I was on my way to get my
pau hana
(Hawaiian for
end of work
) beer. The phone rang and I turned
around to answer it. It was my editor. He wanted to let me know that this issue
of American Brewer would be “the Political issue”.
After we hung up I pondered that for a few minutes. I thought “there are no
politics to beer, and even if there were, why should
I want to think about them?” One of the things I like most about beer is that
there are no “politics.” Beer doesn't care about your
color, sex, creed, tax bracket, nation of origin, or sexual preference. Beer
cuts across those sorts of lines. Beer brings people
together. Beer is an equal opportunity enjoyer. Beer is fun. I have had beers
with a myriad of people, in over a dozen different
countries (well, a dozen if you count Alaska as a separate country) and often
the only thing we could agree on (or even
communicate to one another) was that beer was good. Beer was our common ground.
Beer is apolitical.
Sitting there I had this nagging feeling. Somehow, had I missed the point? Was
I unconvinced by my own arguments?
I took out the dictionary:
“Political, adj., 1. of, or concerned with government. 2. having a definite governmental organization or involvement.”
Well, there you have it. As a beverage that contains alcohol—we qualify. There
are probably more regulations and rules
for alcohol than there are for guns. Maybe I would have to rethink my position.
I glanced over at my bookshelf, there was the CFR 27 parts 1 through 199
(almost 2 inches thick) and the “update” next to it. Yeah, we are
political (hell, and that's just the federal regs. Let us not forget the
state, county, and city regulations). For those of you not familiar with
the CFR (the Code of Federal Regulations) it really is great stuff—
reading that will put you down faster than a Quaalude with a beer chaser (not
that I recommend either). Just looking at that book makes my head swim. Anyone
who has ever really used it knows it is a mind-numbing exercise. I pulled it
down and opened it up. Out of the 1,095 pages in the CFR 27 (parts 1 through
199) over 600 pages are devoted to alcohol and less than 150 are devoted to
guns and ammo. That just seems wrong to me. Shouldn't guns be more regulated
than beer? Maybe we should amend the constitution. Forget about the right to
bear arms, think about the right to brew beer.
I opened the CFR at random:
“Restriction on location. A brewery may not be established or operated in any
dwelling, house
or on board any vessel or boat, or in any building or on any premises where the
revenue will be jeopardized or the effective
administration of this part will be hindered.”
I guess it really is location, location, location. But ….
Why should the federal government care whether a brewery picks a bad location
and doesn't make bank?
Ahhhh, the money. Taxes, that makes sense. And now I am wondering, “Well, how
much tax do we pay, as brewers?”
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, federal excise tax
collections for alcoholic beverages totaled
more than $8 billion in the year 2000 (that's BILLION dollars), and that's just
the Fed. Then there is
state, county, and sometimes even city excise taxes*
on top of that. Think of all the other taxes brewers pay: business tax, sales
tax, property
tax, employment tax (over 14 billion in taxes annually). Then there are the
allied industries like wholesalers, hop and malt
suppliers, growers, retailer, bottle manufacturers .... the list is a big one.
It's a whole lotta money. At least we don't have to
ever worry about prohibition coming back, the government couldn't afford it.
And then, I guess, I really need to face the fact that beer does have (lord
have mercy on us all) alcohol in it. It is a fact that in
our society (and many others) alcohol carries with it a lot of political
baggage. There is always some knuckleheaded puritan
somewhere trying to pass legislation to save us all from the demon drink (Come
on guys, didn't Jesus turn water into wine…
or was that beer). And there is such great information put out by these
people—like one of my recent favorites:
"Cheap beer
is a leading contributor to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."
Maybe I'm a little confused about how STDs are
transmitted, but isn't there another activity that greatly contributes to
catching something? I mean, really, folks if you're gonna
make up facts at least make them believable.
The struggle between “drys” and “wets” continues even some 70 years after the
repeal of the Volstead Act. And maybe that
is beer's ultimate contribution to politics: Prohibition. By most accounts beer
and the brewing trade were the targets of the
temperance movement, and especially the powerful Anti-Saloon League (prior to
prohibition, a large percentage of saloons
were owned by brewers). The irony of Prohibition was that it didn't decrease
consumption. It actually led to an increase, and
it was in no small part responsible for the rise of organized crime, which, in
future decades, would move from bootlegging to
drug trafficking (and then came Las Vegas).
Repeal was an act of political expediency. It eliminated the bootlegger,
literally overnight, and put much-needed lining back
in the government pockets. Government was back in the beer business, allowing
it to be sold in bodegas, saloons, grocery
stores, ballparks, and taverns. And, unlike the bootlegging days, they were
making damn sure they got their cut.
I guess I was being naive. Brewing is a multi-billion dollar industry. Alcohol
is an intensely polarized topic. The way in which
our industry is handled (or handles itself) can have a dramatic effect on
people's lives (case in point; prohibition). Of course
beer is political, there's no way around it, I guess. It all makes my head hurt.
And all I really wanted was to have my pau hana beer, with a few
of our crew.
*check out:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/beer.html
for all the state tax rates (as well as some county and city rates).
