For The Love Of Port

(Moved from another Topic to prevent topic-drift)

Eric Menchen wrote:

Peter W. Meek wrote:Well, we had the sushi, but I forgot: nailed again by Michigan's alcohol laws - no alcohol sold on Christmas Day.

What goofiness is that? And here I was angry that Colorado won't let you take a bottle into a restaurant.

Well, Michigan won't let you bring a bottle into any establishment that has a liquor license . A few will risk it, but they can lose their license by doing so. That's why I buy so much of my Port at my favorite restaurant; they will keep it and let me store it after it has been opened.

I'm not sure about places with no license. Certainly the State Liquor Board can't hurt them, but it may be illegal under some state or local law.

There needs to be some serious reform in the US alcohol laws. I can understand the need to regulate, and even the need to tax, but not the need to prohibit certain reasonable activities.

Shipping? If the wine is legal in the origin state and destination state, and the buyer is legal in the origin state and destination state, why can't it be shipped? With all these computer networks around it would be no great problem to be sure that the right amount of tax got collected and apportioned.

Bringing a bottle INTO a place that serves alcohol? Why in the world not. There is no issue of drinking going on in front of people who choose to be in a place that doesn't serve alcohol. It is purely between the establishment owner and the customer how the owner should be compensated for the lost sale (offset by perhaps getting a customer that might have dined elsewhere).

Most of the arcane alcohol laws are the legacy of the Repeal of Prohibition, which gave states the right to regulate alcohol, and the three-tier distribution system (which funds huge lobbying organizations).

Peter , as an interesting aside , most of the SAQ's arcane regulations are as a result of Prohibition as well .

Luc Gauthier wrote:Peter , as an interesting aside , most of the SAQ's arcane regulations are as a result of Prohibition as well .

Prohibition never works. Let your mind drift and imagine what problems some of our current prohibitions will cause several generations down life's highway.

Now -- imagine that we had politicians that could do the same. (Much harder, isn't it?)

One of my random .sigs describes it perfectly:

"In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly."
[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]

Peter , hows this to describe the situation in Québec : " Port , Port everywhere and not a drop to drink . . ."
The rime of the Ancient Mariner

On the issue of bringing bottles to restaurants, I wish Colorado would follow many other states and recognize that this is a business issue to be decided by the business owner, not an alcohol regulatory issue. O.k., maybe there can be a requirement that the bottle is given to the restaurant staff so they can control it just as they do their own stock. Even at that, once I buy a bottle in a restaurant, it is there on the table for me to pour to my heart's content. With the current system I would have no problem buying several bottles at the start of a meal and getting intoxicated. So why is my supplying the bottle different from the restaurant supplying it?

Eric Menchen wrote:... So why is my supplying the bottle different from the restaurant supplying it?

Because there is no assurance that a middleman (2nd tier of the 3-tier system) has made a profit on the bottle(s). These are the people who have a vested interest in dinging you for one extra step of profit on every bottle you buy, whether in a store, bar, or restaurant. They have paid their pet congress-critters to pass laws, preventing you from receiving shipments, limiting how many bottles you can personally transport over your state line, preventing you from buying more than a token amount from your own state's wineries.

It's all about money. Who finds it worthwhile to pay congressmen to pass (and prevent repeal of) laws protecting their profits? The distributors! Without their lobbying, we would have rationalized alcohol laws long ago.

They claim it is in the public interest to prevent children from buying $200 wine by mail for a Saturday night bash, but you KNOW it is the money.

They claim it is to prevent people from dodging their home state taxes, but you KNOW it is the money.

They claim it is to prevent people from buying alcohol while intoxicated, but you KNOW is it ALWAYS the money.

It may be time to create national and state alcohol consumer organizations to lobby against these gougers. Our nickels might just outweigh their hundred dollar bills -- there are a LOT of us. The producers and the retailers would be on our side! If congressmen are for sale, maybe it's time to start buying our own.

I'm no organizer, but if anyone would care to begin, I'd throw a couple hundred into the pot.

PAFRAL (People Associated For Rational Alcohol Laws)? Come up with a better one?

Well Peter , at least in Québec we only have to be concerned with one monopolistic creature .