[The following article was posted to the newsgroups boulder.general, co.general, and co.politics on February 5, 1996. The bill in question (HB 1168) was subsequently rewritten to be more harmless after an angry mob of micro-brewers and their customers descended on the state capitol during the committee hearings.]
Now They Want Your Beer
First they wanted your vote. Then they wanted your gun. Now they want your beer.
The hyper-regulators in the state capitol are at it again. A new bill has been introduced, scheduled to be heard in committee the week of February 5th, that would levy harsh new regulations on micro-breweries and so-called brewpubs that serve micro-brewery products. Much of what passes through our legislature each year is unnecessary, at best; but HB 1168 attains a new nadir in legislative exegesis and petty tampering.
In this excrable bill a whole new category of licensure would be created specifically for brewpubs. (Evidently it is not sufficient that establishments selling alcoholic beverages have a plain old liquor license.) Among the terms imposed by this new license system are:
Preventing brewpubs from serving any beer not brewed on the premises. Most such establishments offer "guest beers" from other micro-breweries to increase the choices available to their customers. For instance, the Mountain Sun in Boulder offers up to 14 such guest beers to supplement their own in-house creations.
Setting a limit on the quantity of beer a brewpub can produce. Together with #1, this effectively imposes a cap on the amount of beer a brewpub can sell.
Limiting the amount of beer that can be bought for take-out, i.e. "to go." Sales by the keg would be strictly prohibited.
Forbidding brewpubs from selling directly to restaurants, bars, and liquor stores. Instead they would be required to use an independent wholesaler to distribute to licensed retailers.
Preventing brewpubs from selling beer on Sundays (when liquor stores are closed – didn't you know you're supposed to be sober and in church?)
Do the words "restraint of trade" ring any bells? (How about "sanctimonious meddling"?) But wait, I haven't told you the really appalling thing yet: the bill is being pushed by the Colorado Beer Distributors Association. That's right: the same folks who bring you Coors, Miller, Schlitz, Bud, Hamms, and all the other dull, standardized labels that differ from one another about as much as Coke from Pepsi, and less than a golden retriever does from a black lab.
It's unfortunate that these days the quickest way to get what you want seems to be to convince the government to take it from someone else and give it to you. (Small wonder the civility is departing from our civil discourse.) Micro-breweries and brewpubs are becoming increasingly popular because they're offering varied and exotic products to their customers. The giants, beginning to feel the pinch and unwilling or unable to compete, have decided to set the dogs on their competition. The result is a double assault on the right of entrepreneurs to do honest business and the right of consumers to indulge their personal preferences. (As a friend of mine observed: "Damn! Just when we were on the verge of getting decent beer in this country!")
It's also sad that all of us, regardless of what groups we may belong to, whether gun owners, or net surfers, property owners, or beer fanciers, have to keep an eagle eye on our legislative radar screens, to identify, target, and try to shoot down any incoming missiles launched by those anointed few who seem convinced that third-party decision-making is the only way to bring us a peaceful, prosperous tomorrow.
Thomas Jefferson exhorted his contemporaries to take these over-governors and "bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, so that they may do no mischief." But after two centuries of ever-expanding arrogance on the part of the anointed in government – and after all, who do these people think they are to even consider a bill that dictates what flavors of beer can be bought or offered for sale, in brewpubs or, for that matter, anywhere? – it would appear that his admonition wasn't strong enough. (Though if the nation's courts had actually heeded it, perhaps it would have sufficed.) It's beginning to look like we need not only to chain them up, but to bury them under a pile of their own legalistic output.
Let me join in calling for a moratorium: for the next seven years, the state legislature would be unable to pass any new laws. It would only be allowed to repeal existing laws and regulations. No tax hikes could be enacted, with or without voter approval, only tax cuts. After that length of time, if anybody still has any interest in regulating brewpubs, thankfully their term-limits will have expired.