The NC Senate may have (completely accidentally) done something right. Believe me when I say that these events are few and far between -- and the horrible, irresponsible, reckless, idiotic, freedom-hating, bureaucratic, draconic things they do FAR outweigh the few occasional things they do right. But heck, when they do something right, I want to mention it.
Of course, there's still those that are opposed to it, and it has to pass one more reading in the Senate (and get past the govn'r) before it will be law. Senator John Kerr (D) thinks that this measure will "expose young people to alcohol that would make them legally drunk with just a small amount." I guess Sen. Kerr would rather you drink a lot to get drunk. Hey Senator, change that moronic law that makes you "legally drunk" after one sip!
Sen Don East (D) thinks it will cause more accidents. He doesn't say how. I'm thinking it will cause more traffic jams at the stores as people enjoy a slight bit of expanded freedom and choice in their beers. In addition, there will quite likely be more breweries that will open up and employ people. Heck, I'm seriously considering a career move there.
To show you how long it's taken and how horrible the current law is, take a peek at Pop The Cap -- a website that's been running for almost 3 years trying to get the 70-year old 5% law removed. Oh and the reason for that 5% law 70 years ago? Because businesses complained that there were afraid their employees might come in drunk Monday.
1
Wow! I've never even heard of a 15% beer! All I've ever seen is the 5 and 6%. Interesting. I don't see why beer should have a limit of alcohol content when there are liquors out there. I mean, drink a rum and coke instead, whats the difference? I mean besides the obvious taste difference...point is you could drink something else that does have higher alchohol content, why not let it be beer?
Posted by: Jay at August 04, 2005 06:49 AM (BKqRl)
2
The difference, at least in North Carolina, is that ALL liquor is 100% regulated and run by the state -- NO ONE can sell liquor except the state.
If this law passes, individuals will be able to sell the increased alcohol content beer. The state sees this as cutting into their racket (of course it really isn't).
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 07:03 AM (/k+l4)
3
Pa is much the same. We have independent beer distributors, but the state runs the liquor racket. Lifting the cap sounds good to me!
mmmm. beer!
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 04, 2005 08:34 AM (6Gm0j)
4
The highest alcohol content I've seen in a beer, that I can remember, is 14.1%. The ban is stupid, and the fact the state has that much control over alcohol is stupid.
Remember, I've argued the constitutional right to get drunk!
Posted by: Contagion at August 04, 2005 08:45 AM (Q5WxB)
5
I only remember one thing about PA's really, really screwy beer laws.
I was there one night on business. I wanted to have a beer or two in the hotel with my pizza. However, I was not permitted, by law, to buy a six-pack of beer from the beer store. They were forced to only sell entire cases.
I'm sure most of you can imagine what I did -- I promptly bought an entire case of beer and packed what remained to take home with me. What a really, really foolish law.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 08:57 AM (/k+l4)
6
And I do remember, Contagion, and I couldn't find any legal holes in your argument! I thought we learned via prohibition that the state needs to get completely out of all businesses associated with alcohol. Unfortunately, there's way too much money in it for them to get out of the business, especially in places like NC where they literally run the entire hard liquor business.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 08:58 AM (/k+l4)
7
I've heard of cities getting their own monopoly on the sale of alcohol, but I didn't know there are entire states that do that!
I'll add that to the 73,213,454,423 reasons I already have NOT to ever move to NC.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 04, 2005 09:56 AM (K+h36)
8
I know both North Carolina and New Hampshire both have total monopolies. I don't know how many other states do.
I remember New York doesn't because we used to play the alphabet game while driving around New York, and you always looked for the liquor store signs so you could get "Q,R,S, and T" all at the same time.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 10:10 AM (/k+l4)
9
I am glad to see that the State of North Carolina is moving toward bills like this instead of increasing taxes.
One step that I would take in South Carolina, if given the oppurtunity, is get rid of the annoying airplane bottle liquer law (no "free pour" is ridiculous).
If you haven't had the luxury to have a drink in South Carolina: you have to pay by the mini-bottle (it's annoying to say the least).
Also, Ogre, Georgia passed this same Bill on beer last year. Great post.
Posted by: Michael R. Churchill at August 05, 2005 08:49 AM (6SS8d)
10
When you look at the reasons behind these laws, they are really silly. I mean, they actually passed this law because businesses thought their employees would come in drunk to work on Monday too much! Talk about an outdated law!
It's like the silly law that requires you to bring your own bottle to some places. What's the point in that?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 08:56 AM (/k+l4)
11
Washington state also has the state own and run all the liquor stores.
As for the Alcohol % cap, it's not only stupid, but by keeping at a 5% or 6% you're missing out on some really good imports.
I've seen a "beer" that was 18%, but in actuality it was barley wine.
Posted by: Graumagus at August 05, 2005 05:10 PM (G1IXe)
12
Imports AND brand-spanking new microbrews. SBA, can I have a loan, please?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 05:21 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
