Series Sheds Light on Absurd Alcohol Laws….Again.

Every now and then an important news gathering outlet decides to run a series of stories on alcohol politics. The series is usually focused on a single state. And the series is usually driven by a single reporter who in some way or another has come to appreciate that alcohol politics usually comes down to the same thing that most other kinds of politics comes down to: unjustified amounts of influence invested in a single entity.

Harry Esteve of the Oregonian is just the man for the job and so far he’s done a darned good job 1) outlining the reasons reform of Oregon’s alcohol laws are needed, 2) who in Oregon is treated unfairly by the state’s archaic laws, 3) which groups have worked hard to keep in place old laws that make no sense other than to increase one group’s revenue at the expense of others, and 4) explaining the tentative moves toward reform.

Among the stories that Harry has filed are:

Pinot Politics: Oregon’s Archaic Alcohol Rules Come Under Fire

Pinot Politics: Laws Ensure Distributors Get Cash, Handle Nearly Every Bottle of Wine in Oregon

Pinot Politics: Oregon Lawmakers Take Cautious Approach to Liberalizing Liquor Laws

Grocers Tell Oregon Lawmakers: Update Liquor Laws or Face Initiative

Among the issues of Oregon alcohol law that are highlighted in the articles are:

OREGON’S LAWS ARE A HOLDOVER FROM THE PROHIBITION ERA, BUT ARE PROTECTED FROM CHANGE:
“Capone and his bootlegging cronies are long gone. But the Prohibition-era laws live on, backed by a cadre of lawyers, lobbyists and people with moneyed interests.”—Harry Esteve

CALLS FOR CHANGE OF OREGON’S ARCHAIC LIQUOR LAWS AND FOR PRIVATIZATION OF THE STATE’S CONTROL OF SPIRIT SALES:
“The same people who spent millions to privatize Washington liquor sales are now eyeing a similar effort in Oregon, and an increasingly vocal group of growers, bottlers, dealers and restaurant owners has begun to make waves.”—Esteve

OLD, INTRICATE REGULATIONS REDUCE SELECTION AND HURT THE  INDUSTRY:
“It becomes a regulatory nightmare. It’s obviously going to increase cost and reduce selection. It means that wines that tend to get through to customers around the country are either going to be the iconic wines that make it because they’re so valuable, or it’s going to be the mass market wines.” —Mike Veseth, The Wine Economist

DISTRIBUTORS BUY FROM PRODUCERS, BUT GET CASH ON DELIVERY FROM RETAILERS
“Distributors love the law. They buy big volumes on credit, then sell it for cash, giving them weeks of float with other people’s money.” Esteve

THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE ARCHAIC RULES THAT STILL IN PLACE:
“The purpose is to guarantee that a privileged group always makes money, just by being there. That’s what this is all about.” —John DiLorenzo, Grocery Outlet

THE REASON THE ARCHAIC RULES STAY IN PLACE:
“The lobbying muscle of the wholesale tier is obscenely huge. They are extraordinarily powerful.” —Tom Wark

FRANCHISE LAWS PROTECT DISTRIBUTORS FROM COMPETITION:
“If you run a brewery and you don’t like how your distributor is handling your product, it’s almost impossible to fire them and go with another outfit unless you fork over thousands of dollars to buy yourself out.”—Esteve

RETAIL OUTLETS CAN’T CENTRALLY WAREHOUSE PRODUCTS THEY OWN, DISTRIBUTORS MUST ALWAYS DELIVER EVERYTHING:
“Grocery chains, such as Fred Meyer, are prohibited from sending their own trucks to wineries to pick up cases to sell in their stores. They must use a distributor.”—Esteve

DISTRIBUTORS WILL OPPOSE ANY CHANGE IN LAWS, NO MATTER HOW OLD OR HURTFUL TO THE INDUSTRY:
“Distributors like things the way they are. They have grown a multibillion-dollar industry on the strength of laws that ensure they handle virtually every bottle of wine and beer sold in Oregon”—Esteve

LAWMAKERS MAY LISTEN TO CALLS FOR CHANGE, BUT LIKELY WON’T TOPPLE THE APPLE CART:
“I’m not convinced necessarily that we have a problem that needs fixing. I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how the system can be improved. We do have a system that is old, and it’s always appropriate to take a fresh look.”—Rep Chris Garrett

Tags:


2 Responses

  1. Tom Rinaldi - September 19, 2012

    We have the best government money can buy! I remember being in a bar in Oregon and being told that it is against the law to drink the beer from a pitcher! I felt so safe!!

  2. Tom Wark - September 19, 2012

    Tom:

    Do you recall how Oregon feels about you drinking from a REALLY BIG glass?


Leave a Reply