"Pennsylvania’s governor doesn’t understand economics," so he vetoes a bill ending the state's wine and liquor monopoly.

Before he became my friend, Frank Thackeray was my history professor at Indiana University Southeast. I was 19 years old in 1979 the first time I took one of Frank's classes, and was hooked. Much of the impetus for my fascination with European history can be traced directly to his influence, along with my cousin Don's (he's also a history professor).

All that came later. First, there was Frank, a smack-talking native of Pittsburgh, guiding a room filled mostly with native Hoosiers through European History 101. At some juncture, he accented a description by adding this:

"The fix is in."

With blank looks all around, Frank then had to explain what it meant -- as the article below does, too, a full 36 years later.

The Volokh Conspiracy: Pennsylvania’s governor doesn’t understand economics (or won’t admit the real reasons he vetoed ending state liquor monopoly), by Jonathan H. Adler (Washington Post)

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor from state-run liquor stores, run by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. As you might expect, consumers often face higher prices and less selection as a result. Restaurants — particularly those that seek to maintain high-end wine cellars — can face their own set of problems (unless they’re willing to skirt the law, as many do). Growing up in Philadelphia, I knew many folks who would buy their wine and liquor elsewhere, such as in Delaware or New Jersey. Many folks living in southeast Pennsylvania would load up on booze (in addition to fresh Jersey tomatoes) when coming back from the Jersey Shore in the summer.

This week both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature passed a bill to end Pennsylvania’s state liquor monopoly — but it was not to be. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the legislation, claiming allowing private wine and liquor sales would lead to “higher prices and less selection” for consumers. No, really. That was the explanation. Read it for yourself.

PourGate 2013: It took two damn years, but this new law silences Dr. Tom Harris and the Floyd County Health Department.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
-- Winston Churchill

Since June of 2013, when the Floyd County Health Department blithely usurped its statutory authority by demanding that NABC obtain temporary food serving permits to pour pints of beer into plastic cups, we have proven it wrong three times.

First, with the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling Ft. Wayne v Kotsopoulus, then with an advisory opinion from the Indiana Attorney General's office, and finally with an actual state law providing even more excruciating detail as to why Dr. Tom Harris should lose his job.

Major thanks go to Rep. Ed Clere for authoring "SECTION 6. IC 16-42-5-30," of House Enrolled Act No. 1311, and shepherding the bill. It is what might be called an omnibus beer-related collection of seemingly minor directives, including the modification of the food service requirement for taprooms (more on that later), but allow me just this one observation.

Most of the media attention during this year's legislative session was centered on Senate Bill 297 and small brewer barrel limits. As time goes by, these limits will become increasingly relevant for our bigger industry players. But right now, with the vast majority of Indiana brewers still quite small, it's the smaller things that matter most.

Rep. Clere understands this, and is to be commended for it.

I've posted the complete tome at my NA Confidential blog. Included is the narrative, text of the new law, and links to the back story.

PourGate 2013: It took two years, but this new law silences Dr. Tom Harris and the Floyd County Health Department.

On June 14, 2013, the New Albanian Brewing Company was peaceably vending beer at Bicentennial Park, by means of a supplemental catering permit issued by the company's governing agency, the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission.

The Floyd County Health Department arrived and said that NABC also needed a temporary food serving permit.

I said no, that's incorrect.

They persisted, and a two-year-long struggle commenced.

Gibson: With House Bill 168, "Kentucky finally rights a wrong."

I'll be the first to admit that last year, when AB-InBev first proposed buying the Owensboro wholesaler, it was a muddled story. Kevin Gibson and I spoke about it, and it was probably the least enlightened I've ever been on a topic this important.

It seemed inordinately complex at first, but in the end, it was very simple. After all, if the three-tier system in America is axiomatic, with exceptions in some states granted only to small producers, then playing fields need to be level. Once the legislature's powers-that-be indicated that small brewery self-distribution was off the table, then this was the next best outcome.

There may yet be lawsuits, and it's a bit ominous to me that Kentucky brewers were compelled to differ with Ohio's Rhinegeist (a fellow traveler by any measure) in order to pursue their own best interests.

So it goes. The legislative process is like that. Meanwhile, Kevin's analysis at Insider Louisville is straight to the point.

Opinion: In approval of ‘Beer Bill,’ Kentucky finally rights a wrong

... All the controversy and scuttlebutt the past few weeks over House Bill 168, aka the “Beer Bill,” bordered on ridiculous. I found myself confused over the entire issue, because, to me, it came down to one simple question: Do we have a three-tier system of alcohol distribution, or don’t we?

If we do, then the obvious action was to block A-B InBev (or any brewery) from being able to distribute its own products in Kentucky. That’s why there is a separation between supplier, distributor and retailer in the first place (thanks, Prohibition). If we don’t have a three-tier system, well, then it’s open season — all Kentucky breweries should be empowered to sell and distribute their products as they see fit. But a long-existing loophole enabled out-of-state brewers to distribute in Kentucky while in-state breweries could not.

In Kentucky, House Bill 168 should be passed.

The Bluegrass-fueled power of traditional wholesalers, who are afforded monopoly conditions under the three-tier system, is such that Kentucky "craft" brewers know from the start that they'll never be allowed to self-distribute. Consequently, they must choose their poison.

And AB InBev is as poisonous as it comes. Hence, preservation of the three tiers is the priority. It makes sense to me, given the prevailing senselessness.

So, if you live in Kentucky, contact your representative and support House Bill 168. Kindly note that if you're of the solipsistic narcissist persuasion, it might be best to include actual words, and not just a photo of whatever beer you traded so hard to get.

Cheers to clarifying state law on beer sales, an editorial in the Herald-Leader Editorial

It's probably not possible to know now whether Kentucky law governing production and distribution of beer is so confusing by intent or mistake. Regardless, it's time to clear it up.

House Bill 168 promises to do that and protect the interests of beer producers and consumers in Kentucky. It should be passed.

The bill seeks to prevent breweries from owning distributorships in Kentucky. It would enforce a three-tier system of beer production, distribution and sales much like that for wine and spirits. Under this system, adopted in many places after the repeal of Prohibition, the producer of an alcoholic beverage, with few a few exceptions, can only sell it to a wholesaler who sells to retailers.

More about frozen weenies and powdered milk.

Earlier this year after our provisional food menu went viral, I exchanged e-mails with Melinda Haring, the Activism Manager at the Institute for Justice. The IJ is a legitimate entity, and was featured a few days ago as part of an article in the New York Times about city-mandated tourist guide licenses in Savannah, Georgia.

A few days ago, the IJ picked up our statutory compliance menu in a web site posting:

INDIANA LAW REQUIRES BREWHOUSES TO SERVE HOT DOGS AND MILK

If Bank Street Brewhouse’s sleek exterior and silver siding in New Albany, Ind., doesn’t catch your eye, its unusual menu might. Loaded with sarcasm and bite, the menu offers “Chef Campbell’s Soup of the Day,” helpfully “served in a bowl. Your choice of whichever can is on the top of the stack.” 

Alternatively, a hungry diner can sample a hotdog, “microwaved to perfection, including both weenie and bun, sans condiments.” But people don’t go to Bank Street Brewhouse for anything other than beer, making the state’s law requiring any establishment with an alcoholic beverage sales permit to maintain a restaurant on its premises burdensome and out of touch with consumers.

The article includes this bit of encouragement:

Take action: If you own a brewery in Indiana and want to challenge the state’s absurd requirement that you serve hot soup, hot sandwiches, coffee and milk, and soft drinks, please contact us. We can help!

This is the same offer extended to NABC back in September when the story first broke, and as a director on the board of the Brewers of Indiana Guild, and a team player when it comes to industry solidarity, I took the notion of IJ assistance to BIG's legal counsel and discussed the matter with the board.

The conclusion was that with this food requirement issue being a likely candidate for legislative action this coming spring, there isn't any need to contemplate legal maneuverings until the legislative process has played out. I told Melinda this, and she offered to help in the sense of getting word out, which I interpret the IJ's posting to be.

I encourage any Indiana brewery owners reading these words, who might be tempted to contact Melinda and the IFJ, to at least wait until we see how the legislative agenda is progressing. It's just a few more months of freezer burn and stale instant coffee. However, if legislative relief is not forthcoming, then perhaps we all should band together and see what the IJ can do.

It's simple pragmatism: While the food service requirement is a nagging pain in the butt, there are bigger fish to fry when one considers Indiana brewing's legislative goals overall. Let's just keep it in perspective  ... for now.

Artisan distilling in Indiana: It's about brewers, too.

This is what happens when the information comes from the wine lobby.

But seriously, it's worth remembering that (a) the artisan distilling legislation involved lobbying efforts on the part of the Brewers of Indiana Guild (not taking anything away from Ted Huber and Ed Clere), and (b) it allows for brewing companies to have the "same opportunity" to distill as Huber had already. Leaving the beer folks out is telling only half the story, although Van Hoy correctly notes that the oft-heard lament of "we can't buy beer on Sunday" actually is not true, given that Hoosier breweries (and wineries)  can sell off-premise on Sunday.

For Starlight Distillery, it's all about the grain being legal in addition to the grape. "Vodka, gin and whiskey" obviously are grain-based distillates, where previously only fermented grape and fruit juices could be improved through distillation.

I wish them good fortune in expanding the distilling operation. Gin, anyone?

VAN HOY: Antiquated Hoosier ways slow to vanish

By Shea Van Hoy (NT)

Huber’s Starlight Distillery has a nice, shiny still, ready to crank out spirits to its loyal, thirsty customers.

Owner Ted Huber plans to add another one now that a new law is in the books, and that’s good for business and tourism in Southern Indiana.

In short, House Enrolled Act 1293 provides artisan distillers with the same opportunity that small breweries and wineries already had — to bottle their products and to sell them by the glass.

Three Floyds Night at Rocky's on Wednesday, January 13.

Measure it any way you wish, but the fact remains that Three Floyds is Indiana's pre-eminent craft brewer, and none of us will be arguing the point any time soon.

In national terms, to have beers from Three Floyds mentioned in the same breath as the word "Indiana" is of inestimable value to all of us in the Hoosier State who are engaged in carving out our own little craft perimeters from the bloated carcass of industrial swill. It doesn't matter how far apart Munster is from New Albany if people say, "They make good beer in Indiana."

Thanks to Nick and the crew for that. Three Floyds was merrily innovating long before it was fashionable, and deserves all the credit for doing so. The best part of all is their integrity, and the fact that Three Floyds beers remain consistently challenging and damned tasty these many years later. I'm a blatant fan, and always will be.

Back here in the Falls Cities, it's another helpful barometer of how far we've come that Rocky's Sub Pub is staging a Three Floyds Night on Wednesday, January 13. Lincoln Anderson is coming down from the frozen north to regale attendees with information, and the list is impressive. Go here to read it and glean further information.

Unfortunately, I can't be there. The Brewers of Indiana Guild is staging a legislative reception in Indianapolis, and since we have a glimmer of hope for Sunday craft brewery carry-out sales legislation during the current session, it's a session I need to attend. If we make it back down in time, I may yet join the Three Floyds madness in Jeffersonville.

You can read the proposed addition to existing legislation here.

Just a few musings.

When I sat down yesterday to do the weekly NABC newsletter update, it finally dawned on me how insanely busy the last few days had been.

Beginning last Thursday night with NABC’s appearance at the Jeffersonville Main Street fundraiser, followed by two days of very successful art and music in our Prost special events wing, then the special Super Bowl opening hours on Sunday … and for me, a marathon New Albany city council meeting on Monday night, a blog meet ‘n’ greet on Tuesday and a sprinkling of personal civic commitments on Wednesday and even more on Thursday … all have combined into one continuous, unbroken blur accented by occasional dosages of medicine – otherwise known as craft beer.

The craft medicine's necessary because I have a bum left shoulder that needs to be repaired, and will do so, as soon as Gravity Head gets pushed away from the dock on March 9. It's a torn rotator cuff that unfortunately was not injured while throwing nasty curves – if that were the case, and given the traditional value of southpaws, I’d be considerably wealthier at this point – but probably cumulatively damaged and deteriorated during years of daily chores, bicycling and keg lifting. In short, an age-related annoyance, and one that must be repaired before the pain gets worse.

I mention the city council meeting because it was the occasion for the introduction of a smoking ordinance for the city of New Albany. The ordinance was tabled pending a committee review of what currently is an unwieldy, elephantine document that would be impossible to enforce given New Albany’s historic inability (or unwillingness) to observe its own laws. However, it will be coming back, as it is personal goal of the current council president to see some form of the ordinance passed this year.I’ll have more to say on this matter in the coming weeks, and some of it may surprise some of you. Here’s the short version.

Personally, I regard some variety of smoking ban as inevitable, and I’ll not be contesting the notion of indoor smoking regulation based on a scientific methodology that has determined second-hand smoke to be hazardous to workplace safety. In my view, it is the workplace safety angle that is carrying the anti-smoking day, and those many discussions of “rights” that arise during such legislative times primarily are instigated as, ahem, “smoke screens” to keep opponents distracted and off point.

However, I’m intent on seeing the end result be consistent, with the pain to be borne by all, and not some. Either second-hand smoke is harmful or it isn’t, and if it is, there can’t be exceptions, although you can expect numerous exceptions to be proposed during the forthcoming debate. To me, it’s all or nothing at all.

As for NABC, we’ve been moving in the direction of greater non-smoking access, and will continue to carve away at that perimeter whenever possible while awaiting the verdict. We’ll comply with whatever ordinance ultimately is passed. I understand that bar and restaurant customers who smoke are not going to be happy, either now or in the future, and we’ll try to accommodate our smoking clientele with outdoor areas if permitted to do so.

Stay tuned.

A beer's not as good as a wine -- to a blind legislator.

As noted previously, my pizza & beer business will depart from our customary Sunday closing time and open the doors for the Super Bowl. We've done it for the last four years, and if experience is any indicator, Sportstime Pizza will be selling quite a large number of carryout pies on Sunday afternoon and evening as game time draws near.

However, we’ll not be selling carry-out growlers of locally brewed beer, because the state of Indiana prohibits all Sunday carry-out sales of alcoholic beverages.

But wait – that’s not entirely so.

At the same time as the state of Indiana bans the vast majority of beer, wine and spirits sales on Sunday, it permits small craft wineries to sell their wines for carry-out ... on Sunday. This is seen as promoting tourism, but more so than that, it's a testament to the wine industry's dazzling, decades-long success at espousing the notion that a 750 ml bottle of the grape is more worthy of approbation (and legislative exceptions, and free rides) than our 64-ounce growler of the grain.

It’s hypocrisy, and a transparent travesty, and in the end, the major difference between a small craft brewery and a small craft winery is the ability of the latter to lobby effectively without the dead weight of America’s mainstream beer barons (A-B, Miller, et al), which for a half-century have pursued a policy of self-defeatism by persistently behaving in such a boorish manner as to give the “beer = dumb/wine = smart” stereotype undue credence -- and by doing so, unintentionally and hilariously spawning the Mike "Workingman's Drink" Seates of our nation.

However ... once again in 2007, there will be legislation introduced to rectify the native Hoosier inanity. This time around, it appears to be part of a startlingly comprehensive regulatory reform package that is long overdue and makes perfect sense – and consequently, probably has next to “zero” chance of passing.

The following update comes from the Indiana Beer website:

House Bill 1323 was introduced by David Crooks this week is one of the most far-reaching we've seen in Indiana in quite some time. "Requires a local alcoholic beverage board to allow an individual to make oral comments at a public meeting or hearing. Provides that a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit who is authorized by law to sell alcoholic beverages for carryout may sell carryout on Sunday from noon until 6:00 p.m. Allows a retailer to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises on Sunday from 10 a.m., prevailing local time, until 3:00 a.m. Allows alcoholic beverages to be sold on election day from noon until 3 a.m. Allows alcoholic beverages to be sold for carryout on New Year's Day."

Perhaps apart from those rare times when the Colts advance to the Super Bowl, it isn’t quite as obvious in Indianapolis as it is to those of us on the borders that each and every Sunday, Indiana fairly hemorrhages tax revenues to surrounding states.

Furthermore, to me, Sunday sales restrictions are a vestige of faith-based blue laws that need to be scourged from the books.

Hey, I’d just like a level playing field – both commercially and conceptually. Craft is craft, whether wine or beer – what’s so hard about understanding that, guys?

And what's so bad about keeping tax revenue right here in Indiana?