesalers.

Since a lot of brewery business models in the state have been built on having a restaurant in their facility, this is a very damaging addition to the bill.

This bill was in the spotlight last July and was successfully tabled by opposition from microbrewery and brewpub owners in Milwaukee and the rest of the state. But this weekend the bill was quietly added to the proposed state budget, which was passed and now goes to Governor Doyle to sign. He does have power to veto any part of the budget, including this stupid brew pub law.

At least two Milwaukee breweries will be affected by the law if the budget is signed as-is. Lakefront Brewery would not be allowed to open another location (like a restaurant or bar) and sell their own beer there. The production limit might require him to close the Lakefront Palm Garden restaurant, which operates at his brewery, 1872 N. Commerce St. Lakefront Brewery this year will produce around 9,600 barrels and is expected to exceed 10,000 barrels in 2008.

The Milwaukee Ale House is building a stand-alone brewery in Walkers Point. But if this law is passed they may be forced to convert the 2nd Street brewery into a brew pub - a move that would require a large investment.

JSOnline has the full article about the Ale House.


10/26 Update: It appears that Doyle has signed the budget with the new brewing restrictions intact. I guess time will tell how this affects our state microbreweries and brew pubs.

I really don't think Great Dane should be vilified for wanting this change to Wisconsin law, even though Tyranena and other state breweries are mad at them. The Wisconsin Wholesalers Association and the Wisconsin Brewers Guild are the main culprits. The law that was passed puts limitations on the microbreweries in Wisconsin in order to aid the beer distributing businesses. Artificially limiting the success of a business can't be a good thing.

Considering Wisconsin's brewing heritage, we should try to be as brewery-friendly as we can in this state, and do everything possible to promote this unique craft industry, not limit its growth.

A pint is still a pint in the UK

The the European Union had intended to force the UK and Ireland to stop using miles on road signs, troy ounces for gold and other precious metals, and pints for milk, cider, and beer by 2010.

But Britain's citizens are now free to buy their ale by the pint and their potatoes by the pound without threat of interference from the EU.

The Brussels-based European Union announced this week that Britain can keep using its centuries-old system of imperial measures.

For the past 12 years, goods sold in the European Union have had to display weights and measures in metric terms. To appease a furious public, imperial units dating back to the Middle Ages were allowed to be posted alongside the metric in Britain, such as yards, furlongs, leagues, cables, links, poles, chains, drachms, stones, and hundredweights.

Some shopkeepers violated EU regulations by continuing to sell things only in imperial measurements and they were fined.

The lone metric measure that the British appear to have accepted is the liter as a measure of gasoline, or "petrol," for motor vehicles. One explanation is that having to pay 95 pence per liter at the pump sounds better than 3.90 pounds — or $7.80 — per gallon.

British retailers still will be required under EU law to advertise items in metric measures, but no longer will they risk a hefty fine or the threat of jail for also openly measuring everything in imperial terms.

Sources: http://online.wsj.com and http://www.washingtontimes.com

Brew Pub Law

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article today on a proposed brew pub bill in the Wisconsin state Legislature. The Brewpub Tourism Development Act limits how much beer a brew pub can produce, which could hamper the growth of brew pubs that want to sell their beer in packaged form at liquor stores and supermarkets. Local brew pubs protested the new bill by spilling bill into the Milwaukee River.

I first heard about this bill a few months ago when I went to visit the new Great Dane Pub at Hilldale Mall in Madison. I'm a big fan of Great Dane and I think their downtown Madison restaurant is probably the best brew pub that I've been to. The Hilldale restaurant is their 3rd location and I even brought an empty growler along so I could take some beer home. But when we arrived at the brew pub we were told that they weren't allowed to serve their own beer because of an antiquated Wisconsin law - so they serve some of their competitors beer their instead. I thought that was crazy.

Under current law (enacted in 1933), a Wisconsin brew pub can operate only two locations if it produces more than 4,000 barrels of beer a year. The pending bill would raise that production limit to 10,000 barrels and allow up to six locations.

This works out for Great Dane, but breweries and brew pubs with standalone breweries think this unfairly favors brew pubs that don't package their own beer. All of the brew pubs in Wisconsin are well under 10,000 barrels a year, but some of the breweries, like Lakefront Brewery, are already near or above 10,000. This means that Lakefront would not be allowed to open another location (like a restaurant or bar) and sell their own beer there. Lakefront thinks this gives brew pubs like Great Dane a big advantage, especially if they decided to open a brew pub in Milwaukee (good for me, bad for Lakefront).

Milwaukee Ale House owner Jim McCabe is against this bill because he's opening a stand-alone brewery in Walkers Point and another brew pub in Grafton. Although the Milwaukee Ale House only does 1,300 barrels a year now, they'll be producing a lot more beer once the brewery is up and running and could reach that 10,000 limit.

Rob Larson from Tyranena is also against the bill and wrote about it in his brewery email newsletter: Today, all small breweries are essentially treated equally. We can all bottle, keg, distribute and are permitted two liquor licenses (one at the location of the brewery and the second on property owned by the brewery). This has created a level playing field between small brewers, whether they choose to have a restaurant or just a tap room. The new legislation (28 pages in length) creates an uneven environment, one which favors brewpubs over microbreweries... and then favors certain brewpubs over others. The bill would permit brewpubs to brew, bottle, keg, distribute and have up to six locations without the onerous financial burden of owning all the real estate. In essence, they can do everything a microbrewery can do... but have four more locations and not be required to own all the real estate. I personally enjoy eating and drinking at the state's brewpubs... but they are also competitors for draft lines and potentially bottle placements in the store. I do not think the state should be enacting legislation that gives them a competitive advantage over us.

Gray's Brewing Company has a brewpub (Gray's Tied House) in Fitchburg, but because they have stand alone brewing facility in Janesville, they would be prevented by statute from opening up any additional brewpubs while The Great Dane Pub and Brewery would be able to do so. The Milwaukee Ale House is hoping to open a second pub location as well as a stand alone microbrewery... but would be prevented from doing so under this legislation while others can have six locations. Quite frankly, I think all breweries should be able to have up to six liquor licenses. I would enjoy seeing a chain of Sprecher or Capital Beer Halls across the state... a number of Leinie's Lodges... or a bunch of Lake Louie Fish Houses... or New Glarus Swiss-themed pubs with chocolate on the menu and clocks on the wall. Personally, I would love to have a chain of bluegrass dance halls in key underserved markets. But these are things that cannot come to pass under this legislation. In fact, the Granite City brewpub chain would be limited to only two locations due to the way in which they brew... is that really fair?

Even the title "Brewpub Tourism Development Act" frustrates me. Do only brewpubs bring in tourists? Is the restaurant really the thing that brings people to town? I suspect the hundreds of thousands of people that tour Miller Brewery might disagree. Or the huge throngs that pass through Sprecher, Lakefront or Leinie's each week. Or the tons that drive down to little New Glarus. Or the thousands that we bring into Lake Mills each year either just to come to the brewery or for many of our special events.

I am not opposed to the Great Dane being able to expand from two to six locations... I just want fairness in how it is done. Let all of us breweries have up to six locations.

I understand there is other legislation recently added to the bill that is also bad for some breweries (none of it's bad the the Great Dane, which is located one block off capitol square - walking distance for the Madison fat cats). Sand Creek Brewing in Black River Falls claims that the new bill means a "that any brewery that is currently over 10,000 bbls and doesn’t have a restaurant permit will never be able to get one if the bill is passed. If the brewery is under 10,000 bbls, the brewery will be able to get a restaurant permit but will never be able to grow above 10,000 bbls unless they give up the restaurant. Since a lot of brewery business models in the state have been built on having a restaurant in their facility, this is a very damaging addition to the bill."

Now I'm a bit worried about the bill. I want there to be more brew pubs, but it sounds like this bill could actually drive some out of business.

Fearful Symmetries has a lot more on the story: http://powervoyeur.blogspot.com/