Welcome!

This forum is a sounding board for a range of issues facing eastern Boulder County. I will prompt discussions with my posts and elected officials can tap into the concerns of citizens here, and explain their rationale on decisions. Follow along with the latest discussion by checking the list of recent comments on the right. You can comment with your name, a nickname or anonymously if you wish. You can become a contributor as well. Thank you for your comments!
Latest Post:

Saturday, July 14, 2007

MMMM...Beer... And Liquor Laws

This is all very interesting. Kerry was correct about the state’s authority on tastings (silly me I deferred to the newspaper’s information). In 2004 the Colorado General Assembly gave municipalities permission to allow tastings of no more than 1 ounce of beer or wine or 0.5 ounce of distilled liquor. It also caps the number of days of the year that tastings can be offered at 104. (This was all part of legislation –HB 1021 - also allowing you to take home the rest of a wine bottle from dinner, and lowered the BAC level for DUI to .08 – that kept Colorado from losing $50 million in federal highway funds.)

Some of the stipulations on the local control of tastings: Tastings are limited to a maximum of 5 hours in one day and hours need not be consecutive. Tastings may only occur up to four days per week, Monday through Saturday. Tastings may not be conducted earlier than 11 a.m. nor later than 7 p.m.

In all cases, the municipality can make more restrictive parameters.

The main arguments I’ve found – i.e. just last month Castle Rock’s Town Council considered the issue – is that people could drive from tasting to tasting getting wasted for free. Making alcohol available so easily would threaten the safety of our highways. (Right behind teenagers on cell phones.)

I love when the conservatives in society take a page from the liberal political argument playbook: “If just one life could be saved, isn’t it worth it?” Well, no. The percentage of people who would actually participate in the worst case scenario brainstorm of puritanical, paranoid authority freaks is not enough to of a reason to restrict an otherwise reasonable business practice. The nannyism of this mentality is what conservatives usually resent about liberals.

The scope afforded by HB 1021 above is reasonable; practically speaking I can certainly live with it. But I enjoy arguing principals here on the blog, and this is another area where the government legislated with a presumption of protecting us from ourselves. I resent that mentality from political leadership.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting how an issue of public safety morphs into conservatism versus liberalism. Where did that come from?

The law is flawed in that it "mixes" low alchohol content beverages with hard liquor. Why was that done?

Also when the council considered this a few years ago (hmm, where was the public outcry? Zippo. Only one letter of protest from the wine only store in town), there had been 5 deadly traffic accidents in town. This year none. Dan, I bet you never even noticed.

There was also no definition of what a "tasting" is. Why not run it as a promotion? Buy a case of beer here and you get a shot of high proof liquor before you go? Especially at rush hour. We looked at the tables of females vs males, alcohol content based on weight, etc. (Letting this happen would have been a great revenue opportunity.)

So the CO Police Chiefs Assoc. was against it and I bet the MADD folks were too. According to the U.S. Highway Department, 15,000 teenagers a year leave home driving only to die in auto accidents, etc.

On the historical side, years ago the Lafayette PD would sneak into Louisville on drinking nights and mark the headlights of the cars of those clustered around the bars with soap. When the drivers went home that night through Lafayette, they were nailed for DUI.

Bottomline, this wasn't just a wine and beer tasting event. If you think this is a blue sky problem, buy minimum auto insurance and have no accidental death life insurance. Those with a wife and kids know differently. Yes, one can play russian roulette with this. Just hope you aren't the one who loses.

Doktorbombay said...

After visiting Daveco Friday afternoon (all the talk of tastings made me thirsty), and seeing a couple of tables set up for tasting high end whiskey, I did my own due diligence on the law. (For those interested, Daveco even has a special tastings area.)

I read the law and the opinion/position letter on tastings from the Colorado Division of Liquor/Tobacco Enforcement (12-47-301(10)c).

Fairly strict rules to follow. No conscientious liquor store owner would knowingly risk his investment by running afoul of these regulations. Very low risk IMHO, as the only liquor stores who can afford to do this will be the larger ones as these are not paid for by the suppliers.

No public outcry because there are no large liquor stores in Lafayette, and probably won't ever be. Just a bunch of small mom and pop shops who don't have enough traffic to make tastings worth their effort.

And, since when did a public outcry become the criteria for passing good laws? I've always thought common sense would be enough.

Kerry, you really confuse the issue by providing traffic death stats. What's the connection? Teenage traffic deaths are primarily caused by inexperience, not alcohol.

I guess we could all live in fear of the perils of life, but that's not much of a life. And, I sure don't need a nanny-state government holding my hand and telling me what's good/bad for me.

Anonymous said...

I know next to nothing about liquor tastings. Seems upappealing to me. Go to a place, taste some liquor, then shortly leave in a car...

The problem with the argument that curbing liquor tastings will reduce the lives lost is that so will many other things. Since statistics show that teens are such a severe hazard behind the wheel, maybe we should just eliminate them categorically. That might save a few lives.

I'm not sure what would be the outcome of a broad cost-benefit analysis of eliminating liquor tastings. What would happen if, on the other hand, liquor tastings were deregulated?

The "conservative" and "liberal" labels are a way of coloring an argument without giving any credit to its merits. Is there really a "presumption" that underlies legislation? Or are the political alliances that make legislation happen less likely to act on presumptions than, say, economic values...

If you look at what was on the line, the General Assembly had to lower the BAC limit to retain federal funding. Someone else in the legislature wanted to carry a bill for the tavern owners... And weren't tastings at the fringes of the law before they were legalized by HB 1021?

When I look at this issue, I just think it's complicated.

Anonymous said...

True. It is complicated.

A glimpse at www.madd.org statistics reflects what is going on with alchohol consumption today, especially among underage drivers. Meanwhile the CO state legislature has passed restrictions on those minors who just get their drivers licenses and just passED a helmet law for minors who use motorcycles. (Where is the protest over that?)

Sitting on the Lsfayette Liquor Authority, even after liquor license holders are notified of compliance checks, 4 or 5 still get nailed for serving or selling to underage minors. And of course the reasons given by the owners are always quite inventive.

So what really happens is not what the law expects to happen. The County Sheriff shut down training for liquor license holder employees because of budget constraints a couple of years ago.

Naturally we are all law abiding folks. But what about the other guy?

Doktorbombay said...

First, it only appears complicated to government officials when they can’t figure out how to stop the behavior completely. It’s a shame human nature doesn’t make it that easy, isn’t it?

Prohibition was a failure because government erroneously thought they could control human behavior. Same failure in the war on drugs. It’s ironic people complain about the money wasted in Iraq, but not much complaining about the waste of money in the ineffective war on drugs. This war’s been going on for decades, but I don’t see any less drug use or drug availability.

Governments can try to control human behavior, but it’s a wasted effort. So, let’s call it complicated.

And, you’re right, Kerry, when you say the results are not what the law intended. To me it means a bad law. To you it means people are not law abiding.

Contrary to your statement – none of us are law abiding. You can’t tell me you haven’t broken the speed limit on occasion. Or accidentally ran a red light? Breaking the law accidentally is breaking the law.

Anonymous said...

Gee, there is a city council election this fall.

Reviewing what has been said on this blog, one of you bloggers should run on a platform of legalizing pot, killing the smoking ban, approving liquor tasting, extending the curfew, and removing any restrictions on minors getting their drivers licenses or having to wear helmets on motorcycles.

A great platform. Landslide victory.

Doktorbombay said...

The scary part about your post, Kerry, is all of those items mean less and less individual freedoms, yet you're OK with that. I'll assume you believe in individual freedoms. I'm just not sure to what extent.

Easy to get elected if you pander to the whims of the minority who take the time to vote.

Much more difficult to get elected by standing on basic principles of individual rights. Especially in Boulder County.

Anonymous said...

Anyone care for a discussion on ethanol too?

As for pandering, review a few of the recent council votes. I'm the one guy in 6-1.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I was Googling something pretty much unrelated, but I always did wonder who in the world opposes wine tastings (I know, right?) and I guess I now know.

Someone named Kerry Bensman. This sounds statistically sound: "Also when the council considered this a few years ago (hmm, where was the public outcry? Zippo. Only one letter of protest from the wine only store in town), there had been 5 deadly traffic accidents in town. This year none. Dan, I bet you never even noticed."

I think Mr. Kerry's had a few too many tastings myself. lol.