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

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

#111

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 7:57 PM UTC

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?

Create oversight bodies consisting of untouchables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement)

edit: why the downvote?

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

#112

Post by TheCoelacanth » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #14

tribaal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methanol.

Having done a bit, honestly, you really can't drink anything that you wouldn't get if you were making beer or wine, and most folks don't like drinking formaldehyde or acetone by themselves, so the foreshots get pulled off... so there really is no risk in going blind or something. The idea that you can go blind off this stuff has more to do with propaganda and poisoning folks: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_…

Yes, the methanol that people were poisoned by wasn't an accidental byproduct of distillation; it was intentionally added to industrial alcohol to keep people from drinking it.

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

#113

Post by autokad » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

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…

i think the quality of the taxis and the medallion system are two different issues solved by different means. There doesnt seem to be any suggestion here that the congestion of panama would go down if taxis were replaced with vehicle ownership.

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

#114

Post by dublinben » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:02 PM UTC

jal278 wrote: post #106

dublinben wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

We have a long way to go before we have to worry about the small number of situations where regulation may be necessary. I think we should focus on all the obviously bad regulations (like those at issue in this story) before we start to tackle the more justifiable ones.

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

#115

Post by Crito » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:03 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #75

typicalrunt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. But isn't this supply meeting demand? If there were too many taxis, wouldn't the supply eventually cull itself when nobody can make enough money?

The subtext behind an invocation of Wrigleyville is that drunk bar clientele from outside the area makes it difficult to live in. Wrigleyville is a running joke among people who live on the north side of Chicago.

I somehow doubt that those people would stop going out and getting drunk during the evening if there were fewer/no taxis. They'd just be driving themselves.

Sure, maybe you could push it out of one neighborhood and into another, and the residents of Wrigleyville might be all for that, but is that actually much of a net gain for society in general?

I'd rather have drunks clogging sidewalks and taxis clogging roads, than drunks clogging roads.

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

#116

Post by Pxtl » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:06 PM UTC

yesbabyyes wrote: post #97

Pxtl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

That sounds better and worse than LCBO - iirc, importing specialty stuff through LCBO can be difficult. On the other hand, LCBO has gradually caught up with the move to very long opening hours that have become the norm in North America and now you can get your liquor at 9.

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

#117

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:11 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #115

tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext behind an invocation of Wrigleyville is that drunk bar clientele from outside the area makes it difficult to live in. Wrigleyville is a running joke among people who live on the north side of Chicago.

I somehow doubt that those people would stop going out and getting drunk during the evening if there were fewer/no taxis. They'd just be driving themselves. Sure, maybe you could push it out of one neighborhood and into another, and the residents of Wrigleyville might be all for that, but is that actually much of a net gain for society in general? I'd rather have drunks clogging sidewalks and taxis clogging roads, th…

He's referring to the liquor licenses, I think.

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

#118

Post by MAGZine » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:21 PM UTC

rdmcfee wrote: post #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.

Although it's all just silly because in BC you still pay for health insurance anyhow through MSP.

BC should really take a note from Saskatchewan or Alberta. Paying for health coverage in this country is an atrocity, especially with the high liquor/tabacco taxes.

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

#119

Post by mabhatter » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:24 PM UTC

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 still write the council and get permission.. You just have yo "buy your place in line" from somebody that already has one.

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

#120

Post by randallsquared » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #95

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…

> 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 bigges…

> > 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).

Well, sure, but if you live in a multi-tenant building, you won't have to mow a lawn, either. These days, though, a battery-powered mower is just as good as some gasoline mowers. Not having to deal with gas and oil is a large bonus.