This just in from Astute Reader Dexter, our man-not-on-the-beach in Hawaii. As a one-woman walking/talking guinea pig, I concur. (I drink alcohol every day and exercise five to six days a week.) (Currently dealing with a truly nasty case of swimmer's elbow, I might add.) (No! Not drinking elbow. Swimmer's elbow.)
That argument I described in Part 1 is apparently gaining ground. (Mine was a decidedly minority view thirty years ago, which means the rest of the world is getting smarter, or I was dumb long before it was fashionable.)
I mention this because legalization is in the news, thanks to our economic woes. Federal lawmakers are pondering ways to raise revenues, and as is always the case when times are tough, they’re turning their attention to “sin” in all its forms. (As I noted a few days ago, Senators recently heard arguments in favor of raising taxes on a legal ”drug,” alcohol.)
In the past few days, the New York Times has run two op-ed pieces worth reading. One is a terrific short piece by Nick Gillespie, who is with the Reason Foundation. Do yourself a favor and read it.
The other is also interesting, but problematic. The author is Michael Winerip, who writes the “Generation B” column in the Times’ Sunday Styles section. (*1) (The “B” refers to “boomer.” Winerip is a Baby Boomer and comments on life for us middle-aged types.)
The essay is worth reading, if only for the comments of Ethan Nadelman, a legalization advocate. But the gist of his essay is the conundrum that drugs pose for many boomers: They did drugs; they’re not sure they want their kids to do them. He muses about his own experience, and his worries about his kids’ fondness for alcohol.
He also interviews David Sheff, who wrote a memoir about his son’s drug addiction. Sheff apparently opposes, or at least fears, legalization because he believes, based on his son’s experience, that “soft” drugs lead to “hard” drugs.
I understand his pain --- no one wants to their kid to become a drug addict. But it doesn’t make sense for him to extrapolate from one case to every case.
The reality is that some people can’t handle drugs, probably because their genes are wired that way. Some people can’t handle alcohol; again, it’s likely the culprit is their genes rather than some character flaw. I can’t handle caffeine. My son-in-law is lactose intolerant. Should we outlaw diary products? Or coffee? I don’t think so.
Here’s the point, such as it is: When it comes to alcohol and drugs, we humans (or, more specifically, we Americans) throw reason out the window.
The facts are that millions of people consume alcohol every day, and they’re not degenerate drunks.
I’ve known, what?, several thousand people in my life? I’d say that most of them drink. But I’ve only known two people who drank themselves to death. And in the case of both, it was clear when they were teen-agers that their relationship to alcohol was, well, different than everyone else’s. They weren’t bad people; they simply couldn’t handle alcohol. That’s sad, and I’m sorry they both died young (age fifty).
But that’s not a reason for me to stop drinking.
Ditto for drugs: I’ve done lots of ‘em. So have many people I know. And nearly all the people I know who did drugs stopped doing them. Only a tiny percentage had a “drug problem.”
Our illegal “drug” problem, however, is gargantuan and harms every member of society. People who want drugs will get them People who want to shoot guns are gonna find, buy, and use guns. All the laws in the world won’t stop them from doing so.
So let’s do the rational thing and legalize drugs. You’ll be safer, your kids will be safer, and we could use those tax dollars to fund schools, parks, libraries, and other good stuff.
_________
*1: “Eh?” you say. “The Styles section? What the hell you doing reading the Styles section??” Answer: It’s my weekly anthropological expedition into the world of the shallow, the vain, the neurotic, the terminally rich-hip, and the fashion-fascists. The inhabitants of the Styles section live in a world remote from my o own, and so their lives are, anthropologically speaking, fascinating. (Well, okay, I'm shallow and neurotic. But not vain. Or hip. And, as anyone who's seen me in the 3-D world knowns, definitely not, um, fashion-oriented.)
Let’s talk for a moment about illegal drugs, shall we? Illegal drugs and the legalization thereof.
First let’s get some background out of the way, so you don’t think I’m a random dumbass who’s shooting my mouth (or, rather, my keyboard) randomly.
When I was in my twenties, I tried and/or used regularly every drug known to humankind and then some. Name a drug, I’ve at least tried it. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but not much.)
Nearly every adult I know between the ages of 45 and 60 used drugs at one time. I have friends who who still smoke pot regularly.
Can drugs be dangerous? You bet. A few weeks ago, the son of an old friend died of an overdose. (He’d overdosed several times before; this time, however, was his last.)
I also know alcohol. I grew up in a household dominated by parental alcoholic insanity (although the booze only exacerbated other problems). I spent two of my 20-something years drunk, and I mean that literally: For two years, I was never sober.
I still drink alcohol every day. I haven’t done any illegal drugs for years, mainly because there are only 24 hours in a day, and I’ve made choices about how to spend those hours. (*1)
So I am no stranger to alcohol or drugs. I’m not some wide-eyed pollyanna or knee-jerking liberal.
And for thirty years, I’ve favored the legalization of currently illegal drugs. My opinion of thirty years is simple (because I'm simple-minded?): Drug dealers make billions every year selling drugs, and yet they pay no taxes. Drug users spend billions on drugs every years, and yet they don’t pay taxes on those purchases. The drugs are gonna get bought and sold whether they’re legal or illegal, so we taxpayers might as well reap some benefit from the industry
. ___________________
*1: I’ve long said that if there were 48 hours in the day, I’d probably spend about half of them drinking and drugging to excess.)
I'm obviously not running up to speed this week, blogging-wise. (But hey, I'm getting a lot of other stuff done . . . . Mr. Cranky Beer Magazine Publisher better like this essay, 'cause it's sure gobbling my blogging time....)
Anyway, I only just heard about the Senate Finance Committee "round table" discussion, on, among other things, the wisdom of raising taxes on alcohol. And about it, I say: Ugh. WHEN is Michael Jacobson going to go away? (Not, frankly, that it matters if he goes away, because some other nanny do-gooder numbskull will promptly take his place.)
(And no, I'm not bothering to create a link to his wikipedia page or his nut-job center for "science." There ain't no science, and the only center is the empty space in his head.)
He's been at this "alcohol is EVIL and we need to TAX it out of EXISTENCE" routine for over thirty years. Give it up already.
Glib ranting aside, every one of us would do well to keep an eye on this "discussion" about taxation on alcohol. Because this historian is here to tell all of you that this is precisely how the prohibitionists did their work one hundred years ago.
Anyway, my buddy Jay Brooks dismantled the discussion at his blog. (You think I'm fanatical on the subject of rational drinking; you ain't seen/heard/read nuthin' till you've imbibed one of Jay's rants.) Here's his money quote:
The number one priority of most, if not all, politicians is to stay in office. Using alcohol as a bogeyman can be an attractive alternative from having to face the real causes and consequences of our current economic situation.
True, true, and true. A century ago, politicians hopped on the alcohol-is-evil bandwagon like rats on an overturned garbage can because it was the politically expedient thing to do. As I noted in Ambitious Brew (pp. 150-51):
An Alabama politician who had been "run over" [by the prohibition] "steam-roller" moaned that . . . "gullible people" [had allowed] themselves to be humored and hoodwinked . . ." Politicians who "surrendered, save themselves from slaughter." But he and others who resisted "were just swept aside to make room for the more susceptible."
Jacobson and his pals are just as determined. Don't think it can't happen again. It can --- and it'll start with something like a hefty tax. Because of course the tax will only prove Jacobson's point: alcohol is evil and dangerous and ought not be allowed.
How do we know that? Because, ya know, we taxed it in order to pay for the damage it does. See how this works? Beware. (Can you tell I'm in a pissy mood after a loooooooong week at the keyboard?)
Okay, this is interesting. The "money quote" is this:
The creative effect of alcohol, then, seems to involve a delicate counterpoint between stimulation and relaxation.
Now, if only we could all figure out where and how to achieve that "delicate counterpoint." Tip o' the snifter to Drew Weinstein, a "friend" at Facebook. (Truth be told, I have no idea who he is, although I think he may be a "friend" of my son-in-law's and that's how he ended up "friending" me at Facebook. (It is called "friending," isn't it?) (If so, awful word!)
And speaking of stupid laws, irrational attitudes toward drinking, and the like (which I often do and just did earlier today) (and will do again tomorrow), Jacob Grier notes a particularly spectacular exercise in inanity in Washington, D.C. (DC the metropolis, not DC site-of-federal-government).
As he says: You can't make this stuff up. (If it were me, I'd say "You can't make this shit up," but he's more polite than I am.) (Probably because he's younger. Take my word for it: When ya hit 50, hey, you don't give a shit what people think.) (See? You CAN trust someone over thirty.)
Craft distillers in New York state have organized a Craft Distillers Guild. Frankly, they have to do something, because that state's legislators are hell-bent on preventing them from doing business. Ralph Erenzo of Tuthilltown Spirits passed along the press released quoted below. I've mentioned him here before because of Tuthilltown's struggles to build a business within the confines of the nearly lunatic alcohol regulations in New York state.
Albany, New York New York craft distillers met at the offices of the NEW YORK FARM BUREAU on April 21st to organize and launch the NEW YORK CRAFT DISTILLERS GUILD. The first Guild meeting was organized by the Hudson Valley Agri-Business Development Corporation. The location of the meeting at the offices of the NY FARM BUREAU is no accident. We want to make the firm statement that spirits production in New York is an agricultural undertaking," says Todd Erling, Executive Director of HVADC. Distillers use agricultural products, and craft distilleries have the potential to create new markets for New York grown fruits and grain while also creating a new tax source for the State. New York has a long tradition of spirits production, dating back to colonial times. Prohibition killed off the distilled spirits industry in New York and it only recently returned. Changes in the State's Alcohol Beverage Control Law have made it possible in recent years for small agriculture-based distillers to develop and flourish. There are currently thirteen licensed craft distillers in New York and that number is expected to double over the next five years. According to Ralph Erenzo, owner of Tuthilltown Spirits in Gardiner, "A small distillery operating at the limit of production allowed by their license can generate up to $1 million in annual Excise and Sales Taxes to the State; not including the multiplier effect." Nationally, small distilleries are now producing a wide range of high quality hand-crafted spirits of almost every type, from bourbon, to brandies, rum, gin, and vodka. Craft distilleries offer significant economic value to the state. They hire locally, buy local raw materials, and draw tourism dollars to New York. The newly-formed New York Craft Distillers Guild will focus on advocating for regulations that are responsive to the needs of craft distilleries and on branding and promoting New York-made spirits.
For more information on craft distillers, who, in my opinion, are creating truly astounding spirits, see the American Distilling Institute's homepage. And big tip o' the snifter to Ralph for fighting the good fight, and for keeping me posted on it.
I just got home late last night from California and am only now trying to catch up with what accumulated in my absence -- including a slew of Twitter replies and direct messages. (*1)
Anyway, thanks to all of you who saw Beer Wars, who commented, who wrote to me, etc. Much appreciated.
The one thing all of the panelists said immediately after the panel ended was "Too bad we didn't have 90 minutes for that segment. We definitely could have had a good shouting match." (Which we'd sort of had earlier. No, we don't all agree. Or, more accurately, I don't agree with any of the other panelists or with Anat.) (Which, of course, is why I was there: the outsider perspective, because as I keep reminding people: I'm not in the beer industry. I'm a historian who just happened to write a book about beer.)
The film's producer/director/creator, Anat Baron, hopes her project will provoke some discussion. I hope so, too, although what I hope for is a larger discussion among Americans, not just beer geeks.
The most frustrating aspect of this experience is that, thus far, all the commentary has come out of the beer world and so is focused on the beer industry. But Anat was trying to make a larger point about American society and capitalism. For example, I hope the films sparks discussion about Americans' attitudes toward alcohol, which to me is the main issue from which all other things flow.
Eg, the original purpose of the 3-tier system was to place barriers between Americans and alcohol. It was not created so that big brewers could screw little ones. Indeed, historically in the past 50 or so years, large and small beermakers have cooperated more than they've warred -- a point that's lost on just about everyone in today's "small" brewing industry. Anyway: onward, onward, onward.
_________
*1: I tried last night and a day or so ago to wade through the Twitter-mass -- but what the fuck was up with Twitter? Was it me? Or was the entire system totally haywire???
Back in December, I wrote a piece for US News about the long shadow of Prohibition. In it, I noted that today's destructive alcohol culture stems in large part from the repeal of Prohibition: When Americans repealed the 18th Amendment, lawmakers at all levels built a cumbersom legal fence between Americans and alcohol, all but guaranteeing that generations to come would demonize drink.
Great example of what I meant is unfolding now in Iowa (where I live). Iowa guy owns winery. Decides he'd like to use his talents to make beer as well. Sorry, the state says. No can do. Back in 1933, state lawmakers "protected" Iowans from the evils of alcohol by forbidding residents from working in more than one alcohol-related industry at a time.
Those controls are so strict . . . that they have been interpreted to mean that if a husband drives a beer truck for a distributor, his wife can't work in a grocery store or tavern where beer is sold at retail.
In this specific case, the director of Iowa's Alcoholic Beverage Division says that
The fear . . . is that cross ownership would lead to excessive promotion, creating too much public intoxication. The bans were extended to family ties and to employment situations, he said, to make it clear that even indirect ties would not be allowed.
You can read the entire article here. Read it and, ya know, weep......... Got any dumbass laws you'd like to publicize? Send 'em my way.
The "Proof" column in the New York Times mostly drives me nuts because it's mostly written by people hell-bent on explaining how horrible alcohol is. True, every once in awhile strays to the Dark Side and features something positive about alcohol. Proof (no pun intended)?
The most recent essay was penned by Steve McCarthy, the guy who founded Clear Creek Distillery in Portland, Oregon.
I LOVE Clear Creek pear brandy. Well, okay, I love everything CC puts out, but especially its pear brandy. Read and enjoy. And if you've got the dough and can find it, track down a bottle of Steve's pear brandy -- take a gorgeous sip . . . and enjoy more!
Increasing the beer tax is one of the most logical steps that can be taken in the goal to stabilize addiction recovery services,” said Stephanie Soares Pump, who serves on the Governor’s Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.
Yeah, right. Because, you know, beer drinking = drunkenness. The headline is almost as bad: Beer lovers line up against hefty tax at Salem hearing I dunno. Maybe it's not just "beer lovers" at the hearing? Maybe it's people who favor rational drinking and cultural adulthood..........
A few weeks back, the "Proof" column in the New York Times contained a truly-worth-reading take on alcohol. I commented on it here. I mention it again, because Jacob Grier just posted a short, but cogent, comment about that "Proof" column, also worth reading because Jacob "does" alcohol for a living. He makes a point I tried to make here, although he's considerably more articulate than I was.
I wonder: Will Michael Phelps' cell-phone-documented encounter with a bong prove to be the event that finally -- FINALLY -- pushes Americans into a sensible, rational, adult discussion about drugs, legal and illegal?
Thirty years ago, Phelps would have been crucified (figuratively speaking).
Now? People are arguing that it was no big deal, and getoveritalready, and by the way, let's boycott Kelloggs. (I chose to link to this particular version of the boycott story only because it's completely mainstream. Ain't just a bunch of cranks like me talking about it.)
See, for example, this piece at the decidedly mainstream Big Money blog (and, as always, make sure to read the comments.)
And it's worth mentioning a point that's so obvious it's easy to overlook: When the Phelps story first broke a few weeks back, reporters covering the story assumed that the average reader/viewer/listener knew what a bong was. Thirty years ago? Not only would the average reporter/viewer/listener not known, but even if he/she did, he/she wasn't about to admit it. Prolly because, ya know, statistically speaking, a huge chunk of adult America is the much-hated baby boomer generation, and if you can find a baby boomer who doesn't know what a bong is, well, he/she is either lying or was so boring back-in-the-day that he/she isn't worth the time of day now. If that makes sense.
And another enormous chunk of the American population is the almost-as-large demographic known as the Echo Boom, and I'm pretty sure most of them know what a bong is, too.
Indeed, I think maybe illegal drugs are about to become hip. You wait and see: Any day now, Bill Clinton's gonna say "Oh, sorry, I lied about that. I DID inhale."
As usual, I'm "attending" to about seventy-five different things at once (write a thousand words today, pick up milk and eggs, think about commissioned piece on beer, acknowledge husband's existence, get some exercise, figure out what to fix for dinner, etc. etc. etc.....)
So: am not doing the greatest job in the world of paying attention to the Big Important Stuff -- but: it's not lost on me that a good number of state legislatures are turning their attention to revenue: how and where to get it. (In you've not heard the news, the state of California is nearly broke and will lay off about 20,000 employees this week. The state of Kansas can't meet its payroll on Friday. And so on....) [Correction: The state of California has told 20,000 employees that they may be terminated; it has not yet laid them off.]
No surprise, all of a sudden those "sin" taxes exude allure and charm. As we all know, cigarettes have taken the brunt of the "we need money so let's tax a sin" in the past few years.
Now it's apparently alcohol's turn. Many states are considering many options when it comes to taxing beer (and other forms of alcohol). But some of the best news coverage of such an attempt is coming out of Oregon.
So, for a good roundup of what's happening Oregon's legislature, see here and here.
And then for an excellent commentary on that activity, see Jeff Alworth at Blue Oregon. (*1)
As always, be sure to read the dozens of comments that Jeff's piece provoked. Jacob Grier, who also lives in Portland, is covering these developments from a different perspective, one that's worth thinking about. Also see his (only slightly) tongue-in-cheek idea for his share of the "stimulus" package.
[Added after the fact: When I originally posted this entry, I neglected to include a link to Patrick Emerson's blog; he, too, is discussing the economics of beer and taxes. He's got many entries on the topic, so here's a link to his blog, and then rummage around for the relevant content.]
To change the subject somewhat: Again, the commentary from Jeff and Jacob [and Patrick] are great examples of the upside to blogging, the internet, and the digitization of modern life. Back in the days of p.i.e. (*2), I wouldn't have known about either of them, and it's unlikely they would have had access to such a broad audience.
_______________
*1: Jeff typically surfaces here at my blog in his capacity at the blogger at Beervana, but in his "other life," he writes about politics at Blue Oregon.
*2: PIE = pre-internet era
Wow, this is creepy! Especially this:
Art Brown, president of the Salt Lake County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said he would like to see the card scans with the central database on top of the existing private club laws.
To which I repeat what I've said before: groups like MADD aren't the solution; they're the problem. Tip o' the mug to our man-on-the-nanny-state-beat, Jacob Grier.
Wow. Usually the New York Times "Proof" column oozes do-gooders, nanny-staters, and former alcoholics explaining why alcohol is evil. So this is an unexpected pleasure. His is a view with which, by the way, I agree. (As evidenced as well by all the other posts filed under "rational drinking" in the categories index in the left sidebar.)
The whole Michael-Phelps-With-A-Bong thing got right by me (I was busy with and then missing King Willem), but when I caught up with it, yeah....... well. Big eye-roll.
The only thing "regrettable" is that he got caught on camera. This is perhaps the best -- and smartest -- collection of commentary on the episode.
And while we're on the subject of dumbass laws (which, yes, we were ....), this also got by me: a nice essay by Jacob Grier in Doublethink.
I don't smoke anymore but god damnit it pisses me off when governments tell business owners they can't allow smokers anymore. (Which my city council did here in Ames some years back. I never had any problem with places where lots of people smoked.
Or, rather, I solved the problem: I just didn't GO to them. Problem solved....)
As I said to the city council when it contemplated this ordinance, which it did on grounds of "public health": What's next? Someone's gonna complain that they're allergic to grass and so you're gonna pave over all the public parks so that he/she won't suffer the "health" consequences of living in a town with grass?
What the fuck is the matter with people? Supposedly smart people. People in the "media" who are supposed to be "smarter" than the rest of us. I refer here to this piece at Slate.com about President Obama's "cocktail party" the other night. The so-called "money quote" is this:
Sobering times do not necessarily require everyone to be sober.
Yeah, okay, so the rest of the piece is about presidents-who-drank. But let me get this intro (which set the tone for the rest of the piece) straight: President Obama invites people over for a social occasion, one that includes the option of consuming an alcoholic beverage.
The result (in the media) is --- people having a drink equals they're no longer "sober." Translation: it's not possible to have a fucking drink and not get drunk (or, by implication, become a "problem drinker" or an alcoholic). Have I got it right? I mean, seriously.
What the FUCK is the matter with us? Is it ever going to be possible for Americans to discuss alcohol in a mature manner? To mention it in "the media" without the writer making some dumbass joke? Okay. End of rant. Now excuse me while I go have a drink, remain sober, and continue (in private) my rant about dumbasses who equate having a drink with being drunk. Or with being a drunk. And no, I don't plan to apologize for using the word "fuck." You think I'm not "professional"? Too fucking bad. Go read some other blog.
Over at Beervana, Jeff Alworth is conducting a poll of people's drinking habits in this down economy. The results are "unscientific," but interesting. His original post, which prompted the poll, is here. (Do read the comments, too.) He's bumping the poll up the blog so people can keep voting; that's here.
Then check out Patrick Emerson's take on drinking and recessions here. And, if you're still thirsty for more, my previous entries on drinking and recessions here and here.
