Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 199 posts

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

#91

Post by imgabe »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #85
endersshadow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole point behind regulatory capture is that "whether or not the sky has fallen" is not necessarily a deciding factor in creating or keeping a law. So, no, it's not really relevant that the lack of a law in another country has worked out all right.

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

#92

Post by endersshadow »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #85
endersshadow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's not. And it saddens me that you think it is. This is an issue of regulatory capture, not "Should we have these laws." The entire article is about regulatory capture, and how special interest groups are able to effectively block changes to these laws. The fact that Europe (or at least some of Europe) doesn't have these laws is completely irrelevant.

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

#93

Post by LancerSykera »

"It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since"

I'm surprised that the author, being a current Pennsylvanian, didn't mention the Johnstown Flood Tax. Despite that particular flood having occurred all the way back in 1936, we're still paying the tax on liquor.

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

#94

Post by sethrin »

chimeracoder wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> These purposes aren't, on their face, unreasonable. Taxis generate undesirable congestion, and establishments that serve liquor tend to create undesirable drunk people. If you don't believe me, take a walk through Wrigleyville in Chicago on a Friday night, where you can see an endless parade of taxis picking up an endless parade of drunk students. I agree that sometimes this setup (licenses to restrict supply) make…

Counterpoint: Panama City, Panama.

You're not wrong in what you say regarding the necessity of public transportation and the benefit of taxis instead of personal vehicle ownership, but the free market will have no incentives to reduce congestion until such point as people would rather walk. Panama City has less incentives to clog the roads in that taxis are universally unmetered; where taxis are paid per-minute, congestion is profitable.

Despite the lack of metering and a recently-introduced subway, Panama City has terrible congestion. There's always a taxi when you want it, but a lack of regulation means that it will almost certainly be in a barely-roadworthy condition, and if you are traveling at peak hours you may as well walk. I'm told it used to be worse, that taxis would not even take you if your destination were more than a short distance away; I've only encountered this a few times. Also, while many drivers are honest, any sign that you are not a local is liable to result in your being asked to pay several times the going rate. This is the free market at work.

If you are going to invoke market forces, you need to make sure there are sufficient incentives to not wind up with a worse problem than not having a taxi when you want it. What springs to mind would be taxing taxis in proportion to your congestion problems. I am not sure that would be an improvement.

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

#95

Post by lmm »

wtbob wrote: post #60
gallerytungsten wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other reasons, it's relatively easily to have a catastrophic fire. Unlike winemaking and brewing, where your end product will be in the range of 4% to 13% ABV, which generally won't burn, you can easily distill to 150 proof (75% ABV) with a simple pot still (or 190 proof with a column still). 150 proof is a highly flammable liquid. The vapor is flammable. If you have a vapor leak it can ignite. The flame is inv…

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…

> 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).

I'd have a problem if someone was doing that in my building (and they'd be violating the terms of the lease if they were).

> Catastrophic fires are also an issue with deep-frying turkeys, and in fact with deep-frying anything.

Which is why chip-pans were the biggest cause of home fires when I was growing up, and nowadays no-one has them.

> 'Someone might maybe do something wrong' isn't really a good reason for there to be a federal ban

Sure, I don't think it should be illegal. But it's bad advice.

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

#96

Post by jccooper »

gallerytungsten wrote: post #33
sejje wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with home-distilling?

Among other reasons, it's relatively easily to have a catastrophic fire. Unlike winemaking and brewing, where your end product will be in the range of 4% to 13% ABV, which generally won't burn, you can easily distill to 150 proof (75% ABV) with a simple pot still (or 190 proof with a column still). 150 proof is a highly flammable liquid. The vapor is flammable. If you have a vapor leak it can ignite. The flame is inv…

Sure. But it's not illegal to distill alcohol for fuel--or any of the other various laboratory operations that are similarly dangerous.

If that reason had anything to do with the law, it would be a fire code thing.

No, the real reason is a coalition between moral purity (left over from the temperance movement) and revenue protection. Ever heard of "Baptists and bootleggers"? Same thing, except the bootleggers are the government.

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

#97

Post by yesbabyyes »

Pxtl wrote: post #31
lucisferre wrote: post #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.

Ontario takes it one step further, even. We have a government run monopoly on liquor and wine sales (the LCBO) and a non-government-run government-protected monopoly on beer sales (the Beer Store). To make that clear: the only company that is allowed to run a beer store in Ontario is The Beer Store. The Beer Store is owned by an association of InBev (Belgian company) and Molson/Coors (headquarters in Denver). So Onta…

In Sweden, we have a state monopoly on all alcoholic beverages, except for bars and restaurants. We have very high taxes on liquor, not so much on beer and wine. The monopoly is called Systembolaget (The System Company). They are among the biggest buyers of alcoholic beverages in the world, and they have a mean assortment.

Private import is regulated, but it's way more relaxed within the EU countries. Systembolaget will (must) import anything you want which they don't carry, and the process is generally very convenient.

While Swedes love bashing "Bolaget", I think a lot of people are quite satisfied - the opening hours are a little cumbersome (closing at 6-8 PM on weekdays, 3 PM Saturdays, closed on Sundays) but IMO that's counterbalanced by the great assortment.

We used to have a monopoly on the production of liquor as well. It was called Vin & Sprit (Wine & Spirits) and was the company who created Absolut Vodka. Absolut sold very well and they couldn't leave a profit (or something like that). They put all profits into advertising instead, making Absolut a very well known brand. The sitting administration recently sold the company to Pernod Ricard.

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

#98

Post by gallerytungsten »

ctdonath wrote: post #78
gallerytungsten wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other reasons, it's relatively easily to have a catastrophic fire. Unlike winemaking and brewing, where your end product will be in the range of 4% to 13% ABV, which generally won't burn, you can easily distill to 150 proof (75% ABV) with a simple pot still (or 190 proof with a column still). 150 proof is a highly flammable liquid. The vapor is flammable. If you have a vapor leak it can ignite. The flame is inv…

Under the same law, it's illegal to put your brew in the freezer to remove the water (freezing point of water is higher than that of ethanol). No chance of harm in that process, yet still severely punished.

In the case of freeze distillation, the punishment would be for evasion of (Federal and state) excise taxes, along with distillation without the proper permits. If some law enforcement agency busted your freezer, they'd probably come up with some other violations on top of those obvious ones.

In reality, I think the likelihood of a "freezer bust" and consequent punishment is pretty low. Moonshine busts are generally carried out on the state level, and the typical charges are possession and transportation of untaxed spirits.

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

#99

Post by jccooper »

ctdonath wrote: post #28
bencollier49 wrote: post #3

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-boug…

I think the paranoia is mostly due to the practice being so illegal for so long that nobody has any idea how it works or contact with it, and now assumes that there must be some good reason other than "we forgot to fix that after Prohibition".

And perhaps the authorities encourage this view to protect tax revenues (which are substantial.)

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

#100

Post by wdewind »

maxerickson wrote: post #74
wdewind wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus. Stuff like this was the impetus for the federalized drinking age in the US.

It's only sort of federalized though: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A... (I'm posting…

Thanks, I knew that was the mechanism but never knew it was 10%.
Post reply on HN