If the media ran the story…
Local home brewers threaten to go ahead with “charity” event. Police fear arrests must be made.
It’s actually usually a little simpler than that. Usually everyone hums along just assuming that what we do is a okay, because it’s never been pointed out as illegal. We know not to sell, we know to front as a commercial brewery (most of us), etc, etc. Otherwise, we act like - well we’re being reasonable and the law must not mind since no one has said boo. Then…
Someone either truely spectactular messes up (not in my experience) or someone or some place with a monetary worry decides to check with their local ABC about the legality of a thing. Because the ABC’s rules tend to be restrictive and not permissive, their first reaction is usually “no, you can’t” and it’s usually backed up by the strict wording in the law. That then means we lose our competitions, festivals, etc. (see Oregon) until we can get the law change. Even in Oregon, where the ABC was super favorable, they had to cancel their activities until they could get the legislature to act. That is the nature of the law, after all.
In the case of AB 1425, AB 2609 that all happened because someone up north wanted to make sure the donation of homebrewed beer and wine for a charity function was legal. The ABC said “what? no!” and so they went to the legislature (without spreading the word and allowing consultation) and passed a law that meant well and tried to close potential loopholes (e.g. no nonprofits that are about beer, etc). Then we had the side effect of the SCHF closure, followed by this years legislative activity and the ABC issuing it’s clarification rulings.
It almost always begins as something well meaning and so, the debate a lot of folks have is - do we bring attention to what we’re doing to attempt to become fully above board/legal or do we let the state slumber while we do this harmless thing? Ultimately, while one is safe and comfortable, we really need to do the other to be truly open about everything! (One of the few rules I remember from my dad - when face with two actions, one that’s easy and one that’s hard - the one that’s hard is almost always the right thing to do)
I agree everything we do should be on the up and up and not try to hide anything. However you bring up an interesting point regarding homebrewers “fronting” as pro brewers. I am one of those “rogue” brewers. I started donating beer several years ago under my “label” once I saw that my local brew club was doing the same thing. Obviously this was before passage of the new laws…ignorance is/was bliss. I still don’t see why I can’t continue to do the same thing…of course with the new labeling laws in place. Most guys have a name for their brewery…I just took it a step farther with an actual logo and t-shirts/mugs/stickers for sale. When I pour at charity events people want to know where they can find my beer. Of course I am honest and tell them that my beer is homebrewed and not for sale, and the only place they can find it is local charity events. I can’t imagine how the ABC would/could have any legal opinion of what donated homebrew can or can’t be called. I am interested in how you see it Drew…
Too bad this could not be imposed by the retraction of laws. We don’t need any more. :-\
The ABC would dimly consider the presentation of homebrewed beer with commercial imagery and no labelling as homebrew as a fraudulent activity rife with consumer liability issues. Additionally, the donation of the beer until Jan 1 of this year would have been prohibited. Taxation, licensing, etc… all the stuff that makes a regulatory agency a regulatory agency.
Had an enforcement agent come across such a presentation, they would have probably shut down that part of service and fined the licensee (severely for allowing unlicensed alcohol to be served) and had a severe talking with the server for pouring unlicensed alcohol. Additionally, future fests for the licensee would be in question due to the violation.
It’s important enough to them that in AB-2609 it’s stated that there must be signage at the fest entrance that homebrew is unregulated, potentially hazardous, etc. Additionally, homebrew itself must be labelled clearly that way. Even better, if a fest has both commercial and homebrewed beer then homebrew has to be physically separated with a barricade and physical monitoring and additional signage from any commercial beer.
The ABC has legal authority on how homebrew is presented and labelled and offered to the public since they regulate all alcohol in the state including defining what the boundaries are of the exemption granted by law to homebrewing. Hence their ruling on shop educational sessions. (And I know, several shops have been visited by ABC agents to have that “good” word delivered to them)
Part of why I’m spreading the word about this bill and what’s allowed is that we need to have everyone on the same page and best behavior to diffuse arguments about homebrewing as a refuge for scofflaws and scoundrels for when we tackle the next parts. Incidentally, this view in nothing new - back in the 70’s when the homebrewing legalization bill was written, there was a competing bill, the Conable Bill, that would have required homebrewers to register with the ATF, because the agency was worried that homebrewing would be used as a legal cover for moonshining.
A few years back Wisconsin cracked down at homebrews served at beerfests. They changed the law but the homebrew is still segregated from the commercial serving area as a “homebrew island”. Illinois did a similar measure in 2013, I believe, but most beer feasts in IL don’t serve homebrew, because of the licensing required here. But they can at least now hold competitions legally, as long as the judges are affiliated with BJCP or similar organization:
Crazy rules but like Drew said - we have to comply or risk being considered the same as outlaw moonshiners…
You know I don’t know or have heard of anyone equating homebrew/homebrewing with moonshining, scofflaws, or scoundrels. This is not the 1930’s nor is it Alabama. Look at both popular opinion and recent actions by the CA legislation. AB 1425 and AB 2609 passed without a single “nay” vote and only one “neo-prohibition” group registered as against either legislation. Also remember that the ABC does not make regulations, only the legislation can do that, they only enforce existing regulations. So I am a little perplexed by who added/approved amendments such as seperating homebrew from commercial. It seems like we could get a lot more than we asked for from a practical political perspective for and hopefully these will be addressed in the future.
As a side note I wonder how many non profit homebrew organizations/clubs will pop up and really use this new law. It would seem that it could really open up some doors such as organizing a beer festival to raise funds for the club.
You need to talk with more enforcement folks! Most think we’re a-okay. Some think homebrewing is a cousin of moonshining and some feel like the whole thing should be illegal. (Also, Alcohol Justice will comment on any bill dealing with alcohol)
I imagine the source of the amendments was the ABC and law enforcement working with various legislators.
This was an easy bill to get passed because it’s still a special case thing. If the ABC sees a lot of profit driven fests appearing I imagine they’ll push back on the licensing aspect. I also suspect the sheer mechanical work of the process (finding a location, getting leo approval, getting the license, etc) will keep it from becoming a giant thing.
Now, the next part - the making it possible for homebrew clubs to meet/compete/etc in a licensed establishment is going to be the really fun one and I would expect more resistance to that effort. The concerns about confusion, potential sales and enforcement of separation are going to be even more heightened.
That’s it! I’m opening a Speak Easy! 8)
Yeah I was thinking of smaller events 200-300 people max. ABC issues one day permits for alcohol sales to non profits all the time for special events.
So moving further down the road why does the ABC have a concern on where a homebrew club meets? My club meets in the back of a local brewery. I am trying to rack my brain thinking of any potential issues that could occur and can’t think of any. IF anything I would think that they would want it in an establishment that regulates alcohol vs. someplace that doesn’t.
Mostly, I think to keep things simple, prevent bootlegging and consumer confusion. If booze is legally on the premise of the bar/brewery than it’s clear cut available for sale, taxes and fees, etc have been paid. No questions, no wiggle room, etc. If you allow an exception, than you open up a scheme by which someone could have illegal booze on hand - “oh, that? That’s for the homebrew club meeting. That’s homemade wine. No we haven’t been selling it! The nerve of you! That bottle of whiskey? Bought it at the store to take home with me!”
Another issue is safety. Presumably, a licensee would be far more at risk of overservice if a customer is able to serve themselves homebrew while at the bar/brewery. Or if a person could be cut off at the bar, but be served homebrew, etc, etc.
It’s all incredibly frustrating, but from a licensee’s pov, they’re pretty much being told - having unlicensed alcohol on the premises puts your license at jeopardy. If you’re a brewery, that license is literally your life’s blood.
No offense but just becasue you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. We had to fight attitudes like that in OR in the 2000s to get our bill passed. There are a lot more of those people out there than you might realize.
Easy on 'Bama. It was a long row to hoe to get homebrew legalized May '13. I had someone ask me yesterday if I was still brewing bathtub hooch.
So in your experience were those attitudes coming from people who just generally anti any and all alcohol? I can see a group like Alcohol Justice being against us because they are against any relaxation of alcohol laws regardless of type. Barring the anti-alcohol types are there people in the alcohol industry, or even craft beer industry, who look at us as “moonshiners” and want to have restrictive laws on homebrewing?
I once talked to someone who worked for a beer distributor who has no idea what homebrewing was … I mean he couldn’t even conceptualize how it was possible.
I also talked to someone at the state Fair a few years ago. I was doing a homebrew demo and I’m pretty sure she thought we were cooking meth.
That is incorrect. Legislatures pass laws and agencies promulgate regulations. The power to promulgate regulations is granted by law and can be quite broad.
Moreover, in some states local jurisdictions can make more stringent rules than the state, so you can get “dry pockets” where little or no alcohol can be sold. And by extension, they could adopt further limits on homebrewing.
Yeah, I think in general they were anti ANY alcohol people like AJ or MADD. But there were also people who were just ignorant and felt that homebrew in particular is dangerous. But within the industry I haven’t seen that attitude.
This is referred to as the “local option” which was originally implemented during the early days of prohibition when state-wide prohibition failed. The temperance movement then decided they could split states by encouraging state legislatures to give cities or counties the right to decide for themselves. That meant the temperance movement only had to lobby small governments where they could fight a guerrilla war against the alcohol industry. No local option and prohibition never happens. As an aside, and not to engage in a political debate on the subject, but many conservative groups are approaching their own policy issues today by trying to enact the local option on those issues (such as charter school/school waivers and abortion limitations).
There are parts of Alaska where all alcohol is prohibited and homebrewing is illegal. You can get arrested for having too much sugar in your home because, well, they can figure out that you aren’t baking a lot of pies.
Here in Texas we have the local option on alcohol sales although about a decade ago there was a huge push to have cities get rid of it right around the time Texas wineries started gaining market traction. I remember as a teen in the 90s the suburb where I grew up had chunks of town that were dry going back to the 1950s (and sometimes earlier) where you could buy beer on one side of the street but not the other.
ABC could try arresting a business owner for cooking a sugar solution without yeast? Only in California!
So much for the land of the free. 