Legalizing "Drugs." Has the Moment Finally Come? Part 1 of 2

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.)

On Rational Drinking and Irrational Zealots

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?)

Alcohol As Stimulus to Creativity?

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!)

Speaking of Demonizing Booze: Jacob Grier Notes Another Example of Bureaucratic Inanity

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.)

New York Craft Distillers Organize --- In Hopes of Surviving

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.

Thanks for the "Beer Wars" Twitters and Other Communcations

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???