In the laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the laws of historical governance, the stipulation of equality quite often proves to be an unattainable goal. The American experiment with prohibition is a very good example of this. Faced with the actions of men overindulging themselves, the people decided to ban all intoxicating liquors. Nowadays the response would be more subtle, like Scotland’s new fifty pence minimum per unit of alcohol or simply cracking down on volume promotions at bars. Instead, a full ban was put in place and led to thirteen years of thirst-fueled crime.
Now although the 21st amendment put an end to prohibition, the legislative legacy of this teetotaling period is still very much alive today. The vast majority of U.S. states have some form of a three-tiered distribution system for alcohol. For the most part, producers are legally barred from selling directly to consumers, or even retailers. It must first pass through a distributor before reaching the bar tap or store shelf. This government mandated extra layer in the distribution chain seems peculiar for a country that espouses a love for laissez faire, anti-regulatory rhetoric. Indeed, a lot of smaller brewers lose out in the patchwork of state-enforced middlemen. Citizens of Illinois can thank abused legislation for their lack of brews from New Glarus and (between ‘06 and ’07) Bell’s.
There are signs that this system could be weakening. In 2005, Granholm v. Heald ensured that any exceptions states make for small in-state producers must be applied to all producers regardless of where they’re based. And last year Washington passed a bill that dealt a heavy blow to the traditional three-tier system by eliminating the government’s active role as one or more of the tiers.
Now we have to be fair. A lot of the problems the current system produces or exacerbates were not on the horizon when the laws were being drafted in 1919. Prior to prohibition, many producers owned or had heavy influence over the bars. Bar operators were often pressured to sell more product, which in this case is not a good situation. The three-tier system was an attempt to remove the economic incentive for binge drinking. As a reaction to overindulgence, it is much closer to “equal and opposite” than outright prohibition, so it has survived a lot longer. But with the explosion of microbreweries, it is reaching the end of its useful life.
Now although the 21st amendment put an end to prohibition, the legislative legacy of this teetotaling period is still very much alive today. The vast majority of U.S. states have some form of a three-tiered distribution system for alcohol. For the most part, producers are legally barred from selling directly to consumers, or even retailers. It must first pass through a distributor before reaching the bar tap or store shelf. This government mandated extra layer in the distribution chain seems peculiar for a country that espouses a love for laissez faire, anti-regulatory rhetoric. Indeed, a lot of smaller brewers lose out in the patchwork of state-enforced middlemen. Citizens of Illinois can thank abused legislation for their lack of brews from New Glarus and (between ‘06 and ’07) Bell’s.
There are signs that this system could be weakening. In 2005, Granholm v. Heald ensured that any exceptions states make for small in-state producers must be applied to all producers regardless of where they’re based. And last year Washington passed a bill that dealt a heavy blow to the traditional three-tier system by eliminating the government’s active role as one or more of the tiers.
Now we have to be fair. A lot of the problems the current system produces or exacerbates were not on the horizon when the laws were being drafted in 1919. Prior to prohibition, many producers owned or had heavy influence over the bars. Bar operators were often pressured to sell more product, which in this case is not a good situation. The three-tier system was an attempt to remove the economic incentive for binge drinking. As a reaction to overindulgence, it is much closer to “equal and opposite” than outright prohibition, so it has survived a lot longer. But with the explosion of microbreweries, it is reaching the end of its useful life.
No comments:
Post a Comment