The CDC Is Out of Control

In the recent movie 'Contagion,' the good guys are the doctors and other professionals at the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In real life, we mostly hear about the CDC during flu season and whenever there's a new contagious disease scare.

So no one would have expected the CDC to suddenly become the scourge of demon rum, peddling junk science to advance a neo-prohibitionist agenda, but that's exactly what's happening. Their most visible campaign has been in Pennsylvania, where they're dishonestly pushing a position that isn't even credible, that liquor privatization will inevitably lead to significant upticks in alcohol abuse.

According to a new story in The Weekly Standard (so new it's dated July 8th), that's just the beginning. Between the stimulus bill and Obamacare, billions are being funneled to the CDC to do health promotion. That's a very broad mandate and for reasons unknown, CDC has decided to throw a lot of that money at alcohol, not by funding alcoholism treatment programs, or information programs urging people with alcohol problems to seek help, but instead by, as Pennsylvania governor Gifford Pinchot put it in 1933, trying to make purchasing alcohol “as inconvenient and expensive as possible.”

The article points out why it is probably illegal for CDC to even take sides on a controversial political issue like Pennsylvania liquor privatization.

The CDC has been politicized before, as when they dragged their heels in the early days of AIDS, supporting the Reagan administration's denial agenda.

If the administration wants to do something useful involving alcohol, they might do well to send some of CDC's money to the Treasury Department's Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which has an actual job to do, which it has had trouble doing due to an explosion of new label approval applications. Used to working with large corporations who have a vested interest in staying within the rules, the TTB is now working with hundreds of small producers, some of whom don't know what they're doing, some of whom are deliberately trying to deceive the public, and most of whom try to push the envelope wherever they can.

President Obama is known to enjoy a beer now and then, but there appear to be many in his administration who harbor the old Progressive belief that humans can be improved, even when they don't want to be, through the benevolent intervention of the government. That's exactly what led to Prohibition the first time around. No one should be looking forward to the sequel.

How Illegal Is It to Collect Whiskey?

It's been just a week since the Bourbon Exchange on Facebook was announced. It has had a lively debut, with lots of people joining and posting, and already a couple of changes brought on by legal concerns.

There can be no doubt that it is against the law to sell alcohol without a license, but what people want to know is it against the law like jaywalking is against the law, or like robbing liquor stores is against the law.

To give a good, lawyerly answer: it depends.

For the most part, laws regarding the possession, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages are entirely up to the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) agency to enforce. They have their own enforcement arms, their own investigators. Infractions of the ABC's rules are not crimes as far as the police are concerned. Police don't get involved unless the ABC asks for their help.

Someone operating an unlicensed bar or selling liquor out of the back of a minivan, or a licensed retailer selling to minors, that's what they care about. Nobody is looking to bust collectors, especially if their activity is entirely non-commercial.

That doesn't make trading, buying, and selling legal, it's still illegal, but if you're doing a deal now and then, the truth is that nobody is out there looking for you.

Inspector Javert doesn't care.

What constitutes non-commercial? I know people who have hundreds of bottles in their collections. In some instances, they have cases of specific products that are now considered rare and valuable. Most didn't think they were developing an inventory, they were following a personal passion, but now they have cases of something they bought for $50 a bottle that people are paying $500 for.

This happens in other kinds of collecting too, from stamps to automobiles. Someone who knows the market better than the average collector can make out by doing better deals. They might be able to make a living at it. They might get rich.

It depends.

As you can see, this isn't a simple matter.

Most collectors of most things engage in some buying and selling, sometimes in the form of trading. The object is to use pieces you don't need or care less about to obtain pieces you must have and care desperately about. This is a normal part of the collecting experience, millions of people do it, but if the thing you collect contains potable alcohol, that activity is prohibited by law.

Each state ABC is independent, answerable to its state legislature. Each state's laws are a little different. Each ABC has its own policies and priorities, and they don't exactly announce in advance what aspects of their laws they intend to enforce with vigor.

But if they post their enforcement actions online, you won't find among them, "Caught Suspect X trying to trade two 2006 Sazerac 18s and a 2009 Stagg for a 2007 Pappy Van 23."

As for the Facebook Bourbon Exchange, there probably isn't very much a state ABC can do about a page like that if it wants to and there is no reason to believe anyone wants to. It's also hard to imagine the ATF or TTB getting involved. It's not inconceivable, just unlikely.

At the most, some ABCs may be keeping an eye on the phenomenon to see if it develops into anything they need to concern themselves with.

What they care about is when they suspect (as happened in Tennessee with a Jack Daniel's collector site a couple of years ago) that the supposedly altruistic fellow running the thing is actually making money hand over fist. When a lot of money seems to be changing hands and no taxes are being collected, that's when government agencies pay attention, and call in the state police to help.

This isn't legal advice, it's legal information. Unfortunately, we have a situation where a lot of people want to do something, they don't see anything wrong (i.e., harmful) with what they want to do, but there is no way for them to do it legally. If the state alcohol regulators get interested, or if whiskey collecting grows in popularity to the point where they have to, let's hope that instead of treating it like a criminal problem, they look instead for ways to make this innocent hobby legal in all respects, so whiskey collectors finally can emerge from the shadows.

New Group, the American Craft Distillers Association, Is Announced

The existence of the new American Craft Distillers Association (ACDA) was announced on Tuesday, from Denver, Colorado, just four days after the conclusion of the American Distilling Institute's (ADI) annual conference in that same city.

In Tuesday's announcement, Rory Donovan, interim president of ACDA, explained that ACDA was formed "of, by, and for licensed craft distillers" in order to "promote and protect craft distilling in the United States."

It noted that craft distilling is a phenomenon that is sweeping the country. With more than 320 distilleries in existence and more on the way, products run the full gamut from brandy to bourbon, and all are gaining popularity with mixologists, restaurants, and consumers around the country.

According to Penn Jensen, ACDA executive director, "Our focus will be on brand building, public outreach, and legislative action on national and state levels to support the entrepreneur craft distillers everywhere in the U.S."

Officers and directors of the new organization are: President Rory Donovan, Peach Street Distillery; Vice President Ted Huber, Starlight Distillery; Secretary/Treasurer Brett Joyce, Rogue Brewing and Distilling; Ralph Erenzo, Tuthilltown Distillery; Lee Medoff, Bull Run Distillery; Tom Potter, NY Distilling Co.; Chip Tate, Balcones Distillery; Rick Wasmund, Copper Fox Distillery; Andrew Weber, Corsair Distillery; and (Ex Officio) David Pickerell, Oakview Consulting.  

The ACDA website is AmericanCraftDistillers.org.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the aforementioned ADI, which would seem to occupy most of the same space ACDA is claiming for itself. Penn Jensen, ACDA's new executive director, just retired from a similar position at ADI. Many of the new organization's directors have been active in ADI, some since its formation ten years ago. Huber Distillery, represented by ACDA Vice President Ted Huber, has been the site of many past ADI conferences. Unless the two groups differentiate, there's probably no need for both of them. The marketplace will decide who survives.

If you've read this far expecting to get the inside skinny, you're about to be disappointed. All will be revealed in the fullness of time, perhaps.

Is It Time for the Three-Tier System to Go?

Most people don't realize how different the beverage alcohol business is from other consumer products businesses. The fact that beverage alcohol products carry a much higher tax burden is just the beginning.

The 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which ended Prohibition in 1933, is short and sweet. The second section is the important one. It gives states the right to control "the transportation or importation" of alcohol within their states. States do not similarly have the right to control "the transportation or importation" of Coca-Cola or Twinkies, as in most cases the Constitution's Commerce Clause assures a nationally-regulated market.

One of the ways states control alcohol is through the three-tier distribution system. The tiers are producers, distributors, and retailers. Other businesses have similar channels of distribution but with alcohol, it's not optional. The essence of the system is that producers (i.e., distilleries, bottlers, importers) cannot sell directly to retailers (i.e., bars and stores). They must sell to an intermeidary, the distributor, and all retailers must buy from that intermediary. Furthermore, a producer can't have an interest in a distributor or retailer and distributors and retailers are similarly restricted.

One exception to the no-cross-ownership rule is for the state itself, which can be both distributor and retailer. There is no state in which the state operates bars but several operate all of the state's liquor stores.

The other exception to the no-cross-ownership rule is distillery gift shops. In that case, the producer can own a retailer, but the gift shop still has to buy the merchandise from a distributor. It does not, however, have to be shipped from the distillery to the distributor's warehouse then back to the distillery for sale. The transaction is all on paper, but it's still absurd.

Since each state can set its regulatory scheme up however it wants, each one does and they are all different. Each state makes producers jump through a different set of hoops.

The producers wish they could sell directly to major chains, and even directly to consumers through their own retail stores. Big retailers wish they could move their alcoholic beverage merchandise across state lines as easily as they do everything else. Producers can talk to retailers and they do, to set up promotions and such, but every deal has to go through a distributor, state by state.

The purpose of these systems was to prevent the perceived abuses that led to Prohibition in the first place and in order to get back in business, alcoholic beverage producers were willing to agree to just about anything. The system has changed little since it was established 80 years ago.

Today, the system has broken down in the sense that rules against cross-ownership are easily gotten around, and the local companies distributors were supposed to be are now legal fictions, since most distribution is done by national or large regional companies. The idea was that a producer could be remote and hard to touch legally, but a distributor would be local and thus more readily brought before the law. It's still true in the sense that distributors are required to have in-market assets, and operate through state-by-state subsidiaries, but for the most part they are massive and remote, larger than all but the biggest producers.

Today, the mandatory distribution tier merely adds cost without providing any benefit to anyone except the distributors themselves and their political patrons, including the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control agency (ABC), which itself is an anacronistic boondoggle.

Like a lot of Prohibition vestiges, the problems these systems were meant to solve don't seem like problems anymore, but the system doesn't change because there are people who have a powerful financial interest in keeping things the same. It's the kind of government waste that always seems to have bipartisan support.

No Matter How Poor You Are, If You Drink You Pay Taxes.

One of the biggest lies right wing extremists like to tell themselves is that poor people don't pay taxes. Instead they sponge off the noble and righteous people who do. Romney's famous 47% refers to American adults whose incomes are too low to owe federal income tax. The extremist part is taking that fact to mean 47% of Americans pay no taxes and use the federal government as a free ATM.

It's one of the right's oldest tropes, around for generations. Poor people are poor because they are lazy moochers and therefore deserve no help from the rest of us.

In addition to cutting off moochers, the right wants to reduce or eliminate taxes on businesses. If we take the tax burden off job creators, they'll use that money to create more jobs, thus more people will be employed, more people will pay taxes, fewer will need government benefits, and we'll all be able to pay a little less. How great would that be?

A lot in life depends on how you look at things. That's one way to look at things. Here's another.

Businesses don't pay taxes, they build them into the cost of doing business, as they should, and pass that expense along to their customers. That's what businesses do. That's how business works. If their customers are other businesses, they pass that tax along too until it is finally paid by us, you and me, everyone who buys goods and services. It's built into the cost of everything we buy.

I'm best qualified to tell you about one particularly excellent example of this, the federal excise tax on distilled spirits such as bourbon whiskey, aka the FET. This is not intended as a defense of taxes, the FET or any other, or of tax policy, either current or proposed. It is a defense of taxpayers.

All of them.

There is virtually no adult American who pays no taxes.

Included in the 47% of adult Americans who do not pay federal income tax are the poor, but also many low income working Americans, most retirees, most college students, and most veterans. Let's say you are one of those people and you like your Jim Beam Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey. Here in the Chicago area, you will pay about $26 for a 1.75 L bottle of Jim, including the taxes that are added on at the register. Of that, about $4 is paid to the United States Treasury.

Congratulations, Jim Beam customer, you are a federal taxpayer.

That $4 isn't all of the taxes you pay, just the federal ones. State, local, and indirect taxes add another $10. In all, tax is about 54% of the retail cost of a typical bottle of distilled spirits. So of that $26, $14 is tax revenue, and $12 is split among the producer, distributor, and retailer. (As calculated by DISCUS, the distilled spirits industry trade association.)

Distillers and other businesses collect the taxes and remit them to the government, but they don't pay the taxes. You do, I do, whenever we purchase our favorite libation.

Because poor people spend all of their income, and spend most of it on taxed goods and services, they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than any other group. That's true whether or not they spend some of their money on alcohol, but if they do, they're paying even more tax. Alcoholic beverages are among the most heavily-taxed consumer products on the market.

The federal government first imposed the FET in 1791. It was the first federal tax on internal economic activity. All previous federal revenue came from taxes on international trade. Widely hated, it was the proximate cause of the Whiskey Rebellion, the first time the federal government used military force against American citizens.

In his 2006 book, The Whiskey Rebellion, William Hogeland argues convincingly that the FET was engineered by Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, to favor large distillers over small ones, in order to make collecting the tax easier, and because Hamilton believed in general that a few big businesses were better for the economy than a lot of little ones. As the American polis began to form itself into two political parties, this became one of the major battle lines, and the FET became a useful symbol for Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans against Hamilton's Federalists.

As president, Jefferson abolished the tax, so there was no FET between 1802 and 1814. We are currently celebrating the 200th anniversary of that tax-free period. Jefferson's successor, James Madison, reimposed it in 1814 but his successor, James Monroe, abolished it again. As a young man, Monroe had worked in a distillery and understood business better than his predecessors.

What followed was a long, 44-year period with no FET. In 1862 it was brought back to fund the Civil War, and we've had it ever since. In 1985, during the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan, it was increased to $13.50 per proof gallon, where it remains. A 'proof gallon' is one gallon of 100 proof spirits (50% alcohol by volume).

Although the FET hasn't gone up in 27 years, other taxes on alcohol have and as a 'vice,' alcohol is always a convenient target for politicians.

While producers collect and remit the FET, it only hurts their business inasmuch as higher prices affect sales. Would Jim Beam sell more 1.75 L bottles of bourbon if they cost us $12 instead of $26?

If alcohol taxes go up and so do prices, who suffers? I do, since it costs me more to get my drink on, but if I and all of my fellow moochers buy less alcohol, then it's mostly the people who make it and sell it to us who suffer, and most of them are members of the moocher class too. The bottling line at Jim Beam starts to cut hours and lay people off, so do my favorite bars and liquor stores.

When Reagan raised the FET in 1985, tax revenues declined because sales did. It took several years for tax revenues to return to pre-1985 levels.

So, in a democracy, we decide what we want to pay for as a community, then we figure out how to tax ourselves to pay for it. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hard to believe the hodge-podge of taxes and taxing authorities we have now is in any sense designed to be reasonable or fair. If it can even be said to have an overall purpose, it would be simply to maximize revenue.

How do we come up with a more rational way to run our country's finances? Not villainizing half of the tax-paying population might be a good place to start.

Forty-Two Years Ago, It Was Illegal For Women To Tend Bar In Chicago.

First of all, do you know there is a branch of the National Archives in Chicago? There is, at 7358 S Pulaski (Pulaski and W. 75th Place). This story is featured in the current (February 2012) edition of their newsletter.

In 1951, the City of Chicago enacted what was called the 'barmaid ordinance.' It prohibited women from "pouring, mixing, or drawing intoxicating liquors" unless they owned the tavern or were related as wife, sister, or mother to the owner. Chicago wasn't unique. The article mentions a similar law in Michigan.

Women could waitress. The first Playboy Club opened in Chicago in 1960. But they couldn't make the drinks. A woman couldn't even draw a beer.

Enforcement of the barmaid ordinance didn't begin until 1961. Dozens of women were arrested and hundreds lost their jobs. Early attempts to sue the city on behalf of female bartenders were unsuccessful. It was only in 1968, in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, that a federal lawsuit began to gain traction.

Many of the affected women were unionized but their unions, dominated by men, supported the ordinance. At trial, a business representative for the Bartender’s Union Local 278 questioned whether a woman could handle the job, "physically and emotionally." Could she tap a keg or "maintain an orderly house," he wondered.

Lawyers representing the city claimed that female bartenders would cause morality problems. "It is the city’s position that there is a danger to the public health, safety and welfare and that morals are in fact going to be endangered." They argued that female bartenders would "hypnotize" and "mesmerize" their male patrons, causing them to drink too much and cause trouble.

How many times has that happened to you?

In March, 1970, Judge James Parsons ruled that "sex is not a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business of tending bar in the City of Chicago." The barmaid ordinance was dead, but it had stood for nearly 20 years.

So, yes, it is ridiculous that women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to drive a car, but don't feel too superior. Forty-two years ago, in Chicago, they weren't even allowed to draw a beer.

The Day Beer Became Legal In St. Louis.

Sunday’s Budweiser commercial about the end of Prohibition reminded me of my dad’s stories about the day legal beer arrived in his neighborhood. This is especially pertinent since he grew up in Budweiser’s hometown of St. Louis, on Roosevelt Place, in a neighborhood called Wells-Goodfellow today. Dad was 13 when Prohibition ended in December, 1933.

The commercial cheats history slightly, because legally-made and sold Budweiser actually arrived in St. Louis taverns shortly after Franklin Roosevelt took office in March, 1933, as dad explains below. The term ‘legal beer’ is used here because beer itself never left the neighborhood. Here’s how dad remembered it:

"Gelhausen was the local bootlegger who also had a saloon down on Clara Avenue. There was a wire leading from their house out to the garage. In the center of the yard there was a light bulb hanging from the wire. Sometimes at night, we would see the light flashing on and off -- like Morse Code. Sometimes this was followed by a car in the alley, pulling up to the garage. We never went to investigate.

"The Meyers family lived up near Goodfellow Blvd. Mr. Meyers was the acknowledged best home brew maker in the neighborhood, if not the civilized world. He undoubtedly applied the same skill and attention to detail as he did in his job as a tool and die maker. His stuff was far superior to the stuff that we occasionally made in our basement.

"It was no more illegal for kids to drink heingemake (homebrew) than for adults, so we were allowed to join in the responsible and moderate use of the quaff. At the Meyers' house, as was common, the beer was bottled in one-fifth gallon bottles and served in an aluminum bucket, from which all partook.

"Frank Meyers' system was a seven day process that he would tend to right after work. He would come in the back door, put his lunch bucket on the sink, kiss his wife, then go to the basement for that day's part in the process. After FDR took office, an executive order was issued proclaiming that 3.2% beer was not intoxicating, therefore it did not fall under the restrictions in the 18th amendment. A date was set when this would take effect.

"The building at the corner of Clara and Roosevelt (named for Teddy, I might add) was owned by Anheuser-Busch and had been a tavern. It was now Wesling's grocery. Gelhausen's Saloon across the street had never closed. Perhaps they served iced tea and soda pop during the great drought. The lease for Busch's building had a clause that if beer ever became legal again the lease could be terminated.

"An agreement was reached and an addition was built onto the rear of the grocery and made into a tavern. You may note that I refer to one establishment as a tavern and the other as a saloon. This is not accidental. Gelhausen's was a dark, bad place with men sitting around. I do not know why, when beer was again legal, that Grandma always had me go to Gelhausen's when she wanted a pitcher of beer. There was a side door at the rear and a separate tap for take-out. It cost a whole dime for a big pitcher of beer.

"When 'B' day was drawing near, Mr. Meyers finished up the current batch and started to dismantle and pack away his equipment. When the fateful day arrived (as I remember it, it was April 12, 1933), most of the men in the neighborhood congregated at Wesling's Tavern. The house was packed and everyone was having a riotous good time. When Frank Meyers walked in a hush fell over the place and the crowd around the bar parted like the Red Sea to make room for the greatest. He walked up to the bar, Mr. Wesling drew a glass and set it in front of him. He took a sip, then another sip, then pushed the glass away and turned and walked out. It was not the same after that, it was quiet and half the customers left. Obviously, I was not there but my Uncle Russ was and told me about it.

"Mr. Meyers went straight home, straight to the basement, unpacked his equipment and started a new batch. Mrs. Meyers kidded later that it was the first time in their forty years of marriage that he had come into the house and started working without kissing her first.

"In fairness to Anheuser-Busch, I should add that they were limited to 3.2% alcohol while the Meyers brew ran close to the theoretical maximum for the fermentation process, around 12%."

"Bourbon Is Job Creator," Says Congressman.

Kentucky Congressman John Yarmuth, founder of the Congressional Bourbon Caucus, praised the economic contributions of Kentucky’s bourbon industry yesterday, after a new study revealed that the signature industry is in the midst of a worldwide resurgence that is centered in the Commonwealth.

The distilled spirits industry in Kentucky – which produces 95 percent of the world’s bourbon – has expanded more during the past three years than at any time since Prohibition, according to the University of Louisville study. Bourbon contributes $1.8 billion a year to the state’s economy and employs nearly 9,000 people, directly and indirectly, with a total annual payroll of $413 million, the study revealed.

The industry has also created 4 percent new job growth since 2008.

"I’ve always been proud to support the bourbon industry, and this reaffirms the vital role that bourbon plays in our state," Yarmuth said. "Far more than a drink of choice for those with discerning taste, bourbon is an economic driver and job-creator.”

The study focused on the bourbon industry’s broader economic impact across the Commonwealth, which is home to 19 major distilleries and numerous craft distilleries. Kentucky distilleries export bourbon to 126 countries, and there are more barrels of bourbon aging in Kentucky (4.7 million) right now than residents (4.3 million).

The bourbon industry’s renaissance has also led to a surge in Kentucky tourism. The Kentucky Bourbon Trail program, which offers tours of some of the Commonwealth’s most scenic and iconic distilleries, has become one of the state’s top tourism destinations. Since August 2007, more than 25,000 people have completed the tour, resulting in a total economic impact of $18.4 million. More than 80 percent of Bourbon Trail visitors came from out of state.

Read the full study here.

Yarmuth formed the Congressional Bourbon Caucus in 2009. The bipartisan group is dedicated to maintaining and strengthening the bourbon industry in the United States and educating other Members on the legislative and regulatory issues affecting the industry.

Children Welcome!

Most alcohol-related sites on the web have an age gate. It's all honor system, but you must at least claim you are of legal drinking age to get in.

There's a good reason for this. The purpose of those sites is to persuade visitors to buy a certain alcohol product. All alcohol producers pledge not to market their products to underage persons, and contrary to the calumnies of the Neo-Prohibitionists, the vast majority of alcohol producers honor that pledge in good faith. Hence the age gates.

Some booze bloggers also label their sites 'for adults only.' That's their prerogative, but The Chuck Cowdery Blog has a different attitude.

You may be too young to drink alcoholic beverages but you're never to young to learn.

What you read here will be factual, honest, and suitable for persons of all ages. Childhood is not a permanent condition and most of it is spent preparing for adulthood. If you are underage, it is for many reasons in your best interest to obey the law, but by all means drink deeply of the cup of knowledge, and do so early and often.

Young people should be encouraged to eschew alcohol until they reach legal drinking age, but you won't accomplish that by pretending alcohol doesn't exist. If all they get is the ham-handed and dishonest anti-alcohol messages contained in most youth alcohol awareness programs, that alone may drive them prematurely to imbibe.

So don't drink, kids. And say no to drugs. And you might want to watch your caffeine and sugar intake too. But by all means, read.

And if this post, and especially the picture, infuriates some Neo-Prohibitionists, that's a bonus.

DISCUS Applauds Bloomberg's "Commitment to Hospitality Jobs."

Say what you will about lobbyists. When they lobby for a cause you support, you hope they will be good at their job. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) is good at its job.

The first rule of issue advocacy is framing. Define the issue in the way most favorable to your position. That's why the headline on the press release is: "Distilled Spirits Council Applauds Mayor Bloomberg’s Commitment to New York City Hospitality Jobs."

That's not how the story started out.

Overnight, the New York Post broke a story under the headline, "Mayor's plan to limit booze sales." The lead went like this: "Party pooper! First, Mayor Bloomberg went after smoking in public places. Then trans-fats, salt and sugary drinks. Now Bloomberg — known for sipping fine wine and downing a cold beer from time to time — wants to crack down on alcohol sales to curb excessive drinking, according to a provocative planning document obtained by The Post."

The story was quickly picked up by bloggers, all too eager to condemn Bloomberg as First Nanny.

Small problem, though. It wasn't true.

The proposal to slash the number of establishments in the city that sell booze came from the city's health department, in a planning document that hadn't been fully vetted yet. Someone leaked it to The Post and they rushed it into print, assuming Bloomberg himself endorsed the plan.

He didn't.

Within hours of The Post's story, Bloomberg nixed the proposal (through spokesman Stu Loeser) and only then did DISCUS let its short press release fly.

"The Distilled Spirits Council applauds Mayor Bloomberg for nixing the New York City Health Department proposal to reduce alcohol outlets, and for understanding that population-based approaches to reduce alcohol abuse are ineffective. The Mayor clearly realizes that forcing thousands of restaurant workers and bartenders into the unemployment line is no way to improve community health.

"Repeated studies have shown that population-based approaches, such as advertising restrictions and a reduction in retail outlets, do little to reduce alcohol abuse and will only impact moderate drinkers and the employees of the hospitality industry."

That last sentence is worth committing to memory, for use the next time some politician or activist goes on a tear about restricting the number of retail licenses, or banning or restricting alcohol marketing. (Remember the Four Loko nonsense?) Those are phony solutions. They do nothing to discourage alcohol abuse and they hurt small businesses and the people they employ. They also inconvenience the vast majority of alcohol consumers who do so responsibly.

There is a constituency for that sort of thing. It is the anti-alcohol movement -- Neo-Prohibitionists, New Drys, whatever you want to call them. Their true goal is to give National Prohibition another go, but they know better than to admit that outright. Don't be fooled.

The Post, of course, in all its shameless majesty, is now crowing about how it broke the story. It neglects to mention that it grossly mis-reported the story. I'm sure no one is surprised by The Post's crappy journalism. Stay classy, NYP.

Be Careful With High Proof Whiskey.

At this time of year, when people like to treat themselves and their friends, it's common to buy whiskeys you normally don't, probably because they're too damn expensive.

Many people are enamored of barrel proof or cask strength whiskey, whether it's Booker's Bourbon at 63% ABV (alcohol by volume), McCallan Single Malt at 58% ABV, or the 2007 George T. Stagg Bourbon at 72.4% ABV. If you give or receive any of these this holiday season, or anything else above about 55% ABV, be careful.

Of course, you always need to be careful with straight spirits. Most whiskey is sold at 40% ABV, which is about four times as much alcohol per ounce as wine and more than eight times as much as most beers.

The most important part of self-control in an alcohol consumption context is being aware of exactly how much alcohol is going into your body; not the volume of liquid, the volume of alcohol.

With very high proof beverages there are additional risks.

Gentle sipping of small quantities of very high proof spirits probably won’t hurt you. It depends on your personal sensitivity. Drinking—as opposed to sipping—alcohol at very high concentrations risks damage to any and all of the tissue it encounters along the way: mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach.

A pour of straight Stagg, for example, contains 75 percent more alcohol than Jack Daniel’s. If you’re not paying careful attention to how much you consume, you risk alcohol poisoning, which can be fatal. Those are the primary risks, tissue damage and alcohol poisoning.

On the other side of the risk there is no reward. High proof alcohol tends to deaden or anesthetize the sense receptors, reducing your ability to taste or smell the whiskey. No fun in that.

Whiskeys aren’t bottled at high proof so you can drink them that way. They’re usually expensive and are bottled that way so you pay for whiskey, not added water, and can prepare it for drinking as you see fit. I recommend reducing the proof with room temperature water to about 50% ABV.

I hope this isn't a downer. Have a great holiday, including your favorite adult beverages. Just be adult about it.

It's Back. The Wholesaler Monoply Protection Act.

Since we're talking about laws, the Wholesaler Monopoly Protection Act (real name: Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act -- abbreviation 'CARE') is back. It was reintroduced in Congress two weeks ago as HR 1161.

All pending bills expire at the end of each Congress and have to be re-introduced. This is the new version of HR 5034, which I wrote about it here and here.

Everyone agrees that the bill would give states more power to regulate alcohol distribution. The disagreement is about whether this is a good or bad thing.

I believe it is a bad law and can be defeated (again) but it will take some effort. The problem is that wholesalers throw around a lot of campaign cash and many legislators see it as a harmless sop to some big contributors. Not being thinking people, they don't think about how this could harm the hospitality industry in their district. It would harm producers too, off course but, state-by-state, wholesalers are much more influential than producers.

It's also bad for consumers, assuming you believe alcohol is already regulated quite enough, thank you. States don't need additional authority to lighten the regulatory burden, only to increase it.

For instance, if you think it is hard to get limited release whiskeys where you live now, passage of HR 1161 will only make it worse.

Lawmakers love their campaign money but counter-pressure will work. They usually hope with this sort of thing that no one will notice. Let them know you've noticed and they'll think twice before supporting it.

Go here if you would like to learn more about the bill, such as whether or not your representative is a co-sponsor. Check back to follow its progress . Govtrack.us is neutral regarding the bill. If you'd like to know more about why it sucks, go here and here.

Most Micro-Distillery Whiskeys Are Illegal In California.

This is fascinating! Apparently, nearly all micro-distillery whiskeys are illegal in California. The law there says that a distilled spirit labeled as 'whiskey' has to be at least three years old. (That's the rule in Europe too, by the way, which has been giving mirco-distillers fits.) That's the rule in California but no one, including California's alcohol regulators, seems to know about it, because many <3-year-old whiskeys are sold there.

California also appears to require charred barrels.

The pertinent section also uses the term 'straight whiskey' without defining it, which seems like an indirect acknowledgement of the federal Standards of Identity, where it is defined. The term 'straight whiskey' is used nowhere else in the 376-page law.

Presumably, if this rule were to be enforced it could be challenged on the grounds that the federal rules control, and the federal rules have no such requirement.

Here is the relevant section.

25175. Age of whiskey. Any person who sells at retail any potable spirituous liquor product labeled as whiskey, including blended whiskey and blends of straight whiskeys, except products containing 20 or more percent of straight whiskey or whiskeys which have been aged in charred oak containers for three or more years after distillation and before bottling is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that this section does not prohibit the sale at retail of unaged corn whiskey, when so labeled, or the sale at retail of gins, brandies, rums, cordials, liqueurs, bitters, or other distilled liquor products or products compounded of distilled spirits and other materials, when in no wise labeled as whiskey or blended whiskey or blends of straight whiskeys, or the sale at retail of Scotch whiskeys, or spirit whiskeys containing not less than 5 percent straight whiskey, three years old or older.

Stop Booze Wholesalers Before They Sin Again.

To paraphrase Rick Blaine in Casablanca, “it doesn't take much to see that the problems of drinkers and drink-makers don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” On the other hand, preventing government mischief before it can occur is good policy under any conditions.

Hence the letter sent yesterday to members of Congress by the trade associations representing America’s 3,500 breweries, wineries, distilleries, and alcohol beverage importers.

Its well-argued plea: don’t co-sponsor the Wholesaler Monopoly Protection Act (also known as the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act [“CARE Act”]) when it is reintroduced into the 112th Congress as anticipated. (It never came to a vote in the 111th.) I last wrote about it here.

After outlining the contribution the alcohol beverage industry makes to the U.S. economy, yesterday’s letter continues: “Fundamental to our long-term success is a stable regulatory system in which Congress regulates interstate and foreign commerce, and states regulate the distribution and retail sales of alcohol beverages within their borders. This system has evolved and served the public well since the repeal of Prohibition.”

“We do not believe that Congress should spend valuable time wading into an intra-industry squabble and unraveling a successful regulatory structure to the detriment of consumers, the industry, and the federal interest in a fair, competitive, and orderly marketplace for alcohol beverages.”

What the letter doesn’t mention is that in cahoots with the wholesalers are state alcohol regulatory boards, who can’t wait to create larger and more burdensome bureaucracies, not because they care so passionately about alcohol regulation but because they like their jobs and want to make themselves more important.

The wholesalers are only too happy to carry water for the alcohol control bureaucrats because the bureaucrats have no interest in fostering competition at the wholesaler level. When you have the power to grant people very lucrative, low risk business monopolies, they tend to be very cooperative. State legislators are in on it too because booze wholesalers are such generous campaign contributors.

This is only possible because alcohol is already so heavily regulated at the state level, unlike almost any other consumer product. More than 4,000 state alcohol beverage laws are on the books. Every state mandates a so-called 3-tier system, in which consumers may buy alcohol only from state-licensed retailers (bars and stores), and those retailers may buy only from state-licensed wholesalers. Producers (i.e., manufacturers and importers) may not sell directly to consumers nor retailers, only to state-approved wholesalers.

The current system has many flaws, most stemming from the fact that it hasn’t been seriously examined since it was put in place almost 80 years ago. The problem isn’t at the Federal level, it’s out-of-date state laws and regulations.

Nobody disagrees with the public policy goals of state regulation – preventing underage drinking and limiting alcohol abuse – or even with the very high taxes we all pay for the privilege of drinking alcohol. It’s out-of-date rules that accomplish little except maintain the status quo, including inefficient monopolies. Empowering state regulators to cause new mischief will only make the problems worse.

Recovery of Distilled Spirits Industry Still Fragile, Says DISCUS.

This morning in New York, the Distilled Spirits Council (DISCUS) presented its annual report on the state of the industry.

The report is based on sales data and other research about the year just ended. DISCUS President Peter Cressy led with an appeal to lawmakers not to stifle the recovery by piling on new tax burdens.

In 2010, supplier volumes rose 2% to 190 million cases and revenue rose 2.3% to $19.1 billion, but Cressy pointed out that growth rates remain below the robust pre-recession growth rates, and the important on-premise (restaurants and bars) sector is still experiencing a fragile recovery.

Cressy also noted that in 2010 consumers began to return to their preference for high-end and super premium spirits products, with revenue in the super premium category growing 10.9% from a very soft 2009. Revenue-based market share for spirits versus beer and wine gained four-tenths of a point, rising to 33.3% of the beverage alcohol market. Beer lost seven-tenths of a point of market share falling below 50%, as consumers continued their decade-long migration from beer to cocktails.

Reinforcing the cocktails theme, vodka, which accounts for 31% of industry volume, was up 6.1% to 59 million 9-liter cases (the standard measure of industry volume). Among super premium vodkas, volume was up nearly 18% and revenue was up approximately 14%.

Whiskey showed strong revenue growth, particularly in the super premium segment, which increased by 8.1% overall to over $1.1 billion. Within the super premium segment, bourbon and Tennessee whiskey revenue increased by over 17% to $161 million; single malt scotch grew nearly 18% to $140 million; and Irish grew 30% to $23 million. Super premium Brandy and Cognac were also up almost 10% to $315 million.

2010 preliminary U.S. distilled spirits export data showed a fourth consecutive year exceeding $1 billion, and a rebound from the slight downturn in 2009. The Council predicted final results could break the $1.1 billion record set in 2008. American whiskey represents 71% of all U.S. spirits exports.

DISCUS also reported that progress is being made in the prevention of underage drinking and drunk driving. The latest government data shows underage drinking by 8th, 10th and 12th graders, as well as the total number of drunk driving fatalities in the United States, are at historic low levels.

Alcohol-Infused Whipped Cream.

The New Drys are up in arms about alcohol-infused whipped cream. They are over-the-top on this one because the product is too expensive to be abused effectively. It's a novelty, expensive even for that. I haven't had it but I doubt it even tastes good.

Binny's, the big liquor store chain here in Chicago, has it at the checkout because as a novelty it's a good impulse purchase. Recently I was in line behind three young guys -- early 20s probably -- and they were buying for a party. You know, the usual buy for young guys buying for a party -- handles of Captain Morgan Rum, Skyy Vodka and Jack Daniel's. They were being loud and obnoxious, egging each other on, pumping each other up, showing off for each other -- at some point it's like observing chimps -- when one of them noticed the alcohol-infused whipped cream. They picked it up, passed it around, talked it up, then put it back because of the price. Nice idea and at $2 - $3 they might have bought it, but I think it was $7.99 or $8.99 and at that price, no sale.

Repeal Day is this Sunday, December 5. It has been 77 years since Prohibition ended, 90 since it began. Not withstanding the absurdity of protesting alcohol-infused whipped cream, we drinkers need to pay attention to the New Dry agenda. On Sunday, resolve to make sure Prohibition doesn't happen again.

I suggest you drink to it.

The Lesson Of Four Loko.

Four Loko is the controversial alcoholic beverage that has been all over the news recently, as several states have or are trying to ban it. It is made by a Chicago company.

Last night I noticed that a big liquor store near Wrigley Field has its entire exterior wall painted with the Four Loko logo.

I can't tell you how many people I know who would never ordinarily drink something like Four Loko but have tried it because of all the publicity. Maybe the politicians will eventually kill it but, in the meantime, the guys who own it are making a fortune, thanks to the hysteria.

Society's choice in matters of this sort is either to let people make stupid mistakes, consequences and all, or restrict the freedom of everyone to prevent the abuses of a few. I support the former, many people support the latter, and where alcohol is concerned, people don't line up along the usual lines of more regulation/less freedom vs. less regulation/more freedom.

To me, the takeaway from all this is that we, as a society, do a piss poor job of teaching people about alcohol and the main problem is that those in control of the message are determined to lie in the interest of protecting people from themselves rather than telling the truth and hoping for the best. The trouble surrounding Four Loko is a manifestation of what happens when this dishonest approach to alcohol education reinforces myths that encourage risky behavior.

Politics Trumps Science, As Usual.

"We will restore science to its rightful place." Thus spake Barack Obama in his inaugural address almost two years ago. I wrote then about how this simple pledge might be applied to alcohol policy.

Alas, the rightful place of science in Obama's FDA appears to be where it always has been, firmly behind political pandering in the policymaking pecking order.

Yesterday, the FDA declared that caffeine when added to an alcoholic beverage becomes an "unsafe food additive." FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the combination of caffeine and alcohol is a public health concern because it can lead to "a state of wide-awake drunk."  The FDA said experts have raised concerns that caffeine can mask a person's feeling of intoxication, leading to risky behavior.

I challenge you to review the science upon which these claims are based. Hell, I challenge you to even find the science on which these claims are based. Today's announcement was supported with press releases and sound bites, not scientific studies, not even abstracts. The press releases have footnotes, sure, but good luck finding the sources.

Science, remember, is the objective search for answers. It is not the pursuit of evidence to support conclusions that have already been reached. Most of the 'science' cited to support the claims about Four Loko, Joose, and the other alcoholic energy drinks falls into the latter category.

Until about a month ago, I had never heard of Four Loko or Joose. Now they are everywhere. Hey, kids, want to know the best way to get really blasted? The answer is on the front page of yesterday's Chicago Tribune. Or the Huffington Post, or wherever you get your news. It's everywhere.

People, especially young people, believe a lot of myths about alcohol. One of the biggest is that some forms of alcohol are inherently more dangerous than others. What we should teach is that all alcoholic drinks are equally hazardous because what makes them so is alcohol, that it is possible to have fun with alcohol without endangering your health, and that stimulants--whether it's caffeine or methamphetamine--combined with alcohol will add another dimension to your intoxication, but they won't let you get more drunk or let you keep drinking longer or any of those other things. It won't help you be higher for longer so you can have an even better time.

Those are myths. They aren't true. If you drink too much alcohol too fast you will get sick and might die. That's true. The other stuff isn't. The stuff about drinking too much too fast is important. That other stuff isn't.

But, dude, the FDA says it is true, they say the whole caffeine-and-alcohol thing works, so party on!

That's the problem. By reinforcing the false belief that these products do exactly what the critics claim they do, they're making them that much more desirable to their target audience. Now that the practice of combining alcohol and caffeine to achieve "a state of wide-awake drunk" has been endorsed by the FDA, America's fraternities, sororities, and other drinking societies are rapidly updating their party punch recipes to include mega doses of caffeine, guarana and taurine along with the Everclear and Kool Aid. That is, if they didn't do it already years ago.

The Romans talked about "bread and circuses." Leaders manage the masses by keeping them fed and distracted. Our politics today isn't so much polarized as it is dominated by shiny objects meant to keep us from noticing important things that either aren't being done or are being done contrary to our wishes and interests, which is not the new day we were promised. It is not what Obama promised in 2008, nor is it what the tea party promised in 2010. Today the nanny state exposed itself and the tea party blinked.

Same as the old boss.

I need a drink.

How Bad Science (BS) Leads To Bad Public Policy.

In the current issue of NEWSWEEK, science columnist Sharon Begley proposes that K-12 science education should be devoted to teaching kids how to “detect Bad Science—BS, if you will.”

She cites in support a new book by Ben Goldacre of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine called Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks.

To both Begley and Goldacre, a big part of the problem is observational studies, “in which people who happen to behave one way (eating a lot of olive oil, drinking in moderation) have one health outcome, while people who choose to behave the opposite way have a different health outcome.”

What’s wrong with that? As Begley writes, “Unless people are randomly assigned to drink or not drink, those health outcomes are just as likely to reflect something inherent in the drinkers and teetotalers rather than the behavior.”

Which brings us back to the subject of yesterday’s post, and the Bad Science (BS) lurking behind the efforts of two Chicago aldermen, and politicians in many other jurisdictions, to ban drinks that combine alcohol and caffeine. According to yesterday’s press release, “medical experts say such controversial drinks can be hazardous because the caffeine may mask the effects of alcohol making it hard for young adults to realize how intoxicated they have become.”

This claim, repeated almost verbatim in every criticism of these products, appears to be based on a 2006 study conducted by researchers at Wake Forest University. Here is what those researchers wrote about the limits of their own study:

“This study used cross-sectional data, which limits our ability to assess causal relationships. In addition, the relationships between consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drinks, and high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related consequences may be a result of selection effects; specifically, sensation seeking individuals may be drawn to energy drinks, heavy alcohol consumption, and risky behaviors. This investigation was limited to college students from a specific geographic area, limiting its generalizability. Data were obtained by self-report; it is possible that survey respondents may have under- or overestimated their alcohol use and its consequences.”

So this big medical claim is based on some kids who drank alcohol and caffeine together, which they did because they believed that combination would allow them to drink more before they felt drunk. Then afterwards they reported that they thought it worked.

That’s medical evidence?

The aldermen could easily have provided references to the science on which their proposal relies, so why didn’t they? Because the anti-alcohol activists who spoon feed this junk to the politicians don’t give it to them, the politicians don’t ask for it, and that’s how public policy is made.

The fraud, of course, it that next year when they run for reelection these aldermen will brag about how they “fought to protect kids from beverage companies who put profits ahead of the health and safety of Chicago families.” What they are really doing is encouraging risky behaviors by giving credence to the myths on which those behaviors are based. Shame on them.

Paging Dr. Burke, Paging Dr. Schulter.

Noted medical authorities and Chicago aldermen Ed Burke and Gene Schulter rose today to protect us from caffeinated alcoholic beverages. They want them banned in the city of Chicago. Their proposal was sent for consideration to a Joint Committee of Finance and License and Consumer Protection. (I last wrote about this subject here.)

According to Dr. Burke, "it is a dangerous cocktail which can lead to dangerous situations for young people who may be totally unaware of how inebriated they have become in such a short period of time." The press release from the Committee on Finance further asserts that "caffeinated alcoholic drinks have already resulted in a rash of cases of college-aged students being sent to emergency rooms after drinking the beverages."

Scared yet?

Then listen to what Dr. Schulter has to say about it: "Quite frankly, I think it is completely irresponsible to manufacture and market a product that can make young people so intoxicated, so fast."

According to the press release's own 'facts,' drinking a 23.5 ounce can of one of these products is like drinking four to six beers and one cup of coffee. Oh, the horror.

Most of the 'facts' on which Drs. Burke and Schulter* rely seem to come from a story reported last week by CNN. "Reported" may give CNN too much credit, since it originated with the neo-prohibitionist Center for Science in the Public Interest.

According the CNN story, a 23.5-ounce can of Four Loko, one of the offending products, contains either 6 or 12 percent alcohol by volume, depending on state regulations. A typical table wine is about 12 percent alcohol. It's a stretch to say, even at 12 percent, that it is equivalent to up to six beers, but stretching the truth is what demagoguery is all about.

Have you ever had a couple glasses of Chardonnay either preceded or followed by a cup of coffee? How about a rum and Coke, or Jack and Coke? How about a Red Bull and vodka? There you go, living on the edge.

Do many young adults abuse alcohol with bad, even tragic, consequences? Of course they do. Do they often get into trouble because they are working with incomplete, false or misleading information? Constantly. Is the solution for headline-seeking politicians to muddy the water with more false and misleading information? I don't think so.

This particular lie is dangerous because it fosters the myth that some kinds of alcoholic beverages are inherently more dangerous than others. If that's true, then so is the reverse, that some are inherently less dangerous than others. How many parents have rationalized their child's underage drinking with, "it's only beer"? How many people say they "don't drink," except for "a little white wine"? Champagne is considered so celebratory, many people don't even think of it as drinking.

The reality--and what we should teach kids--is that alcohol is alcohol, period. The only thing that matters, in terms of intoxication and other health effects, is how much alcohol you consume and how fast you consume it. If you want to help young people make smart choices about alcohol, start with this simple proposition.

Tell them the truth.


* A note to my out-of-town readers. Drs. Burke and Schulter received their medical training at the U-Gotta-Prob-Em-Wit-Dat School of Medicine.