Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: AUChizad on February 17, 2010, 10:04:49 AM
-
The Brewery Modernization Act has been introduced in both the Senate and House.
On January 21, Dan Roberts, Joseph Baker, Braden Pittman, and I traveled down to Montgomery to speak in favor of HB406 at a public hearing held by the House Tourism and Travel Committee. Attorney and entrepreneur John Little joined us as a favorable voice while the leaders of the Alabama Citizens Action Program spoke against the bill. ALCAP, self-styled as "Alabama's Moral Compass" has been opposed to all of our legislation thus far.
We spoke of the potential economic impact of the bill. We talked about how the craft beer revolution has remained untapped by Alabama entrepreneurs because the legal environment in Alabama is so restrictive. We urged the committee to consider placing our local breweries on the same legal footing as Alabama wineries.
In response, ALCAP gave their normal, tired argument. Any alcohol is bad and therefore anything that's even remotely pro-beer is bad.
The House Tourism and Travel Committee unanimously approved the bill after this hearing. Our Senate bill, SB328, also recently passed the Senate Tourism and Marketing Committee. At this point, therefore, both the Senate and House bills have passed committee and are waiting to be put on the Special Order Calendar in their respective chambers.
Not too long ago, many of us traveled to other states to buy the kinds of beer we enjoy. Now we spend that money in Alabama. In fact, I've heard rumor that people from Nashville recently traveled to Huntsville to buy Hopslam because Bell's Brewery doesn't distribute to Tennessee. I also know that Mississippians now come to Alabama to buy their favorite beers.
There's also the story of El Rey Burrito Lounge in Montgomery, which decided to become a craft beer destination after the Gourmet Beer Bill passed. After a meet-n-greet with state legislators last week, several members gathered at El Rey and were greeted by the owner. He thanked Free the Hops for our efforts. In comparing his detailed year-to-year sales information, he explained how sales of gourmet beer had offset some losses that have occurred because of the economic downturn.He told our members that it had made a world of difference.
All of our talk about the economic impact of beer isn't just a cheap talking point. There have been several anecdotes like these that show how wholesale and retail sales of gourmet beer have made an impact during these tough times.
The Brewery Modernization Act may have an even greater impact. It will help Alabama compete in a growing industry, create jobs, and promote tourism. New businesses will open and existing ones will be able to do more.
Now that we have passed committee, it is a good time to touch base with your state senator and representative to make sure they know you support the Brewery Modernization Act. As always, we invite you to use our website to learn about your legislators.
FTH: Find your legislators: www.freethehops.org/legislative/ (http://www.freethehops.org/legislative/)
Please let us know if you hear any feedback from your legislators.
Once we know when we're scheduled to appear on the calendar (and thus scheduled for a floor debate and vote), we will send out an action alert asking everyone to melt the phone system.
-
For more on what exactly the Brewery Modernization Act is:
For the 2010 legislative session, we will be introducing the Brewery Modernization Act. Now that we can buy some of the greatest beer from around the world, we think it’s time to make it easier for Alabamians to make some of the greatest beer in the world.
As beer geeks, we love the idea of local beer. What’s better than going to your neighborhood brewery’s tap room or brewpub to try the latest seasonal, served by one of the brewers themselves?
Unfortunately, there are only 4 breweries in Alabama, and half of those aren’t allowed to serve you beer.
The two breweries that are allowed sell their beer on-premises – Hurricane Brewing in Mobile and Montgomery Brewing – are lucky enough to have met all the requirements for opening a brewpub in Alabama. Such a license is only available in a handful of counties, and then only if located in an historic building. Even after meeting those (and more) requirements, they’re not allowed to sell their beer outside of the brewpub.
The other two breweries in Alabama – Good People in Birmingham and Olde Towne in Huntsville – have more freedom on where they can open and sell. However, the current law effectively cuts them off from the beer-drinking public. Many breweries outside of Alabama offer brewery tours with samples and/or a tasting room where you can try their beer on-location. Alabama’s breweries are not allowed to do either.
It’s next-to-impossible to open and profitably operate a brewpub in Alabama. If one can find and afford an historic location in one of the few available counties, the law won’t allow you to expand beyond your brewpub doors. Similarly, since on-premise sales at breweries are illegal, the law is denying the distributing breweries a potential source of income and promotional efforts.
Is it any surprise that Alabama has only 4 licensed breweries while Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee share over 70?
The goal of the Brewery Modernization Act is to take the complicated, restrictive and multi-tiered brewery licensing law and turn it into a more simple law. As intended, the result will be:
1. There’s no more distinction between “distributing breweries” and brewpubs. There’s just “breweries.”
2. Breweries can sell their beer on-premises and/or they can sell to a wholesaler. So Olde Towne and Good People can continue doing what they’re doing PLUS they can open up a taproom or brewpub at their location. The Montgomery Brewpub and Hurricane Brewing can continue doing what they’re doing PLUS they can start bottling or selling draft beer at other retailers.
3. Breweries can open in any wet county, don’t have to be in an historic building, don’t have to have a restaurant, and don’t have a cap on how much beer they can brew.
4. Breweries are specifically allowed to offer tours with samples.
5. Breweries are specifically allowed to participate in beer festivals.
With the current state of the economy, shouldn’t we be making it easier to open and operate a small business in Alabama?
Turning a complicated law into a more simple law is, unfortunately, pretty complicated. As of now, the state agency that writes bills has not finished drafting the Brewery Modernization Act to meet our requirements. We expect the bill to be drafted very soon and introduced into the legislature next week.
-
Alabama, welcome to the 20th Century!
Next, we will have that internet thing, but I hear we need a phone line.
Or maybe gambling...no...never mind.
-
What the fuck is a phone? I just be prayin' to Saban that he send my families in Jasper my messages. Uhduruhdur.
-
What the fuck is a phone? I just be prayin' to Saban that he send my families in Jasper my messages. Uhduruhdur.
Typical Alabama logic, as it pertains to this topic is more like "Why we gotta have brurrys? I get my Nattie Light from the Piggy Wig. I don't need em to make it in fronta me!"
Of course the opposition to Free The Hops's last initiative sounded like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoTJzh13n8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoTJzh13n8#)
-
LOL, dumb old people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFDVc6XCcc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFDVc6XCcc#)
-
"WUZ WRONG WIT DA BEER WE GOTS?! IT DRANK PURTY GOOD!"
I'm so fucking confused. He seems so enthusiastic about drinking Budweiser (and the other brands that he can't seem to name) because it "drank purty good," yet allowing other beers into the state would be immoral? So...beer is beer, and beer drinks good, unless it's a gourmet/high gravity/foreign beer? Then it's wrong.
The logic of this man is impeccable.
-
Stupid arguments on BOTH sides.
Beer with higher alcohol content? Why? That's ignorant. Beer in bigger bottles? Why?
This is a stupid issue -- NOT about making things better for small business -- and barely worthy of discussion.
-
Stupid arguments on BOTH sides.
Beer with higher alcohol content? Why? That's ignorant. Beer in bigger bottles? Why?
This is a stupid issue -- NOT about making things better for small business -- and barely worthy of discussion.
Better tasting beer? Encourages business entrepreneurs? Helps raise money? Keeps money in Alabama? Freedom of choice?
You're right, all of those are bare worthy of discussion...
By the way, When does Golden Corral open?
-
Beer with higher alcohol content? Why?
Beer made in foreign countries often has higher alcohol content. Beer made in foreign countries is often superior to beer made in America. Some people enjoy the taste of finely brewed beers. Nonetheless, that's not what the most recent debate is about. The Free the Hops Act has already been passed into law; high gravity beers are now available in Alabama.
The most recent legislative push is the Brewery Modernization Act. Tap rooms are illegal in Alabama’s distributing breweries. Before you can buy a brewery's beer in Alabama, it has to go from the brewery to a distributor to a retailer, and then to you. This is not a huge issue, except for the fact that brewpubs can't exist.
That's perfectly fine by me. I don't agree with the reasoning of the law, but it's not a big deal to me that a bar can't have a brewery in its basement and sell its own beer. Although, as AWK pointed out, maybe it's more economical for some businesses to be able to brew and serve their own beer in one establishment, instead of having to pay transportation costs, distribution costs, etc. However, the debates and comments you heard above were not in relation to this Beer Modernization Act, but rather the Free the Hops Act, which has already passed.
-
Stupid arguments on BOTH sides.
Beer with higher alcohol content? Why? That's ignorant. Beer in bigger bottles? Why?
This is a stupid issue -- NOT about making things better for small business -- and barely worthy of discussion.
Someone didn't read anything in this thread, and has no idea what the new initiative is about.
The Gourmet Bill Act has passed, so you're going to have to accept and adjust to that one.
Although, since you're still stuck on that issue, why the fuck NOT should be what you're asking.
It's not about getting fucked up. No one chugs a Chimay. There are far more economical ways to get drunk in the state of Alabama. Nothing's stopping anyone from buying a handle of Everclear, but by God some of that delicious high-end gourmet beer is 5.7% ABV! Save the children! Yeah, you can either get a pint of Heaven Hill for $2.99, or about 12 Delerium Tremens for about $100, and you'd throw up, not from alcohol but from the caloric intake before you could ever get close to the same drunk. That's just the type of asinine that you can't even believe a real person would actually attempt to logically argue against.
The bottle size thing isn't about getting 40's of Schlitz. Lots of gourmet beers come in liter sized bottles only, like wines do. But while we're at it, who actually came up with a law that said "Beer's ok. Just as long as they don't come in big bottles. I mean, you can drink an entire case at once, that's fine, but you'd better be wasting a lot of individual cans or bottles when you do it."
Anyway, this new initiative has nothing to do with any of that.
It's about the free market, and allowing this backwards assed state to allow breweries other than the four that are currently allowed to operate due to their extremely specific laws designed to show favoritism to businesses owned by politicians' buddies.
-
Someone didn't read anything in this thread, and has no idea what the new initiative is about.
The Gourmet Bill Act has passed, so you're going to have to accept and adjust to that one.
Although, since you're still stuck on that issue, why the fuck NOT should be what you're asking.
It's not about getting fucked up. No one chugs a Chimay. There are far more economical ways to get drunk in the state of Alabama. Nothing's stopping anyone from buying a handle of Everclear, but by God some of that delicious high-end gourmet beer is 5.7% ABV! Save the children! Yeah, you can either get a pint of Heaven Hill for $2.99, or about 12 Delerium Tremens for about $100, and you'd throw up, not from alcohol but from the caloric intake before you could ever get close to the same drunk. That's just the type of asinine that you can't even believe a real person would actually attempt to logically argue against.
The bottle size thing isn't about getting 40's of Schlitz. Lots of gourmet beers come in liter sized bottles only, like wines do. But while we're at it, who actually came up with a law that said "Beer's ok. Just as long as they don't come in big bottles. I mean, you can drink an entire case at once, that's fine, but you'd better be wasting a lot of individual cans or bottles when you do it."
Anyway, this new initiative has nothing to do with any of that.
It's about the free market, and allowing this backwards assed state to allow breweries other than the four that are currently allowed to operate due to their extremely specific laws designed to show favoritism to businesses owned by politicians' buddies.
All beer conversation in general is a waste of time.
Brewpubs selling it on premises. Whatever. Free the hops. Who cares. Stupid.
Initiative my ass. Free market my ass.
As I said -- the arguments on both sides of these issues are ridiculous. Same as with the dumbass gambling argument. Riley looks like a redneck still buster.
There is no good argument on either issue.
-
All beer conversation in general is a waste of time.
Brewpubs selling it on premises. Whatever. Free the hops. Who cares. Stupid.
Initiative my ass. Free market my ass.
As I said -- the arguments on both sides of these issues are ridiculous. Same as with the dumbass gambling argument. Riley looks like a redneck still buster.
There is no good argument on either issue.
Sorry, chief, but you're flat fucking wrong this time.
-
All beer conversation in general is a waste of time.
Brewpubs selling it on premises. Whatever. Free the hops. Who cares. Stupid.
Initiative my ass. Free market my ass.
As I said -- the arguments on both sides of these issues are ridiculous. Same as with the dumbass gambling argument. Riley looks like a redneck still buster.
There is no good argument on either issue.
Yes there is. How about don't be a Redneck still buster?
Why are you such a fan of the nanny state, and big government telling people how to run their lives?
-
Sorry, chief, but you're flat fucking wrong this time.
Agreed.
-
All beer conversation in general is a waste of time.
Brewpubs selling it on premises. Whatever. Free the hops. Who cares. Stupid.
Initiative my ass. Free market my ass.
As I said -- the arguments on both sides of these issues are ridiculous. Same as with the dumbass gambling argument. Riley looks like a redneck still buster.
There is no good argument on either issue.
When you have something, anything, to back your position up with, you go on for pages and pages about how right you are.
When you support something so completely illogical and foolish that even YOU can't form an argument? It's a stupid argument on both sides...
-
Yes there is. How about don't be a Redneck still buster?
Why are you such a fan of the nanny state, and big government telling people how to run their lives?
I'm not. I hate the nanny state concept. I hate fucking seatbelt and helmet laws. And the driving while texting thing is an absolute joke.
I wish Riley would sit down and shut the fuck up. I'm for less government. Just don't need it.
As far as the beer stuff goes, it's my personal opinion that beer drinking -- particularly the way it's done in this state -- is the equivalent of NASCAR and Bama fandom. It's been my experience that in this state you take anything fun and add beer and you get shit.
Football game + beer = dumbass shouting obscenities in front of my kids
Mardi Gras parade + beer = Shitfaced hillbilly knocking people down to get beads and then throwing up.
Hunting + beer = dead animals and sometimes people
Going to the beach + beer = fishbelly waddling into the ocean to piss every ten minutes while laughing about it
There's a time and a place for everything. I get the concept of good beer vs. swill and brewpubs having the ability to market their own regional flavors. The problem is that for every one of you who drinks a beer or two in a responsible manner and with responsible consequences there are two dozen Case o' Coors Charlies who don't.
Maybe my experiences are different, but through my entire life I've never seen a single situation where beer -- no matter if it was brewed in Sweden or Nigeria or St. Louis or Hoover -- made any situation better. I've lost family members (and not just ones who died as a direct result), friends and business partners because they couldn't handle it. I've seen far too many events ruined (see parades, beach, etc.) because some assclown couldn't behave responsibly.
Given a choice between a world with beer and one without, I'd take without. And I wouldn't think very long about it. But I'm not talking governmental intrusion, as in a law against it. I mean it just wouldn't exist, period.
Since I have that bias, there's no need for me to comment about this any longer.
-
I'm not. I hate the nanny state concept. I hate fucking seatbelt and helmet laws. And the driving while texting thing is an absolute joke.
I wish Riley would sit down and shut the fuck up. I'm for less government. Just don't need it.
As far as the beer stuff goes, it's my personal opinion that beer drinking -- particularly the way it's done in this state -- is the equivalent of NASCAR and Bama fandom. It's been my experience that in this state you take anything fun and add beer and you get shit.
Football game + beer = dumbass shouting obscenities in front of my kids
Mardi Gras parade + beer = Shitfaced hillbilly knocking people down to get beads and then throwing up.
Hunting + beer = dead animals and sometimes people
Going to the beach + beer = fishbelly waddling into the ocean to piss every ten minutes while laughing about it
There's a time and a place for everything. I get the concept of good beer vs. swill and brewpubs having the ability to market their own regional flavors. The problem is that for every one of you who drinks a beer or two in a responsible manner and with responsible consequences there are two dozen Case o' Coors Charlies who don't.
Maybe my experiences are different, but through my entire life I've never seen a single situation where beer -- no matter if it was brewed in Sweden or Nigeria or St. Louis or Hoover -- made any situation better. I've lost family members (and not just ones who died as a direct result), friends and business partners because they couldn't handle it. I've seen far too many events ruined (see parades, beach, etc.) because some assclown couldn't behave responsibly.
Given a choice between a world with beer and one without, I'd take without. And I wouldn't think very long about it. But I'm not talking governmental intrusion, as in a law against it. I mean it just wouldn't exist, period.
Since I have that bias, there's no need for me to comment about this any longer.
Well, if your standard (ban something if it can be utilized in an irresponsible manner) is adopted, then lets get to banning:
Guns
Cars
Fast food
Sudafed
Lawn darts
Chainsaws
Casinos
Your own personal experiences aside, this is stupid fucking reasoning.
-
Well, if your standard (ban something if it can be utilized in an irresponsible manner) is adopted, then lets get to banning:
Guns
Cars
Fast food
Sudafed
Lawn darts
Chainsaws
Casinos
Your own personal experiences aside, this is stupid fucking reasoning.
And every other physical object on Earth.
-
Well, if your standard (ban something if it can be utilized in an irresponsible manner) is adopted, then lets get to banning:
Guns
Cars
Fast food
Sudafed
Lawn darts
Chainsaws
Casinos
Your own personal experiences aside, this is stupid fucking reasoning.
No, it's not. It just doesn't fit your way of thinking.
But let's go down your list.
Guns do not have addictive properties. Nobody's ever picked up a gun and become physically addicted.
Cars: See guns
Fast Food: The next time somebody gets divorced because Dad was hiding McNuggets in his kid's underwear drawer so his wife wouldn't see him eating them; the next time somebody has one too many BK Broilers and punches out his wife; the next time a guy is so hopped up on What-a-Burgers that he crashes his car and kills a bunch of people... then we can talk about fast food.
Lawn darts are no longer legal to have because they posed a threat to safety.
Sudafed is now regulated. Can't buy it off the shelf because dumbasses used it to make meth.
Chainsaws: See guns
Casinos: Gambling can be (allegedly) a physical addiction. I don't necessarily buy that, but this is the only thing on your list which has even a scintilla of merit. I guess that's why there's such a huge debate over having them in this state.
You're an intelligent person. Surely you can see the basic difference between something that can hurt you (a rock, a baseball bat, a knitting needle) when used improperly and something that has the potential to hurt you and others because it has the (well documented) ability to gain control of your faculties, cause you to become addicted and also cause you to -- even temporarily -- lose the ability to make sound, rational judgments.
Failure to acknowledge that is what' can only be considered "fucking stupid reasoning"
-
No, it's not. It just doesn't fit your way of thinking.
But let's go down your list.
Guns do not have addictive properties. Nobody's ever picked up a gun and become physically addicted.
Cars: See guns
Fast Food: The next time somebody gets divorced because Dad was hiding McNuggets in his kid's underwear drawer so his wife wouldn't see him eating them; the next time somebody has one too many BK Broilers and punches out his wife; the next time a guy is so hopped up on What-a-Burgers that he crashes his car and kills a bunch of people... then we can talk about fast food.
Lawn darts are no longer legal to have because they posed a threat to safety.
Sudafed is now regulated. Can't buy it off the shelf because dumbasses used it to make meth.
Chainsaws: See guns
Casinos: Gambling can be (allegedly) a physical addiction. I don't necessarily buy that, but this is the only thing on your list which has even a scintilla of merit. I guess that's why there's such a huge debate over having them in this state.
You're an intelligent person. Surely you can see the basic difference between something that can hurt you (a rock, a baseball bat, a knitting needle) when used improperly and something that has the potential to hurt you and others because it has the (well documented) ability to gain control of your faculties, cause you to become addicted and also cause you to -- even temporarily -- lose the ability to make sound, rational judgments.
Failure to acknowledge that is what' can only be considered "fucking stupid reasoning"
Classic Kaos strategy.
-
No, it's not. It just doesn't fit your way of thinking.
Was this meant to be a joke? When followed by everything else in your post?
You're an intelligent person. Surely you can see the basic difference between something that can hurt you (a rock, a baseball bat, a knitting needle) when used improperly and something that has the potential to hurt you and others because it has the (well documented) ability to gain control of your faculties, cause you to become addicted and also cause you to -- even temporarily -- lose the ability to make sound, rational judgments.
Failure to acknowledge that is what' can only be considered "fucking stupid reasoning"
I am willing to bet my life savings that more people have died because of guns than because of alcohol.
Guns are literally killing machines that serve no purpose than to mortally wound living things.
Now before you call me a hippie, I'm literally a card-carrying member of the NRA.
The point stands. Because something can potentially be used irresponsibly, against the advisory of the manufacturer, does not mean they should be taken away from responsible individuals.
-
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3134665/Study-unmasks-U-S-addiction.html (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3134665/Study-unmasks-U-S-addiction.html)
-
Was this meant to be a joke? When followed by everything else in your post?
I am willing to bet my life savings that more people have died because of guns than because of alcohol.
Guns are literally killing machines that serve no purpose than to mortally wound living things.
Now before you call me a hippie, I'm literally a card-carrying member of the NRA.
The point stands. Because something can potentially be used irresponsibly, against the advisory of the manufacturer, does not mean they should be taken away from responsible individuals.
I don't think alcohol IS being taken away from you is it? You have it.
What you guys are bitching about are small details. Size of a bottle, wanting 9% instead of 7%, wanting it made in front of you instead of Boston, Milwaukee or Dublin, Ireland. I don't necessarily disagree with you as I have very libertarian views, but I think you are picking nits in the grand scheme of the cluster phuk we have for a country right now.
Seriously Chad - Athens, Austin. You can't change the way this state thinks overnight or sometimes even at all on some things. Would it not be easier to just go to where it is already like your personal taste? I'm not trying to poke fun saying you are a Michael Stipe wannabe by mentioning Athens or anything. Its just seems like it would be easier to go some place where your personal beliefs are already adhered to rather than trying to get everyone to change to YOU where you are at. The settlers coming to America from England comes to mind.
-
I don't alcohol think IS being taken away from you is it? You have it.
What you guys are bitching about are small details. Size of a bottle, wanting 9% instead of 7%, wanting it made in front of you instead of Boston, Milwaukee or Dublin, Ireland. I don't necessarily disagree with you as I have very libertarian views, but I think you are picking nits in the grand scheme of the cluster phuk we have for a country right now.
Seriously Chad - Athens, Austin. You can't change the way this state thinks overnight or sometimes even at all on some things. Would it not be easier to just go to where it is already like your personal taste? I'm not trying to poke fun saying you are a Michael Stipe wannabe by mentioning Athens or anything. Its just seems like it would be easier to go some place where your personal beliefs are already adhered to rather than trying to get everyone to change to YOU where you are at. The settlers coming to America from England comes to mind.
It's sad to me that this state is ok with being so bass ackwards and letting their economy tank at the expensive of completely irrational nanny-state laws.
I live and work here. My family lives here. All of my friends live here. The University I attended and love enough to post on a message board about daily is here. I love Alabama. I loathe its politics and its ineptitude. I would like to one day see the stereotype that we're all a bunch of ignorant hicks that would rather mire in ignorance and a terrible economy than allow people to do things they can (and do) go to any bordering state to boost their economies.
You people are so hypocritical it's sickening. You say you're opposed to the nanny-state. Bullshit. What is more nanny-state than nitpicking about the size of bottles a beer can come in?
You people are right about one thing. It's an asinine thing to have issue with. So why the fuck is it illegal?
We should just err on the side of making everything illegal by default?
-
It's sad to me that this state is ok with being so bass ackwards and letting their economy tank at the expensive of completely irrational nanny-state laws.
I live and work here. My family lives here. All of my friends live here. The University I attended and love enough to post on a message board about daily is here. I love Alabama. I loathe its politics and its ineptitude. I would like to one day see the stereotype that we're all a bunch of ignorant hicks that would rather mire in ignorance and a terrible economy than allow people to do things they can (and do) go to any bordering state to boost their economies.
You people are so hypocritical it's sickening. You say you're opposed to the nanny-state. Bullshit. What is more nanny-state than nitpicking about the size of bottles a beer can come in?
You people are right about one thing. It's an asinine thing to have issue with. So why the fuck is it illegal?
We should just err on the side of making everything illegal by default?
True story:
I used to get aggravated by the way Hollywood portrays the south and especially Alabama in movies. I would see My Cousin Vinny and Sweet Home Alabama and think, dammit all that is bullshit. Our state is not like that, it is actually pretty nice...
Then I started working and following Alabama politics...
Then I witnessed thousands of times the mindset and irrationality of a majority of citizens in the state...
I then realized why other states laugh at us.
-
It's sad to me that this state is ok with being so bass ackwards and letting their economy tank at the expensive of completely irrational nanny-state laws.
I live and work here. My family lives here. All of my friends live here. The University I attended and love enough to post on a message board about daily is here. I love Alabama. I loathe its politics and its ineptitude. I would like to one day see the stereotype that we're all a bunch of ignorant hicks that would rather mire in ignorance and a terrible economy than allow people to do things they can (and do) go to any bordering state to boost their economies.
You people are so hypocritical it's sickening. You say you're opposed to the nanny-state. Bullpoop. What is more nanny-state than nitpicking about the size of bottles a beer can come in?
You people are right about one thing. It's an asinine thing to have issue with. So why the phuk is it illegal?
We should just err on the side of making everything illegal by default?
Dude - I am not actually disagreeing with you. My point is I think we have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
My same stance applied to the "gays in the military" topic a couple of weeks ago. By loathing on a lot of minor, secondary social issues, you are playing right into the hand of these politicians. Obama (or any other of the loons in DC or the State of AL) loves it when the people get mired down in such issues as gays, abortion, small legalities such as alcohol, gambling, lotteries. It distracts you from real shit going down. They know the folks are very passionate about social issues as evidenced on this board the last week or two on topics like this.
To err on the side of making everything illegal = Communist
To err on the side of making everything legal = Anarchy
Neither way is right. There is a good medium.
-
Classic Kaos strategy.
Yep.
Blow up the opposing argument, expose its flaws and watch the other side go down in flames.
Classic.
-
Guns do not have addictive properties. Nobody's ever picked up a gun and become physically addicted.
Addiction is either physical or psychological, meaning that you either have a physical dependence or a psychological dependence. Drugs that are physically addictive would be nicotine and heroine. Beer is not a drug of physical dependence; it is one of psychological dependence. Does this mean it should be banned? Well, many people with overeating habits have a psychological dependence on food. This doesn't mean we should ban food.
Unfortunately, anything can be psychologically addictive; it depends upon the person's mental state, genetics, upbringing, etc. Thus, there isn't a legitimate reason for banning a substance simply because some people have psychological addictions to it.
Casinos: Gambling can be (allegedly) a physical addiction. I don't necessarily buy that, but this is the only thing on your list which has even a scintilla of merit. I guess that's why there's such a huge debate over having them in this state.
It's a psychological addiction. Gambling does not put anything foreign into your body which your body then physically requires to continue to function. Receptors in your brain do not become accustomed to a foreign substance and require that the substance continue to be administered. There is a difference between psychological and physical addictions. Both can result in physical symptoms, but the underlying cause of the two addictions are distinctly different.
-
Beer is not a drug of physical dependence; it is one of psychological dependence.
Huh?
-
Yep.
Blow up the opposing argument, expose its flaws and watch the other side go down in flames.
Classic.
Or spew a litany of falsehoods, build up an arbitrary set of requirements for something to fit your argument, yet hold each individual tenant to a different standard to squeeze it into your flawed logic. You then force us to challenge such asinine statements as claiming that you can't buy Sudafed over the counter, or how you can't be addicted to guns or cars (as if that makes them less deadly, or is even true for that matter), in an effort to divert the argument from the one that was being made.
Limiting alcohol in the ways Free The Hops are fighting against, are textbook examples of Nanny State politics.
-
Or spew a litany of falsehoods, build up an arbitrary set of requirements for something to fit your argument, yet hold each individual tenant to a different standard to squeeze it into your flawed logic. You then force us to challenge such asinine statements as claiming that you can't buy Sudafed over the counter, or how you can't be addicted to guns or cars (as if that makes them less deadly, or is even true for that matter), in an effort to divert the argument from the one that was being made.
Bingo.
-
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3134665/Study-unmasks-U-S-addiction.html (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3134665/Study-unmasks-U-S-addiction.html)
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131407&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131407&page=1)
-
Yep.
Blow up the opposing argument, expose its flaws and watch the other side go down in flames.
Classic.
I thought your strategy was to introduce flawed logic into various arguments that makes you think that you've won a particular debate, but usually just make you look like a hick douchebag.
-
I thought your strategy was to introduce flawed logic into various arguments that makes you think that you've won a particular debate, but usually just make you look like a hick douchebag.
Removing the "hick" label would earn this post a double-bingo.
-
"free the hops" + "brewery modernization act" = revenue (i.e. >taxation)
-
"free the hops" = revenue (i.e. >taxation)
Just for arguments sake, what are the reasons that they are giving as to why they don't want this to happen? I really havent followed this heavily. Keep it objective...
-
Just for arguments sake, what are the reasons that they are giving as to why they don't want this to happen? I really havent followed this heavily. Keep it objective...
They don't think this guy would approve. --> :bc:
-
They don't think this guy would approve. --> :bc:
As sad as it is, Fact.
-
This guy mostly --> :bc:
Ok -
1st - I dont think thats objective. I think thats what you want to think out of anger over the issue. Sometimes religion is to blame, and then sometimes its an easy scapegoat.
2nd - It makes no sense. If that were the REAL reason, many other things would be outlawed. Why stop at microbreweries? No beer at ALL, no cigarettes, no rubbers, no birth control pills.
3rd - If they actually used that as a reason, that would be technically ILLEGAL.
What are the reasons they are saying in opposition?
-
Ok -
1st - I dont think that objective. I think thats what you want to think. Sometimes religion is to blame, and then sometimes its an easy scapegoat.
2nd - It makes no sense. If that were the REAL reason, many other things would be outlawed. Why stop at microbreweries? No beer at ALL, no cigarettes, no rubbers, no birth control pills.
3rd - If they actually used that as a reason, that would be technically ILLEGAL.
What are the reasons they are saying in opposition?
Everything you just stated is why it's so goddamn frustrating.
-
Ok -
1st - I dont think thats objective. I think thats what you want to think out of anger over the issue. Sometimes religion is to blame, and then sometimes its an easy scapegoat.
2nd - It makes no sense. If that were the REAL reason, many other things would be outlawed. Why stop at microbreweries? No beer at ALL, no cigarettes, no rubbers, no birth control pills.
3rd - If they actually used that as a reason, that would be technically ILLEGAL.
What are the reasons they are saying in opposition?
See Ten Commandments statue in the Alabama Supreme Court building.
-
It's sad to me that this state is ok with being so bass ackwards and letting their economy tank at the expensive of completely irrational nanny-state laws.
I live and work here. My family lives here. All of my friends live here. The University I attended and love enough to post on a message board about daily is here. I love Alabama. I loathe its politics and its ineptitude. I would like to one day see the stereotype that we're all a bunch of ignorant hicks that would rather mire in ignorance and a terrible economy than allow people to do things they can (and do) go to any bordering state to boost their economies.
So wait...
You're saying that because you can't buy Chip's Truffle Flavored Beer when you're doodling to Reg's Coffeehouse in Chelsea, that this is the reason the state's economy is "tanking"?
Yikes.
-
So wait...
You're saying that because you can't buy Chip's Truffle Flavored Beer when you're doodling to Reg's Coffeehouse in Chelsea, that this is the reason the state's economy is "tanking"?
Yikes.
Who cares about the economy? We just want beer, bands, and bingo.
-
Or spew a litany of falsehoods, build up an arbitrary set of requirements for something to fit your argument, yet hold each individual tenant to a different standard to squeeze it into your flawed logic. You then force us to challenge such asinine statements as claiming that you can't buy Sudafed over the counter, or how you can't be addicted to guns or cars (as if that makes them less deadly, or is even true for that matter), in an effort to divert the argument from the one that was being made.
Limiting alcohol in the ways Free The Hops are fighting against, are textbook examples of Nanny State politics.
You can buy Sudafed over the counter?
I didn't use that as the example. I merely responded to it.
Don't make the mistake on challenging me on something I know (wait.. that's everything...)
Sudafed PE is a nasal decongestant that is now available in the Cold and Flu aisle of local pharmacies and drug stores. Sudafed nasal decongestant (containing pseudoephedrine) is no longer available over the counter, it is only available behind the counter, from the pharmacist.
-
i assume this will eventually pass. how can the state of alabama not overlook this has a potential revenue source. at one point money > than god.
the four breweries in alabama will have a hard time lobbying not to increase beer taxes. yes, in the short term new businesses, boost to the local economy, etc. but eventually the state will methodically increase taxes.
luckily for oregonians , the beer industry is so prevalent they fought off a 1900% tax increase in 2009.
all the power to alabama...hopefully, oregon's hop industry will benefit.
-
You can buy Sudafed over the counter?
I didn't use that as the example. I merely responded to it.
Don't make the mistake on challenging me on something I know (wait.. that's everything...)
Sudafed PE is a nasal decongestant that is now available in the Cold and Flu aisle of local pharmacies and drug stores. Sudafed nasal decongestant (containing pseudoephedrine) is no longer available over the counter, it is only available behind the counter, from the pharmacist.
Finish the citation or no desert for you.
Sudafed nasal decongestant is still available without a prescription, you simply have to ask the pharmacist, show a picture ID and sign for the medication when purchasing it. However, Sudafed now offers another option, Sudafed PE (which contains phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine), if you are unable to find original Sudafed nasal
-
Addiction is either physical or psychological, meaning that you either have a physical dependence or a psychological dependence. Drugs that are physically addictive would be nicotine and heroine. Beer is not a drug of physical dependence; it is one of psychological dependence. Does this mean it should be banned? Well, many people with overeating habits have a psychological dependence on food. This doesn't mean we should ban food.
You couldn't be more wrong if you were fucking a chimpanzee with a Bic.
Alcohol -- which is contained in beer -- is a drug of physical dependence.
You don't have fucking DTs and withdrawal symptoms if somebody takes away your fucking Big Mac.
Alcohol abuse is both physical and psychological.
Unfortunately, anything can be psychologically addictive; it depends upon the person's mental state, genetics, upbringing, etc. Thus, there isn't a legitimate reason for banning a substance simply because some people have psychological addictions to it.
Continuation of the erroneous presumption
It's a psychological addiction. Gambling does not put anything foreign into your body which your body then physically requires to continue to function. Receptors in your brain do not become accustomed to a foreign substance and require that the substance continue to be administered. There is a difference between psychological and physical addictions. Both can result in physical symptoms, but the underlying cause of the two addictions are distinctly different.
Gambling, yeah. Psychological all the way. There's a difference, but you clearly don't understand it.
-
Finish the citation or no desert for you.
Sudafed nasal decongestant is still available without a prescription, you simply have to ask the pharmacist, show a picture ID and sign for the medication when purchasing it. However, Sudafed now offers another option, Sudafed PE (which contains phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine), if you are unable to find original Sudafed nasal
Who wants to be in the desert?
-
Finish the citation or no desert for you.
Sudafed nasal decongestant is still available without a prescription, you simply have to ask the pharmacist, show a picture ID and sign for the medication when purchasing it. However, Sudafed now offers another option, Sudafed PE (which contains phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine), if you are unable to find original Sudafed nasal
Dammit, I fell into your trap.
Next thing you know you'll claim that a substantial restriction on businesses in this state that don't exist in neighboring states will not make an economic impact. Or that people traveling out of state to do anything that resembles fun spending their money to be taxed in other states doesn't harm our economy in any way.
So wait...
You're saying that because you can't buy Chip's Truffle Flavored Beer when you're doodling to Reg's Coffeehouse in Chelsea, that this is the reason the state's economy is "tanking"?
Yikes.
Right on cue.
-
Finish the citation or no desert for you.
Sudafed nasal decongestant is still available without a prescription, you simply have to ask the pharmacist, show a picture ID and sign for the medication when purchasing it. However, Sudafed now offers another option, Sudafed PE (which contains phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine), if you are unable to find original Sudafed nasal
To get Sudafed -- not some variant -- you have to ask a pharmacist. It's not off the shelf any more.
It was a poor example, as was lawn darts. Do you want me to specify there, too? Because nerf lawn darts are okay, it's the metal lawn darts that used to penetrate people's skulls that were outlawed.
-
Who wants to be in the desert?
Probably a heroine.
-
Next thing you know you'll claim that a substantial restriction on businesses in this state that don't exist in neighboring states will not make an economic impact. Or that people traveling out of state to do anything that resembles fun spending their money to be taxed in other states doesn't harm our economy in any way.
Right on cue.
:rofl:
-
Probably a heroine.
In your face Vandy Vol.
-
:rofl:
Not being able to bottle your own beer, sell it outside your premises, or be located in a "historical building" is a pretty substantial restriction on someone who wants to open a brewery.
I wasn't saying that there would be a substantial economic boom if they allowed breweries in Alabama, although that could be argued as well.
-
See Ten Commandments statue in the Alabama Supreme Court building.
Ok - I thought those were removed in 2003 after the Roy Moore thing. Am I wrong? If I am right, then the law took its course.
Anyway - it's still apples and oranges. To use Jesus (or Allah or Lord Krishna or Buddha) or any religion as the BASIS to enforce a law is illegal. I know the 10 Commandments were in the courthouse, but what you are saying here is that they are using Jesus as the basis to keep people from enjoying a micro-brew.
On the floor of the state house, what is the actual opposition argument????
-
Ok - I thought those were removed in 2003 after the Roy Moore thing. Am I wrong? If I am right, then the law took its course.
Anyway - it's still apples and oranges. To use Jesus (or Allah or Lord Krishna or Buddha) or any religion as the BASIS to enforce a law is illegal. I know the 10 Commandments were in the courthouse, but what you are saying here is that they are using Jesus as the basis to keep people from enjoying a micro-brew.
On the floor of the state house, what is the actual opposition argument????
I am not lying to you. The basic argument against said bill was that 1. Drinking Alcohol is a vice and 2. What's wrong with the beer we have now?
Which boils down to the real agenda, Alabama was paid a shit ton by the big distributors, I.e. Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc... to keep it like it was. Therefore, they could have a somewhat monopoly.
-
Ok - I thought those were removed in 2003 after the Roy Moore thing. Am I wrong? If I am right, then the law took its course.
Anyway - it's still apples and oranges. To use Jesus (or Allah or Lord Krishna or Buddha) or any religion as the BASIS to enforce a law is illegal. I know the 10 Commandments were in the courthouse, but what you are saying here is that they are using Jesus as the basis to keep people from enjoying a micro-brew.
Of course, they can't flat out say that's their reasoning, but their motivations are thinly veiled by their complete inability to vocalize their opposition with any argument other than "alcohol is bad".
On the floor of the state house, what is the actual opposition argument????
The same exact irellevant arguments they had for the last Free The Hops Bill.
See the post on the first page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFDVc6XCcc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFDVc6XCcc#)
-
Of course, they can't flat out say that's their reasoning, but their motivations are thinly veiled by their complete inability to vocalize their opposition with any argument other than "alcohol is bad".
The same exact irellevant arguments they had for the last Free The Hops Bill.
So the argument that alcohol is bad (which has mountains of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support it) should be tossed out because you can't buy Chuckie's Cheese Flavored Hops straight from the vat?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?
-
So the argument that alcohol is bad (which has mountains of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support it) should be tossed out because you can't buy Chuckie's Cheese Flavored Hops straight from the vat?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?
See, GH2001? We're not making that shit up. People actually think this way.
-
See, GH2001? We're not making that shit up. People actually think this way.
Missing the point, Chizzy.
The fact is, alcohol is bad. You're acting as if the people who oppose it should be required to have some other sort of argument when this one is, in fact, relatively sound. Mountains of evidence -- none that you can even refute -- bears this out. I figure most of the people who oppose it don't really think much else needs to be said.
If you're going to stick your head in a vise and turn the handle, do I really need to have any other argument than "that's going to hurt"?
-
Missing the point, Chizzy.
The fact is, alcohol is bad. You're acting as if the people who oppose it should be required to have some other sort of argument when this one is, in fact, relatively sound. Mountains of evidence -- none that you can even refute -- bears this out. I figure most of the people who oppose it don't really think much else needs to be said.
If you're going to stick your head in a vise and turn the handle, do I really need to have any other argument than "that's going to hurt"?
Motion to outlaw vice grips!
-
So the argument that alcohol is bad (which has mountains of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support it) should be tossed out because you can't buy Chuckie's Cheese Flavored Hops straight from the vat?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?
Because that is your OPINION, not fact. Before you go spewing off facts about alcohol related stuff, this can be said about anything.
Guns are bad.
Abortion is bad.
Speeding is bad.
Cars are Bad.
God is bad.
Religion is bad.
Etc...
Oh yeah, and there is mountains of evidence for each one of those. I think my argument alone should be enough on all those things.
-
Because that is your OPINION, not fact. Before you go spewing off facts about alcohol related stuff, this can be said about anything.
Guns are bad.
Abortion is bad.
Speeding is bad.
Cars are Bad.
God is bad.
Religion is bad.
Etc...
Alcohol is bad is not subjective. It's not an opinion.
You can make arguments that all those other things are bad, but they all lack the one thing that alcohol has -- the physical and psychological addiction.
Could the argument that "alcohol is bad" be better made? Yeah. But Chizad is merely taking all the evidence, all the commentary, all the proof and all the statistics and summarizing them with that one statement to serve his (myopic) purpose.
-
Which boils down to the real agenda, Alabama was paid a poop ton by the big distributors, I.e. Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc... to keep it like it was. Therefore, they could have a somewhat monopoly.
This is the answer I was looking for. This is why they oppose it. Chad, I think you are scapegoating religion here as an out. This is all about money, not religion. And Im not trying to flame you, but I think you are getting in a dig on religion here because its convenient, when the real issue here is corporate greed. Am I right? Be honest....Jesus is watching you. :bc:
AWK - can you explain to me how religion or God is bad? Do you really mean many of the "followers" are bad?
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Mahatma Gandhi
-
Alcohol is bad is not subjective. It's not an opinion.
You can make arguments that all those other things are bad, but they all lack the one thing that alcohol has -- the physical and psychological addiction.
Could the argument that "alcohol is bad" be better made? Yeah. But Chizad is merely taking all the evidence, all the commentary, all the proof and all the statistics and summarizing them with that one statement to serve his (myopic) purpose.
Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you. Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you. The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it. That is subjective, plain and simple. Guns are bad if people abuse them. Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.
-
Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you. Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you. The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it. That is subjective, plain and simple. Guns are bad if people abuse them. Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.
Ehhh. Technically its good for your heart (antioxidants and flavanoids) in moderate amounts and certain types (Red Wine, Muscadine Wine, etc). Its bad for your liver and judgement is impaired in any amount. BTW - I drink in moderation. Im not against the stuff.
-
Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you. Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you. The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it. That is subjective, plain and simple. Guns are bad if people abuse them. Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.
Guns do not cause psychological or physical dependence when used. Some people become addicted to alcohol even when they don't exceed the recommended dose.
There's a major distinction there. It's a chasm, actually.
A glass of grape juice provides the same benefit.
The miniscule positives you could dredge up in no way outweigh the overall societal damage caused. It's like burning your house down because you can use the fire to roast marshmallows. Yeah, you can. But at what cost?
-
Guns do not cause psychological or physical dependence when used. Some people become addicted to alcohol even when they don't exceed the recommended dose.
There's a major distinction there. It's a chasm, actually.
A glass of grape juice provides the same benefit.
The miniscule positives you could dredge up in no way outweigh the overall societal damage caused. It's like burning your house down because you can use the fire to roast marshmallows. Yeah, you can. But at what cost?
There you go spinning and argument and using absurd comparisons to avoid the real point.
1. Alcohol can be addicting. Addiction is addiction, rather it be physical or psychological, same results. I could be addicted to a video game and have it ruin my life. And you can be addicted to buying guns andusing them.
2. Besides that, the statement "alcohol is bad" is still subjective based on your own beliefs.
-
If :bc: is against alcohol, then why did he turn water into cold Coors Light? or was that Craig?
-
There you go spinning and argument and using absurd comparisons to avoid the real point.
1. Alcohol can be addicting. Addiction is addiction, rather it be physical or psychological, same results. I could be addicted to a video game and have it ruin my life. And you can be addicted to buying guns andusing them.
2. Besides that, the statement "alcohol is bad" is still subjective based on your own beliefs.
If you would legitimately attempt to argue this, I must conclude that you are insane.
Alcohol addiction is a serious problem. The fact that the addiction is physical -- and not just psychological -- paints it with a different stripe. You cannot legitimately compare video game addiction or compulsively buying guns to alcohol addiction.
Alcohol is bad. The damage it causes to your body -- even in moderation -- is well documented. You have the right to ignore that if you wish but you can't refute it by merely saying "no it's not."
There is a group of people in this state (and in most others) who will oppose widening any law pertaining to alcohol. I don't always agree with their rationale. I think they lose the battle when they try to drag religion into it and turn the issue into a moral debate. It's not really a moral debate at all. Alcohol is destructive. It's addictive. If the only person you harmed when you used it was yourself, I could give a shit. Suck down 40 cases a day. The problem, however, is that it's not just the person using the product who suffers the effects. It's everybody else.
-
If you would legitimately attempt to argue this, I must conclude that you are insane.
Alcohol addiction is a serious problem. The fact that the addiction is physical -- and not just psychological -- paints it with a different stripe. You cannot legitimately compare video game addiction or compulsively buying guns to alcohol addiction.
Alcohol is bad. The damage it causes to your body -- even in moderation -- is well documented. You have the right to ignore that if you wish but you can't refute it by merely saying "no it's not."
There is a group of people in this state (and in most others) who will oppose widening any law pertaining to alcohol. I don't always agree with their rationale. I think they lose the battle when they try to drag religion into it and turn the issue into a moral debate. It's not really a moral debate at all. Alcohol is destructive. It's addictive. If the only person you harmed when you used it was yourself, I could give a shit. Suck down 40 cases a day. The problem, however, is that it's not just the person using the product who suffers the effects. It's everybody else.
How are you affected if he drinks 40 cases a day?
-
Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?
If we were starting from scratch and writing the laws, you might be able to make that case. The proverbial horse, however, is out of the barn. Beer is available. So....the arguments against high-gravity beer, high-volume containers and brewery restrictions are specious at best.
-
If we were starting from scratch and writing the laws, you might be able to make that case. The proverbial horse, however, is out of the barn. Beer is available. So....the arguments against high-gravity beer, high-volume containers and brewery restrictions are specious at best.
Some oppose kicking the door wide open and letting the remaining horses bolt, too. If we agree that it's bad, why expand laws to allow more, larger, different kinds?
Beer is not always available, either. Something like 25 or 26 counties (out of 64) remain dry.
-
How are you affected if he drinks 40 cases a day?
If he stays in his house I'm not. I could give a shit what he does.
-
In reality, ALL OF Y'ALL (EDIT: except for wes - I missed a post) are missing the original point of the thread, as usual, just so you can whale on each other aimlessly.
The issue is not whether or not to allow alcohol in Alabama. That argument is done and over with. Alcohol is legal in Alabama (subject to certain community based restrictions, but for sake of argument, let's just say "Legal in Alabama). The issue now is whether or not to expand or re-interpret the current laws concerning alcohol to allow a business (current or future) to brew their own beer and sell it, either in their own establishment, or to bottle and sell to others.
Since the question of alcohol being legal is already settled, I do not see why this is such a big deal. How is allowing a bar to sell beer that is bottled elsewhere any different than allowing a bar to sell beer that it made on premise, as long as they render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?
This argument is more like why a company is not being allowed to open up a new Wendys, even though there is already a McDonalds and a Burger King, because fast food is bad for you. Or a convenience store not being allowed to sell Camel cigs, even though they already sell Kool and Marlboro, because cigs are bad for you. Most likely, McD and BK, and Kool and Marlboro are the ones supporting the prohibition on Wendy's and Camel in order to maintain their market share. Even though the odds are good that the Wendy's or the Camels will not draw off that much market share - people are pretty loyal to one brand or another, it seems. As niche market - not to mention expensive - as handcraft beers are, I doubt the major labels see much difference at all. Joe Six Pack is not going to spend the extra dough on "fan-cee" beer when he is just looking to get drunk. Natty Light will do him fine, thankee veruh much.
My husband and I frequent a brew pub near our home that sells handcrafted beers. It is a family friendly place - basically an Applebees-type place, except with handmade beer and excellent food, right down to the kid's menu. And even though this place sells its own beer, not everyone likes it. They still sell plenty of Shiner and Bud and the usual stuff. And I have yet to see anyone get hammered out of their mind at this place just because they sell high alcohol beer.
Religion or personal morals should not have a bearing on this. Allowing homemade beer does not increase or decrease the ability of the average redneck to get drunk. It just offers an alternative source - and not even really an ADDITIONAL source, since a beer drinker will drink whatever beer is available if he or she wants one. No one says "Oh, well... since you don't have handcrafted beer, I am not going to drink one at all!" Even my husband the beer snob will find SOMETHING on the list to drink if he can't get a handcrafted ale.
So K, getting on the "Alcohol is bad" pedestal, while absolutely your perogative, is not really relevant here, and kind of off topic. It would be appropriate if we were discussing whether or not a county should repeal its dry county status. But we aren't.
-
If we agree that it's bad, why expand laws to allow more, larger, different kinds?
Who agreed on that? Not me. I love beer. I love craft beer.
After watching Beer Wars by Anat Baron, I loathe the macros and the "three-tier system".
-
Alcohol -- which is contained in beer -- is a drug of physical dependence.
The initial desire to continue to drink beer is psychological in nature. Unlike other drugs in which you are physically addicted after your first use or two, alcohol is not physically addictive. If you drink copious amounts, become an alcoholic, and continue that pattern for years, your body will become dependent upon the drug being present in the system. However, the addiction that instigated the resulting physical symptoms was not physical; it was psychological. No one drinks five beers for the first time ever and then has an insatiable need to keep doing it, coupled with physical side effects. That is what happens, however, with cocaine, heroin, and other physically addictive drugs.
-
In reality, ALL OF Y'ALL (EDIT: except for wes - I missed a post) are missing the original point of the thread, as usual, just so you can whale on each other aimlessly.
The issue is not whether or not to allow alcohol in Alabama. That argument is done and over with. Alcohol is legal in Alabama (subject to certain community based restrictions, but for sake of argument, let's just say "Legal in Alabama). The issue now is whether or not to expand or re-interpret the current laws concerning alcohol to allow a business (current or future) to brew their own beer and sell it, either in their own establishment, or to bottle and sell to others.
Since the question of alcohol being legal is already settled, I do not see why this is such a big deal. How is allowing a bar to sell beer that is bottled elsewhere any different than allowing a bar to sell beer that it made on premise, as long as they render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?
This argument is more like why a company is not being allowed to open up a new Wendys, even though there is already a McDonalds and a Burger King, because fast food is bad for you. Or a convenience store not being allowed to sell Camel cigs, even though they already sell Kool and Marlboro, because cigs are bad for you. Most likely, McD and BK, and Kool and Marlboro are the ones supporting the prohibition on Wendy's and Camel in order to maintain their market share. Even though the odds are good that the Wendy's or the Camels will not draw off that much market share - people are pretty loyal to one brand or another, it seems. As niche market - not to mention expensive - as handcraft beers are, I doubt the major labels see much difference at all. Joe Six Pack is not going to spend the extra dough on "fan-cee" beer when he is just looking to get drunk. Natty Light will do him fine, thankee veruh much.
My husband and I frequent a brew pub near our home that sells handcrafted beers. It is a family friendly place - basically an Applebees-type place, except with handmade beer and excellent food, right down to the kid's menu. And even though this place sells its own beer, not everyone likes it. They still sell plenty of Shiner and Bud and the usual stuff. And I have yet to see anyone get hammered out of their mind at this place just because they sell high alcohol beer.
Religion or personal morals should not have a bearing on this. Allowing homemade beer does not increase or decrease the ability of the average redneck to get drunk. It just offers an alternative source - and not even really an ADDITIONAL source, since a beer drinker will drink whatever beer is available if he or she wants one. No one says "Oh, well... since you don't have handcrafted beer, I am not going to drink one at all!" Even my husband the beer snob will find SOMETHING on the list to drink if he can't get a handcrafted ale.
So K, getting on the "Alcohol is bad" pedestal, while absolutely your perogative, is not really relevant here, and kind of off topic. It would be appropriate if we were discussing whether or not a county should repeal its dry county status. But we aren't.
*ahem*
You're missing the point a little yourself.
Topics go where they go.
I didn't open the "alcohol is bad" door, nor am I on any sort of raised platform. When Chizad rants that people who don't think as he does are backwards ass hicks who prop themselves up with a fake Jesus and have no other point to make than "alcohol is bad", it's perfectly reasonable to then discuss the realities of that absurd position.
When he chooses that path... well... what happens happens.
-
The initial desire to continue to drink beer is psychological in nature. Unlike other drugs in which you are physically addicted after your first use or two, alcohol is not physically addictive. If you drink copious amounts, become an alcoholic, and continue that pattern for years, your body will become dependent upon the drug being present in the system. However, the addiction that instigated the resulting physical symptoms was not physical; it was psychological. No one drinks five beers for the first time ever and then has an insatiable need to keep doing it, coupled with physical side effects. That is what happens, however, with cocaine, heroin, and other physically addictive drugs.
So then people should only have two drinks and be cut off?
BTW, you don't have to drink copious amounts to become an alcoholic. The consumption of copious amounts is one symptom, but it is not the standard.
-
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x95/dawnhulio/fatdrunk.jpg)
This guy says free the hops, Alabama.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2465092169_fe9f441eca.jpg)
This guy agrees and hates living in the bible belt.
(http://sites.google.com/site/matty42069/2005_0501Image0062.JPG)
This guy? Well, it would go against the only rule on this forum to paste his exact words regarding the Alabama alcohol rules, but suffice it to say he wants more %.
(http://cdn.allleftturns.com/www/sites/default/files/articles/beer%20hat.jpg)
He doesn't really follow all the laws, he just agrees that more beer is a good thing.
(http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Nascar%20Fan.jpg)
I refused to read his comments on this subject.
FWIW, apparently there's a social network group for this rally also. These guys are leading the charge.
-
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x95/dawnhulio/fatdrunk.jpg)
This guy says free the hops, Alabama.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2465092169_fe9f441eca.jpg)
This guy agrees and hates living in the bible belt.
(http://sites.google.com/site/matty42069/2005_0501Image0062.JPG)
This guy? Well, it would go against the only rule on this forum to paste his exact words regarding the Alabama alcohol rules, but suffice it to say he wants more %.
(http://cdn.allleftturns.com/www/sites/default/files/articles/beer%20hat.jpg)
He doesn't really follow all the laws, he just agrees that more beer is a good thing.
(http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Nascar%20Fan.jpg)
I refused to read his comments on this subject.
FWIW, apparently there's a social network group for this rally also. These guys are leading the charge.
Coincidentally, these pictures were all taken in Tuscaloosa.
-
You're missing the bigger picture. For years we've been denied the rights to an NFL franchise on the grounds that AU and UA fans couldn't come together for a common goal.
We should be celebrating. With a 6%, 16 ounce canned beverage.
-
You're missing the bigger picture. For years we've been denied the rights to an NFL franchise on the grounds that AU and UA fans couldn't come together for a common goal.
We should be celebrating. With a 6%, 16 ounce canned beverage.
Hear hear! Strike up the indie band and pop a top!
-
So then people should only have two drinks and be cut off?
BTW, you don't have to drink copious amounts to become an alcoholic. The consumption of copious amounts is one symptom, but it is not the standard.
You missed what I stated. Unlike other drugs which get you addicted after only a few tries, alcohol is not physically addictive. So no, nobody would have to be cut off after X number of drinks. You have to drink large enough quantities consistently over a period of time before your body becomes addicted to it to the point that you've developed a physical dependency.
The body attempts to maintain homeostasis. Introduce a foreign chemical into your body and it adjusts to attempt to maintain homeostasis. Some foreign chemicals immediately bond to receptors in the brain and create an immediate physical dependency. For those chemicals that don't do this, such as alcohol, physical dependency requires a psychological addiction. Why? Because it is only through repetitive introduction of these chemicals that the body eventually recognizes the chemical as "normal" and attempts to maintain homeostasis with that chemical, instead of trying to get rid of it.
Physically addictive drugs cause an immediate need for more. Psychologically addictive substances result in physical dependency and physical symptoms after the psychological addiction results in consistent use in substantial quantities. This is how people get psychological addictions to salt, caffeine and sugar. In regular amounts, these are acceptable portions of your daily diet. If you develop a psychological addiction to them, however, and consistently eat more than you should, your body's homeostasis is out of whack. Eventually, your body attempts to compensate by working that level of chemicals into your homeostasis, which results in a physical dependency that causes physical withdrawal symptoms if you attempt to quit.
-
You're missing the bigger picture. For years we've been denied the rights to an NFL franchise on the grounds that AU and UA fans couldn't come together for a common goal.
We should be celebrating. With a 6%, 16 ounce canned beverage.
Only the best, Nattie Ice right?
-
Only the best, Nattie Ice right?
I'm a Milwaukee kinda guy.
-
The only foreign substances that the human brain has receptors to cause a physical addiction are nicotin and heroin. There is no receptor in the brain to cause a physical addiction to alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana, or any other drug. The whole "alcoholism is a disease" movement was a way to victimize the people that abused this substance to where they were no longer responsible productive members of society. Some liberals didn't want people to face their own consequences, so they made up the fact that alcohol is addictive and a disease. The whole withdrawal argument is worthless. You can have withdrawals from anything that has become a daily routine in your life, it doesn't mean you're physically addicted to it. After my eligibility ran out in football I went through withdrawals and wouldn't get out of bed because something that I had been doing for 16 years of my life was not there anymore and I didn't know how to function without having my day planned out for me by a coach. It's not that you're addicted to it, but it's more of something that made you happy that has been a part of your lifestyle that it is hard to break away from. Alcoholics think that they need it to make them happy. Alcohol dependency is that the people who abuse it have deeper issues and need to change their work or home life instead of trying to escape from it by getting drunk everyday, not because they're addicted to it.
-
The only foreign substances that the human brain has receptors to cause a physical addiction are nicotin and heroin. There is no receptor in the brain to cause a physical addiction to alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana, or any other drug. The whole "alcoholism is a disease" movement was a way to victimize the people that abused this substance to where they were no longer responsible productive members of society. Some liberals didn't want people to face their own consequences, so they made up the fact that alcohol is addictive and a disease. The whole withdrawal argument is worthless. You can have withdrawals from anything that has become a daily routine in your life, it doesn't mean you're physically addicted to it. After my eligibility ran out in football I went through withdrawals and wouldn't get out of bed because something that I had been doing for 16 years of my life was not there anymore and I didn't know how to function without having my day planned out for me by a coach. It's not that you're addicted to it, but it's more of something that made you happy that has been a part of your lifestyle that it is hard to break away from. Alcoholics think that they need it to make them happy. Alcohol dependency is that the people who abuse it have deeper issues and need to change their work or home life instead of trying to escape from it by getting drunk everyday, not because they're addicted to it.
This is shockingly uninformed. I rarely used the word "stupid" seriously, but I'm considering it now.
Wow.
-
This is shockingly uninformed. I rarely used the word "stupid" seriously, but I'm considering it now.
Wow.
I can mail you my molecular biology and genetic textbooks if you want me to. Alcoholism is due to external environmental factors, nothing internal about it.
-
I am not lying to you. The basic argument against said bill was that 1. Drinking Alcohol is a vice and 2. What's wrong with the beer we have now?
Which boils down to the real agenda, Alabama was paid a shit ton by the big distributors, I.e. Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc... to keep it like it was. Therefore, they could have a somewhat monopoly.
Bingo, sounds like the gambling issue.
-
Textbooks are overrated. Most of them have fallacies anyway.....mainly History Books (see the Great Depression).
But I agree with you iwannaplay. While the effects and harm from it are physical, the dependence itself is mental (psychological).
-
Alcoholism-as-disease proved to be an attractive model for the new self help culture. "Almost by definition, disease is caused by agents or forces largely beyond the control of an individual." Mr Sykes Writes. "If someone who drinks excessively is sick, then the notion of personal or moral responsibility becomes highly problematic. "With the notion of "co-dependency", an alcoholics friends and family could also be victims. And eventually the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome emerged as a line of defense to absolve murderers of responsibility for their actions because mom had caught the whiskey virus decades earlier.
- Quote from the Article "Everyones a Victim, No One's Responsible"
-
This guy says free the hops, Alabama.
This guy agrees and hates living in the bible belt.
This guy? Well, it would go against the only rule on this forum to paste his exact words regarding the Alabama alcohol rules, but suffice it to say he wants more %.
He doesn't really follow all the laws, he just agrees that more beer is a good thing.
I refused to read his comments on this subject.
FWIW, apparently there's a social network group for this rally also. These guys are leading the charge.
Funny how amongst all those cans, the highest quality beer presented is Bud Light.
I know you're just trolling, but it's painfully obvious that these people could give a shit about bringing in high quality beers to Alabama.
And as to your sarcastic comment about how these guys have a facebook group? They are leading the charge. Their first initiative already passed. This one is well on its way to doing so as well.
-
Funny how amongst all those cans, the highest quality beer presented is Bud Light.
I know you're just trolling, but it's painfully obvious that these people could give a poop about bringing in high quality beers to Alabama.
And as to your sarcastic comment about how these guys have a facebook group? They are leading the charge. Their first initiative already passed. This one is well on its way to doing so as well.
It would not bother me a bit to have more microbrews in the state. Just want to make that clear with you.
I never drink Bud, Natty or any of that other crap. If Im gonna go with a US beer, its got to be Yuengling or Rolling Rock. I prefer a lot of the Pilsner Style Lagers from Europe - St. Pauli is one I like a lot or Spaten. Not real big on the Belgian Wheat thing. Guinness is always good as is Smithwicks (Red Ale) or Killians (technically not made in Ireland anymore, but by Coors in Colorado). Hell I even like Miller Lite 'ok'. It at least has that good pilsner taste. Bud is crap. The shit is made from rice for Christ's sake.... :bc:
So - yeah, Ive went and done it. Now lets talk about your favorite Beer and turn this thread toward a good ending. :)
-
It would not bother me a bit to have more microbrews in the state. Just want to make that clear with you.
I never drink Bud, Natty or any of that other crap. If Im gonna go with a US beer, its got to be Yuengling or Rolling Rock. I prefer a lot of the Pilsner Style Lagers from Europe - St. Pauli is one I like a lot or Spaten. Not real big on the Belgian Wheat thing. Guinness is always good as is Smithwicks (Red Ale) or Killians (technically not made in Ireland anymore, but by Coors in Colorado). Hell I even like Miller Lite 'ok'. It at least has that good pilsner taste. Bud is crap. The shit is made from rice for Christ's sake.... :bc:
So - yeah, Ive went and done it. Now lets talk about your favorite Beer and turn this thread toward a good ending. :)
Best bargain goes to Tommyknocker Iperial Stout. You can get a sixer for around $5.
I like pretty much anything Rogue brews. Dead Guy is my favorite.
Can't go wrong with pretty much anything Sam Adams brews. I usually prefer their seasonal brew no matter what time of year it is.
Left Hand makes some good stuff. I like their Imperial Stout as well. That's probably my favorite category of beer.
-
**sigh** If you can't keep 'em on topic, might as well join the hijack. :bar:
Can you guys get Abita in Alabama? Carl's hands down favorite, all except Purple Haze (which is a raspberry flavored beer... yeeck).
He also likes Fat Tire, Dixie Blackened Voodoo, St. Arnold's (a Houston local beer distributed in TX), Anchor Steam, St. Pauli's and then most brew pub ales. His preference is for a darker ale, it seems, and the occasional porter. If pressed, with no other choices, he will drink a Heiniken.
I personally think all beer tastes like horse urine, so I have no specific favorites myself. I just buy what I know the man likes. It works out well for us - I don't drink his beer and he doesn't drink my wine.
-
**sigh** If you can't keep 'em on topic, might as well join the hijack. :bar:
Can you guys get Abita in Alabama? Carl's hands down favorite, all except Purple Haze (which is a raspberry flavored beer... yeeck).
He also likes Fat Tire, Dixie Blackened Voodoo, St. Arnold's (a Houston local beer distributed in TX), Anchor Steam, St. Pauli's and then most brew pub ales. His preference is for a darker ale, it seems, and the occasional porter. If pressed, with no other choices, he will drink a Heiniken.
I personally think all beer tastes like horse urine, so I have no specific favorites myself. I just buy what I know the man likes. It works out well for us - I don't drink his beer and he doesn't drink my wine.
Yeah, we get Abita. Andy Gator is my favorite.
For Christmas my girlfriend's brother (they're from New Orleans), got me an Abbey Ale. This is one of those beers I was talking about that only comes in 22oz bottles. It's been sitting on my shelf in my man room (next to a bottle I decided to save from my 6 pack of Monty Python's Holy GrAle.
-
**sigh** If you can't keep 'em on topic, might as well join the hijack. :bar:
Can you guys get Abita in Alabama? Carl's hands down favorite, all except Purple Haze (which is a raspberry flavored beer... yeeck).
He also likes Fat Tire, Dixie Blackened Voodoo, St. Arnold's (a Houston local beer distributed in TX), Anchor Steam, St. Pauli's and then most brew pub ales. His preference is for a darker ale, it seems, and the occasional porter. If pressed, with no other choices, he will drink a Heiniken.
I personally think all beer tastes like horse urine, so I have no specific favorites myself. I just buy what I know the man likes. It works out well for us - I don't drink his beer and he doesn't drink my wine.
Well - the bickering had gotten stale and neither side was gonna cave so why not talk about he fun stuff in relation to all this? LOL
I have seen Abita at Kroger in Tigertown (in Opelika in case you havent been to Auburn the last 4 years). Agree on Purple Haze - nasty azzed shit. I think they still have it on tap at the Mushroom.
I always heard that Heineken was brewed using some form of Formaldehyde. Not sure if it was true or not, but kinda scary to think about.
I think the worst beer ever has to go to Keystone ICE. Hands down. Old Milwaukee a close 2nd.
-
Well - the bickering had gotten stale and neither side was gonna cave so why not talk about he fun stuff in relation to all this? LOL
I have seen Abita at Kroger in Tigertown (in Opelika in case you havent been to Auburn the last 4 years). Agree on Purple Haze - nasty azzed shit. I think they still have it on tap at the Mushroom.
I always heard that Heineken was brewed using some form of Formaldehyde. Not sure if it was true or not, but kinda scary to think about.
I think the worst beer ever has to go to Keystone ICE. Hands down. Old Milwaukee a close 2nd.
Sweetwater 420 in doses.
Sam Adam's Oktoberfest Brew.
Harpoon IPA.
-
Funny how amongst all those cans, the highest quality beer presented is Bud Light.
I know you're just trolling,
:thumsup:
And as to your sarcastic comment about how these guys have a facebook group?
I actually just made that part up, and I never said facebook. I just like to get a rise out of the "social network" loving homos.
-
And as to your sarcastic comment about how these guys have a facebook group?
Those guys DO have a facebook group - unfortunately, it is maintained down at the police department in a big binder labeled MUG SHOTS.
-
Those guys DO have a facebook group - unfortunately, it is maintained down at the police department in a big binder labeled MUG SHOTS.
Oh. Those guys.
-
Those guys DO have a facebook group - unfortunately, it is maintained down at the police department in a big binder labeled MUG SHOTS.
Token is the group admin?
-
Token is the group admin?
Admin, founder and sergeant at arms. Also tailtwister and majority whip.
-
Admin, founder and sergeant at arms. Also tailtwister and majority whip.
He must have many leather bound books.
-
He must have many leather bound books.
His office smells of mahogany.
-
His office smells of mahogany.
What can I say. I'm a one woman kinda guy.