Booze Politics News and Thoughts

I've got a bunch of booze politics things that came in this week; rather than put up a bunch of posts, I'll just address all of it here. It kind of hangs together.

First, the Commonwealth Foundation study about how Pennsylvania's liquor "control" system does nothing to make the state safer from alcohol abuse, drunk driving, or underage drinking (like I didn't know that already?!) has been all over the state newspapers. I got my comments here, on the PLCB blog, go read. Meanwhile, Virginia's governor-elect, Bob McDonnell, made privatizing Virginia's ABC stores (the state sells liquor; wine and beer are in private stores) part of his campaign platform, stressing the windfall. Maybe he should have talked more about how stupid and backwards it makes the state look, and what a pain in the butt it is? And North Carolina's legislature is considering an internal report that found the state's ABC store system is outdated and needs to change. I tell you: it's time to push, and push hard.


Second, the real problem with the PLCB is The Almighty Liquor Code, which needs a total re-write. That's exactly what Frank Cagle is calling for in Tennessee in his latest "Frank Talk" column in the Knoxville weekly Metro Pulse. Tennessee's liquor code, says Cagle, is too broke to fix. "Sometimes a thing has been patched so many times it’s better to throw it out and start over." One look at The Almighty Liquor Code will convince you that it's time to throw it out. The twisted, tangled lawyerese that it is written in damns it to constant tinkering. The PA Liquor Code should be scrapped, and rewritten, in simple language, with consumer oversight, as a model of simple common sense in alcohol policy. First thing to go? All such Repeal-era language as this, the opening justification for the Code:

for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.

Are you kidding me? In the trash with it, and we need never soil our minds with it again. An alcohol code should establish taxes -- of a reasonable level, based on pure alcohol content, not whether its wine, beer, or spirits -- a licensing facility for producers, importers, wholesalers, and retailers that benefits the state, not lawyers or speculators; provide rules for operation that are not based on moral or religious grounds, punishments for breaking those rules, and an enforcement procedure for dealing with this in a prompt manner; and puts the Commonwealth out of the booze business completely. Sheesh. How hard can it be?


In the New Dry section, there's this revamped informational site. It shows just the kind of inertial, pie-in-the-sky policy-driven stuff drinkers are up against; specifically, the continuing march of keg registration laws, after even the New Drys have admitted that they don't actually work. I'll say it again, for Google: Keg registration laws don't work, and PIRE confirms it. Why do 31 states have them? The same reason we got national Prohibition: someone thought it was a good idea, and would work, if only we had the whole county/state/country under control. Sorry. Turns out this one's wrong, too.


Finally, when 0.08 BAC laws were slammed through during the Clinton Administration, we were told that MADD -- the major supporter of the laws -- didn't want to go further than that, that they were not a prohibitionist group. True colors, folks: MADD Canada is recommending 0.05 BAC in Quebec. When do they stop?

So. Good, bad, interesting. That's the booze policy news this week.

More MADDness: Virgin Mothers?

From Wine & Spirits Daily (yes, the Beer Business Daily folks do other drinks, but this sub is free, for now):

In some rather surprising news, Mothers' Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is entering the drinks business but not in the way you may think. In conjunction with Hill Street Marketing, the anti-alcohol group is launching MADD Virgin Drinks that include three "cocktails" without alcohol (Mojito, Margarita and Pina Colada), along with a virgin Lager & Lime and virgin red and white wine. They said in a statement that "distribution is not yet confirmed," and Hill Street is currently in talks with "traditional retailers" to carry their product. Hmmm. Do you think it will catch on?

Could I just quote you a quote, from a story on the alcohol-energy drink 'controversy' that ran about a year ago in the Attleboro, Mass. Sun Chronicle? These same folks are warning that teens (and retail clerks) might mistake boozed-up energy drinks for plain old energy drinks.

Of particular concern to industry watchdogs are similarities in the appearances of alcoholic and non-alcoholic energy drinks. "They clearly shouldn't be in the same section," said David DeIuliis spokesman for the Massachusetts chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)."Not only product placement, but also packaging is a concern," said Wallace, the SADD executive who noted that product coloring, logos and design appear to be aimed at teens.

Now, take a look at the packages they're putting these so-called 'virgin' drinks in (Thanks for the pix, Jaysus; why the hell is it in Finnish?). They clearly shouldn't be in the same section as real good booze; this deceptive packaging is a concern. Someone could easily pick up this stuff by mistake, thinking it's the real thing, only to find once they've gotten home that there's no booze in the booze. Think of how pissed people will be to find they'd been duped.

What's that? That couldn't happen? No one's that stupid?

Bingo. Now could someone tell MADD that?

MADD and ignition interlocks: follow the money

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on drunk driving today, part of what appears to be a series on the topic. In it, they question the position of distillers' business group The Century Council on drunk driving; TCC feels that the next step in stopping drunk driving deaths should be stiffer penalties for drivers who are caught at 0.15 BAC and over. The article has some very interesting looks at the numbers behind that, which made me question my position on this, which has been similar to TCC's. Good job, and thoughtful.

However, they talk about MADD's support for ignition interlocks (MADD wants interlocks in the cars of everyone arrested for DUI), evaluate it, and give it tacit approval...without pointing out MADD's financial links to the company that makes ignition interlocks; a major MADD donor. Actually, the WSJ is not particularly lax: no one ever mentions it. Check it out, folks: follow the money.

Kentucky Bourbon Festival: MADD postscript

As I was waiting for the shuttle, being responsible and all, I heard an airplane flying overhead. I looked up and saw it was towing a banner:

DESIGNATE A SOBER DRIVER - MADD.ORG

Well, that was a good thing. That's actually a great thing, and I wish MADD would stick to that kind of non-insane program. Way too much of what MADD does now is, well, suspect. They plug away at getting ignition interlocks put in DUI arrestee's cars...and accept large donations from the company that makes them. They are actually pushing for every car to have alcohol sensors; won't that be a bonanza for their sponsor! Do I really think MADD's that mercenary? Not really; I think they honestly believe this is a good idea, and the company is donating to them because they're fellow travelers. But that's exactly the kind of accusatory crap they throw at the booze industry all the time. The 21 LDA: what the hell is MADD doing with that? You want to cut back on kids driving drunk? Raise the ridiculously low driving age! Lowering the legal BAC: how about pushing for real punishment for higher BACs, the people who are shown time after time to be the truly dangerous drunk drivers? How about some programs to prevent licensees overserving patrons? How about some rewards for compliance and proactive actions instead of always being focused on punishment for non-compliance?

The thing is...as other folks commented here, all this stuff makes perfect sense if you posit that MADD is not an anti-drunk driving organization, but an anti-drinking organization.

MADD cranks it up

Saw in a press digest today where MADD CEO Chuck Hurley (what kind of "mother" are you, Chuck?) described the Amethyst Initiative as "a threat to public health and safety." Not the actual lowering of the LDA to 18, mind you: just talking about it.

As I've said before, this strikes me as outright un-American. It's a problem, these folks at Amethyst want to talk about new ideas for solving or ameliorating it...because clearly, what we're doing isn't working as well as it could.

I don't mean to belittle what's been done -- underage drinking is down, overall -- but the way we drink is the main issue here, and that's what MADD is completely missing. We can be better; there are other countries where it's better, just as there are countries where it's as bad or worse. But the 21 LDA is not helping...and that's one of the first things we need to look at.

MADD strikes back

MADD is not going to take the open debate on the possibility of lowering the legal drinking age lying down. Despite polls that show over 3/4 of Americans are against lowering the legal drinking age, MADD is doing what they can to make sure it stays tamped down and under control. Part of that campaign is a new blog, "Why 21?"

The blog, so far, is mostly "hey look, lowering the drinking age doesn't work, told ya!" kind of stuff, the same kind of anecdotal, half-science/half-threat stuff the anti-alcohol squeaks have relied on for years -- Actually, you know what? I just made up my mind: I'm going nomenclature on their ass. I hereby decide to refer to these people as what they are: the New Drys. Call 'em as I see 'em, and make no mistake -- these people are the direct descendants of Wayne Wheeler and Carrie Nation. From now on, that's what I'm calling them.

Now, where was I? Ah, yes, the MADD blog. The thing that's amazing, is that so far, they have allowed comments on their posts. You can't sign in anonymously, but they don't moderate, otherwise. I've posted what I've thought of their stuff, and it's still there. I don't know if they're forthright or just stupid, but my hat's off to them for that. And of course, I'd encourage you to go have a look and leave whatever civil comments you think of as you read. It reads like a bunch of weakly correlated suppostion to me, but I admit I may have my own slant on things.

Drinking Age debate on Rethinking Drinking

There's a YouTube link up on Rethinking Drinking, the blog for Choose Responsibility.org, the new research group that is encouraging public debate on lowering the legal drinking age to 18. Group founder John McCardell and a MADD representative appeared on FoxNews on Feb. 18 to "debate" McCardell's proposal to lower the LDA to 18, in conjunction with a safe drinking education program. Here's the link:

Rethinking Drinking: Drinking Age debate

The video's not exactly electrifying, but it does get the basic stand of both parties out there. McCardell believes -- as do I -- that the 21 LDA drives drinking underground into unsafe, unsupervised territory, and abridges the rights of adults. MADD believes that the 21 LDA has saved over 20,000 lives in 22 years, and quotes "hundereds" of studies to back that up. They also characterize McCardell's proposal as a dangerous gamble with the lives of America's youth.

The debate was too short for any give and take at all; just state initial positions, then a closing statement. McCardell out-pointed the MADD rep -- he'd better have, as a former college president against a 19-year-old -- but didn't get the chance to rip open the soft underbelly of those hundreds of studies, which suffer from a severe lack of cause and effect. I had to giggle when the MADD boy urged us to use science to settle the debate: these folks have their tame research groups -- PIRE, CSPI, CAMY, and a handful of heavily-infiltrated governmental agencies -- but the tide is starting to turn, and McCardell's group is just the latest example. Most anti-alcohol science is crap science; not all, by any means, but most, in the opinion of the few scientists I've shown it to.

The thing is...I do agree with the MADD boy to a degree. This is a gamble with the lives of America's youth. We don't know what will happen if we lower the LDA to 18, not really. My gut feeling is that alcohol-related deaths in the 18-21 cohort will go up, although my gut also says that they'll go down in the 12-17 and 22-30 cohorts. That's the gamble: will we lose more or less?

Face the fact: alcohol is dangerous. You can easily drink too much, which will temporarily impair and change you in ways that can lead to bad decisions, sometimes tragically bad. There is a learning curve associated with the stuff, and we've all stumbled over it.

Which is why McCardell's proposal is something more than just moving the age around. If there's a learning curve, let's flatten it somewhat. That's what McCardell's "drinking license" idea is about. It's a funny sounding idea -- and his group acknowledges that right up-front, by linking to another YouTube video in the same blog post, a pair of stereotyped Southerners yukking it up over the very idea. But at least it's funny and smart, not callous and horrifyingly stupid, like telling kids nothing about alcohol and then pushing them out of the nest at 21 to fall or fly all on their own.

What McCardell and Choose Responsibility is really calling for is open debate. Honest debate. Factual debate. Is that so scary? Bring on the debate, and if one side resorts to emotion and hysteria, call them on it.