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

101–110 of 199 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

gress wrote: post #63
dragonwriter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's a difference between substantive review of applications with availability and queue management (and responding to inquiries) about applications pending availability.

Really? It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case. Where is the cost saving?

> It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case.

They aren't two alternatives, they are two different functions. Verifying that the applicant meets the criteria once there is a license available (given the quantitative limits) is one function. The other function is managing distribution of the limited number of licenses. The amount of work required by the public agency for the latter function (#1 in my original list) is greater when if the only way for that to happen is people to surrender unused licenses and then new applicants to apply to the issuing agency and be waitlisted until a slot is available than if a license that the current holder can be transferred directly to a new applicant.

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

#102

Post by mhb »

sethrin wrote: post #94
chimeracoder wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, cong…

You could also have more neighborhood bars so that drunk people could walk home instead of driving or being driven.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] »

sethrin wrote: post #94
chimeracoder wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, cong…

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by kgermino »

verboten wrote: post #84
kgermino wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, int…

I think it just makes things easier. Sure people over 25 are still capable of causing problems, but I’d bet they are much less likely to be trouble and much more likely to politely leave when told they are. It also makes things much easier at the door. If a group of college kids decide to show up one night it’s much easier to say “can’t let you in, too young [and I don’t make the rules]” than “won’t let you in, I don’t want to have to kick you out.” It lets the bouncer deflect the decision and appeal to an authority that’s not in the conversation.

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

#105

Post by clarkmoody »

If it's legal to build a firearm [1] for personal use, then it should probably be legal to distill spirits at home [2], though I don't advocate doing both at the same time!

[1]: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#co...

[2]: http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml

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

#106

Post by jal278 »

dublinben wrote: post #79
endersshadow wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what could be done to help fight this. Not just for alcohol, but regulatory capture in general. Network neutrality is in the same boat. Other than having a generic consumer advocate lobbying group, what could be done?

Get the government out of these areas. You can't have regulatory capture without government regulation.

That's true -- but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. What about situations where government regulation is desirable or necessary (e.g. limitations on environmental pollution)?

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

#107

Post by logfromblammo »

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.

Actually, the chance of harm for frost distillation is slightly higher than steam distillation. The volatiles that are ordinarily removed from the distillate as "heads" and "tails" stay with the alcohol fraction instead. As frost distillation is the traditional process for going from hard cider to applejack, additional care must be taken in the fermentation step, because if the Saccharomyces are contaminated by bacteria that ferment sugars to acetone, butanols, propanols, or fusels, those contaminants will be present in the final product. They probably won't kill you, but your hangover is going to be terrible.

In a clean, well-controlled fermentation vessel, as one might find in an open commercial operation, this is not a problem. But when the process is outlawed, and the producers have to hide, often in places that cannot be biologically sterilized, this problem could occur more often.

But then again, it isn't really about public safety, but about people who want to control other people. Otherwise, the law would mandate adequate fire protection for steam distillers and establish upper limits on non-ethanol fermentation products in frost-distilled products. Either could address the safety concern without outright banning the practice.

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

#108

Post by gallerytungsten »

jccooper wrote: post #96
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…

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…

If you want to distill fuel alcohol, you do need a permit. Without a permit, it's illegal.

I mentioned fire in relation to a "problem" with home distilling, not as a legal issue, although fire codes related to distilling are quite extensive and restrictive.

I also mentioned the revenue issue in several other comments.

The so-called "moral" issue is generally only relevant to consumption, not distilling, and only at the state level or below, where some states have "dry" counties and other restrictions on access.

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

#109

Post by TheCoelacanth »

verboten wrote: post #86
ceejayoz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think there is any prohibition on age discrimination for public accommodations. Title II of the Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act covers discrimination on the basis of disabilities, but there doesn't seem to be anything preventing public accommodations from discriminating based on age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which is what prohibits employers from discriminating based on age, doesn't contain anything about public accommodations.

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

#110

Post by curun1r »

endersshadow wrote: post #72
jal278 wrote: post #15

The piece provides several examples of regulatory capture [1], where concentrated efforts by private interests overcome diffuse interests of the public for their own profit. The problem is that while a private interest group can focus all their efforts on one issue, the public has many diverse interests and has to be on guard against all the possible private interest groups at all times. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w…

I wonder what could be done to help fight this. Not just for alcohol, but regulatory capture in general. Network neutrality is in the same boat. Other than having a generic consumer advocate lobbying group, what could be done?

Fix campaign financing laws to limit the power of money in politics. The only reason the politicians listen to the impassioned few over the apathetic many is because the impassioned few are willing to supply the money needed to get reelected. Fix that, and politicians will start representing the interests of the broadest swathe of the electorate or, gasp, voting with their conscience based on what seems like the right thing to do.

Sadly, we seem to be going the opposite direction on this at the moment.

Post reply on HN