Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by twic » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:40 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #76

orp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact about the UK. In order to get a license to drive a taxi in London, applicants need to pass an extensive test. Passing the test takes years of preparation and multiple attempts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...

I bet you could write a bot that pastes that link any time a comment mentions UK and taxis in proximity.

Just be grateful it's not the one about MRI showing black cab drivers have significantly enlarged hippocampi.

(for those not familiar with cerebral anatomy, the hippocampus is the part of the brain responsible for racism, swearing at cyclists, and tax evasion)

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

#82

Post by bane » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:40 PM UTC

joshuapants wrote: post #69

bane wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You issue as many licenses as their are passing applicants.

That defeats the purpose of the license. It's not like a driver's license where the goal is to establish some baseline level of competency, it's there specifically to limit the number of taxis/liquor stores/etc.

In many areas it is just like a drivers license and that regime works pretty well. It's a weird desire to arbitrary limit licenses. What's the purpose of that? Limiting the number of sellers doesn't really do much to limit buyers or consumption.

It sounds like a bad idea that's carried forward out of momentum not something that needs to be fixed. It should be replaced with the better approach.

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

#83

Post by avn2109 » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:42 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #47

twic wrote: 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…

You make a license trade-able when you care about limiting the supply, but you don't care who gets it. The purpose of a taxi medallion is to limit the total number of taxis, and the purpose of a liquor license is to limit the number of establishments that sell liquor.[1] But the government doesn't care who has the license. Making it trade-able ensures that the license goes to the person or organization that values it…

>> "Taxis generate undesirable congestion..."

Jane Jacobs rolls in her grave when you say stuff like that. The overwhelming majority of transportation engineers will tell you that taxis alleviate congestion by raising asset utilization. And they also reduce the need for vast parking facilities and block-circling in search of parking (which turns out to be a large fraction of traffic in some areas). It's a triple-win.

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

#84

Post by verboten » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:44 PM UTC

kgermino wrote: post #30

verboten wrote: post #11

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?

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"

Legality aside, because I don't doubt it is legal, something about the deliberate act of posting an age makes me deeply uncomfortable.

What I don't quite understand is they can turn away anyone for any [non-protected] reason already. What could be the thought process behind posting this? Especially when the establishment is unlikely to enforce it, as you noted.

As an establishment, feel free to turn away a large, intoxicated group. Similarly, it is your right and responsibility to avoid over-serving. And furthermore, you may choose to establish whatever ambiance you choose through your decor, music, lighting, and even pricing. Between these things, you can maintain the atmosphere and attract the customer base you desire.

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

#85

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:44 PM UTC

endersshadow wrote: post #67

dalke wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh . Yes, yes, we know the US is special. So is everyone else. ;) The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% o…

I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like…

The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not?

Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.

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

#86

Post by verboten » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:45 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #61

hellogoodby3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fascinating. Looks like it's 40+. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

That appears to be with regard to employment discrimination. I wouldn't be surprised if there were slightly different standards for serving customers, etc.

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

#87

Post by epaladin » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:46 PM UTC

litek wrote: post #46

jpatokal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bot…

Denmark is the notable exception. You can buy hard liquor at the local 7-eleven at any hour.

Sounds like how it goes in Japan (including the 7-11)

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

#88

Post by dangoldin » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:47 PM UTC

IvyMike wrote: post #59

Philip K. Howard has a new book out: The Rule of Nobody. (Note: I haven't read it, I've just seen a few interviews and considered buying the book.) The premise is that the fact that laws are constantly added but almost never removed is crippling us. Also, unfair laws are almost always unfair in someone's favor, and the groups benefiting will defend those unfair laws tooth-and-nail, and the morass of laws becomes even…

Based on your description this seems very similar to Mancur Olson's "The Rise and Decline of Nations" - he provides an economic framework to think about special interest groups and why they tend to win out in terms of politics.

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

#89

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:48 PM UTC

gallerytungsten wrote: post #71

wtbob wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, catastrophic fires are an issue. And yet we've no problem with home storage of gasoline for lawn mowers (and yes, we don't typically collect gasoline in gaseous form over heat sources). Catastrophic fires are also an issue with deep-frying turkeys, and in fact with deep-frying anything. And we do already have a well-formed body of law dealing with responsibility for fires, damage to neighbour's homes &c. 'Someo…

I mentioned fires as a point I would be concerned about. While distilling is heavily regulated at the Federal, state, and local levels, the Feds did not ban it due to concerns over fire safety. Rather, a chief reason is "to protect the revenue," which, in the case of Federal excise taxes, is substantial. ($13.50 per proof gallon; a proof gallon is 1 gallon at 50% ABV.) The Feds don't really concern themselves with fi…

Sort of off-topic, but back when I worked in a lab, we often needed 200 proof ethanol that wasn't denatured with methanol or some other noxious substance. The company I worked for had an ATF license to purchase ethanol without the associated tax.

The cost of 1 gallon (3.79 L) of 200 proof ethanol was $8. You could dilute this with 1 part water and end up with the equivalent of vodka for $4 per gallon. It goes to show how much alcohol taxes are.

That being said, the 200 proof alcohol was pretty vile. It smelled like the cheapest vodka you could buy. I remember a few gallons going missing over the years, so somebody didn't mind the taste.

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

#90

Post by sliverstorm » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

lvh wrote: 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...

Well, it's presumably what the people of those states want.

I'm a bit of a federalist (at least for now). I live in a state whose liquor laws I generally like, and if other states want different liquor laws that is their prerogative.