Live data from Hacker News

Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

slate.com

21–30 of 199 posts

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the age of entry, I recently walked past a bar in Chicago with a posted minimum age of 23. This struck me as odd (and somewhat offensive). I did a few searches, but had trouble locating any relevant information. Do you happen to know if the legislation provides insight into this sort of practice?

That strikes me as illegal age discrimination...

I am pretty sure age is only a protected class over fifty-five (somewhere around there). People can legally discriminate against young people.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#22
post #7

As a (western) European, these laws strike me as completely unnecessary and obviously damaging. The union's ad (page 2) makes no sense at all. Kids here aren't dying by the bunch, and I'm pretty sure I can buy all kinds of booze (from mixed fizzy drinks to beer and wine to hard liquor to everclear) in any arbitrary convenience store...

There are plenty of western European states with very similar laws. For example, all the Scandinavian states have varying levels of government monopolies for the distribution of harder liquor, which in Sweden translates to "anything more than 3.5% ABV".

Not that this makes any more sense in Europe though. In Finland, it's a national pastime to make booze runs across to Estonia, where alcohol is far cheaper. Since both countries are in the EU, there's very little Finland can do about it (free trade and all that), and there's even judicial precedent that importing a minivan stacked full of vodka falls under "personal use" if you happen to have a wedding or birthday party coming up.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#23
post #10

Okay, what the heck is with this business of secondary markets for licenses in the US? You can sell a liquor license? You can sell a taxi license (aka medallion)? Why? How does treating licenses as property make any legal sense, or serve any public good? In the UK, if you want to sell booze from your shop, you write to the council and apply for a license. They check you and your shop out, and if you seem okay, they g…

Licenses become valuable property when they become scarce. In every US municipality I'm aware of, the supply for both liquor licenses and Taxi medallions is tightly restricted. When you simply cannot get a new license by applying to the appropriate authority, it begins to make sense to pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt an existing license.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#24
You should try Canada's laws for a while. Some of the highest taxes on alcohol in the world, almost no province allows drinking outside homes or licensed establishments (so be prepared for a $300+ fine for having wine at a picnic). All of this managed through archaic licensing systems run by bureaucratic power-tripping morons.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#25
In addition to having similar liquor license quotas, British Columbians pay a markup of 123% for wine and 170% for spirits. Our provincial liquor board generates $1.2B per year from a population of only 4.5 million people. There are different dynamics here as we have public health insurance. Liquor and tobacco sin taxes are a form of pre-payment on future healthcare expenses of heavy consumers.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#26
post #7

As a (western) European, these laws strike me as completely unnecessary and obviously damaging. The union's ad (page 2) makes no sense at all. Kids here aren't dying by the bunch, and I'm pretty sure I can buy all kinds of booze (from mixed fizzy drinks to beer and wine to hard liquor to everclear) in any arbitrary convenience store...

Sigh. Yes, yes, we know. All of the laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America. The real story, as usual, turns out to be fairly complex. Americans have a very odd and unique history with alcohol. Most notably was the temperance movement [1], which really started all of this hullabaloo. This caused an amendment to our Constitution.…

None of which detracts from his point: we (Americans) are nuts about mind altering drugs, and most of the debate on both sides is laughably sophomoric. Europeans have a lot to feel superior about when it comes to these regulations. That there is a complex political history here doesn't alter that.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#27
post #10

Okay, what the heck is with this business of secondary markets for licenses in the US? You can sell a liquor license? You can sell a taxi license (aka medallion)? Why? How does treating licenses as property make any legal sense, or serve any public good? In the UK, if you want to sell booze from your shop, you write to the council and apply for a license. They check you and your shop out, and if you seem okay, they g…

Licenses become valuable property when they become scarce. In every US municipality I'm aware of, the supply for both liquor licenses and Taxi medallions is tightly restricted. When you simply cannot get a new license by applying to the appropriate authority, it begins to make sense to pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt an existing license.

That only answers why they are valuable, not why they are property. It is the issuing authority that intentional makes licenses into property by honoring them after they have been transferred.

The quesion is, why are these licenses honored after a transfer?

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#28

It made sense until he advocated home-distilling.

Not sure what the paranoia about home distilling stems from. Actually, I read most of article wondering when he would get to discussing the absurd home-distilling laws.

Making beer, wine, etc is legal in most jurisdictions (with some out-there upper limit like 200 gallons per person per year max). Nothing wrong with drinking [most of] that stuff; with a little practice you can make it better than the cheap store-bought forms (or maybe even get actually good at it).

Distilling is simply removing some of the content of the aforementioned beverage. Usually it involves extracting the [harmless] ethanol from the fermented must/wort via evaporation & condensation, which can be done as simply as a "disappearing still" (arrangements of common kitchen pots, ice, and stove). Legally, "distilling" also includes other forms of concentrating the alcohol by removing something, such as by freezing the liquid and draining the still-fluid components from the ice. Either way, it's pretty stupid that people can make vast amounts of inebriants at home for personal use, but are severely punished for concentrating it (again, for personal use).

Yes, some people do get stupid and make harmful solutions. A main factor therein is the fact that it's illegal to make distilled spirits without expensive licenses, which in turns make it hard for people to make it properly & safely (both in manufacturing and product). Sure you could argue that they shouldn't be doing illegal things, but that ignores the easy LEGAL availability (liquor stores flourish), and the fact that it's so easy to make at home it's almost hard not to.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#29
post #10

Okay, what the heck is with this business of secondary markets for licenses in the US? You can sell a liquor license? You can sell a taxi license (aka medallion)? Why? How does treating licenses as property make any legal sense, or serve any public good? In the UK, if you want to sell booze from your shop, you write to the council and apply for a license. They check you and your shop out, and if you seem okay, they g…

It doesn't serve a public good. It raises prices by limiting supply. It is almost pure protectionism, to eliminate competition.

Impose an artificial barrier to entry, and everyone already past the barrier can work a little less, and reap higher profits.

Ensuring safety and quality of service is merely a pretext, and mostly everyone knows that is just political flimflam. It is a corrupt practice that is tolerated because it seems to benefit businesses somewhat more than it hurts customers.

In some cases, they are NOT property. They are treated as such to move the cash around, but the person exercising the privilege sets up a sham business arrangement with the licensee. For instance, the licensee of the cab medallion "hires" a manager with his own metered vehicle, garage, and roster of drivers, has no involvement in the day-to-day operations, and just cashes the checks.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#30

It's even worse than that... I live in Illinois, a state where there are not statewide quotas... however: The cities have the ability to add extra licensure requirements, so quotas can and do exist at the city level. Further, there are strange rules about entry to taverns - for example age of entry need not be legal drinking age which differ by city. There are also city or even smaller administrative district rule ov…

Regarding the age of entry, I recently walked past a bar in Chicago with a posted minimum age of 23. This struck me as odd (and somewhat offensive). I did a few searches, but had trouble locating any relevant information. Do you happen to know if the legislation provides insight into this sort of practice?

I know of quite a few places in Chicago with a mid-20's minimum age. To my knowledge it has nothing to do with any legal requirements but is based on the idea that slightly older people are less rowdy/better able to handle their drinks.

When I was 21/22 I rarely had a problem getting passed the bouncers in places with the higher age limits because "you don't look like you're going to do anything stupid"

Post reply on HN