6 ms·

As a (western) European, these laws strike me as completely unnecessary and obviously damaging. The union's ad (page 2) makes no sense at all. Kids here aren't

by lvh 12y ago

As a (western) European, these laws strike me as completely unnecessary and obviously damaging. The union's ad (page 2) makes no sense at all. Kids here aren't dying by the bunch, and I'm pretty sure I can buy all kinds of booze (from mixed fizzy drinks to beer and wine to hard liquor to everclear) in any arbitrary convenience store...

endersshadow 12y ago
Sigh. Yes, yes, we know. All of the laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America. The real story, as usual, turns out to be fairly complex. Americans have a very odd and unique history with alcohol. Most notably was the temperance movement [1], which really started all of this hullabaloo. This caused an amendment to our Constitution...something tough to do and even tougher to undo. And yet, eleven years later, it was repealed (thankfully). But, and here's the big but: To temper the temperance movement (which, by the way, had proven considerable political power), there were these crazy laws that were enacted to limit alcohol buying. The predecessor to the ATF was born [2]. And things like the 3-tier system were created, along with all sorts of bans on homebrewing and whatnot. Essentially all of the regulations on alcohol have their roots in either the temperance movement or the anti-drunk driving movement (i.e.-MADD), which is a neo-temperance movement. Most of them were political concessions. Anymore, folks have profited tremendously off of artificial supply limitations, and they seek to keep those limitations in place by lobbying (quite effectively) against repeal or reform. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Fi...
- wdewind 12y ago
  None of which detracts from his point: we (Americans) are nuts about mind altering drugs, and most of the debate on both sides is laughably sophomoric. Europeans have a lot to feel superior about when it comes to these regulations. That there is a complex political history here doesn't alter that.
  - bane 12y ago
    There's lots of good in the European approach to alcohol. It's not unusual to sit down with a glass of wine with lunch in Italy, but in the U.S. you might get flagged as an alcoholic. Children grow up learning how to manage alcohol better when they're adults and you don't see much binge drinking and rates of drunk driving are far lower. Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus. Stuff like this was the impetus for the federalized drinking age in the US.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        It's only sort of federalized though: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A... (I'm posting because I think the mechanism might be news to some readers, not to argue about whether it is federalized or not)
        wdewind 12y ago
        Thanks, I knew that was the mechanism but never knew it was 10%.
        mabhatter 12y ago
        I cannot wait til we can sin-tax old people because they are on Social Security!!!
    - 12y ago
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Actually the root issue there predates temperance by a wide margin. The US governments primary revenue sources in the early days were tariffs and excise taxes, particularly taxes on alcohol. Alcohol is a great commodity to tax because stills require lots of sugar, grain and barrels and thus are/were very easy to spot. Even today, the ATF will drop by for a visit if you're purchasing large quantities of sugar, and you'll have a hard time buying lots of sugar without identifying yourself. Many states followed a similar model, so there is a historically ancient precedent of such regulation. Temperance and post-prohibition regulation added more layers.
  - gshubert17 12y ago
    And a major challenge to alcohol taxes as a revenue source was the Whiskey Rebellion [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
- dalke 12y ago
  Sigh. Yes, yes, we know the US is special. So is everyone else. ;) The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% of the voters voted against prohibition. (There have only been six referendums; others include "join the EU?" and "adopt the Euro?") Instead, Sweden moved to a quota system - the Bratt system - first for hard alcohol and then for all the lowest alcohol drinks. While the quota system disappeared in the mid-1950s, the government still has a monopoly, excepting through bars and restaurants. While on the other hand, Iceland had prohibition from 1915 until (in some form or other) 1989. That ending is still celebrated as "Beer Day", because until then the Icelandic temperance movement had successfully argued that strong beer, being cheaper than hard liquor or wine, would cause more depravity so should not be sold. People ended up mixing legal, weak beer with hard liquor to make an ersatz strong beer. Prohibition of that mix finally tilted the scales to end prohibition. Norway had prohibition from 1916 to 1927, again, from the same temperance movement that was strong in the US.
  - endersshadow 12y ago
    I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like a good idea at the time. In reality, these things, especially laws, go through complex histories, compromises, concessions, and interests. I gave an overly brief history of the alcohol laws in the US, or at least their influences. Just to give a little context. In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: sigh.
    - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
jpatokal 12y ago
There are plenty of western European states with very similar laws. For example, all the Scandinavian states have varying levels of government monopolies for the distribution of harder liquor, which in Sweden translates to "anything more than 3.5% ABV". Not that this makes any more sense in Europe though. In Finland, it's a national pastime to make booze runs across to Estonia, where alcohol is far cheaper. Since both countries are in the EU, there's very little Finland can do about it (free trade and all that), and there's even judicial precedent that importing a minivan stacked full of vodka falls under "personal use" if you happen to have a wedding or birthday party coming up.
- litek 12y ago
  Denmark is the notable exception. You can buy hard liquor at the local 7-eleven at any hour.
  - epaladin 12y ago
    Sounds like how it goes in Japan (including the 7-11)
sliverstorm 12y ago
Well, it's presumably what the people of those states want. I'm a bit of a federalist (at least for now). I live in a state whose liquor laws I generally like, and if other states want different liquor laws that is their prerogative.

by lvh 12y ago

endersshadow 12y ago

Sigh. Yes, yes, we know. All of the laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America. The real story, as usual, turns out to be fairly complex. Americans have a very odd and unique history with alcohol. Most notably was the temperance movement [1], which really started all of this hullabaloo. This caused an amendment to our Constitution...something tough to do and even tougher to undo. And yet, eleven years later, it was repealed (thankfully). But, and here's the big but: To temper the temperance movement (which, by the way, had proven considerable political power), there were these crazy laws that were enacted to limit alcohol buying. The predecessor to the ATF was born [2]. And things like the 3-tier system were created, along with all sorts of bans on homebrewing and whatnot. Essentially all of the regulations on alcohol have their roots in either the temperance movement or the anti-drunk driving movement (i.e.-MADD), which is a neo-temperance movement. Most of them were political concessions. Anymore, folks have profited tremendously off of artificial supply limitations, and they seek to keep those limitations in place by lobbying (quite effectively) against repeal or reform. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Fi...

wdewind 12y ago
None of which detracts from his point: we (Americans) are nuts about mind altering drugs, and most of the debate on both sides is laughably sophomoric. Europeans have a lot to feel superior about when it comes to these regulations. That there is a complex political history here doesn't alter that.
- bane 12y ago
  There's lots of good in the European approach to alcohol. It's not unusual to sit down with a glass of wine with lunch in Italy, but in the U.S. you might get flagged as an alcoholic. Children grow up learning how to manage alcohol better when they're adults and you don't see much binge drinking and rates of drunk driving are far lower. Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus. Stuff like this was the impetus for the federalized drinking age in the US.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      It's only sort of federalized though: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A... (I'm posting because I think the mechanism might be news to some readers, not to argue about whether it is federalized or not)
      - wdewind 12y ago
        Thanks, I knew that was the mechanism but never knew it was 10%.
      - mabhatter 12y ago
        I cannot wait til we can sin-tax old people because they are on Social Security!!!
  - 12y ago
Spooky23 12y ago
Actually the root issue there predates temperance by a wide margin. The US governments primary revenue sources in the early days were tariffs and excise taxes, particularly taxes on alcohol. Alcohol is a great commodity to tax because stills require lots of sugar, grain and barrels and thus are/were very easy to spot. Even today, the ATF will drop by for a visit if you're purchasing large quantities of sugar, and you'll have a hard time buying lots of sugar without identifying yourself. Many states followed a similar model, so there is a historically ancient precedent of such regulation. Temperance and post-prohibition regulation added more layers.
- gshubert17 12y ago
  And a major challenge to alcohol taxes as a revenue source was the Whiskey Rebellion [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
dalke 12y ago
Sigh. Yes, yes, we know the US is special. So is everyone else. ;) The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% of the voters voted against prohibition. (There have only been six referendums; others include "join the EU?" and "adopt the Euro?") Instead, Sweden moved to a quota system - the Bratt system - first for hard alcohol and then for all the lowest alcohol drinks. While the quota system disappeared in the mid-1950s, the government still has a monopoly, excepting through bars and restaurants. While on the other hand, Iceland had prohibition from 1915 until (in some form or other) 1989. That ending is still celebrated as "Beer Day", because until then the Icelandic temperance movement had successfully argued that strong beer, being cheaper than hard liquor or wine, would cause more depravity so should not be sold. People ended up mixing legal, weak beer with hard liquor to make an ersatz strong beer. Prohibition of that mix finally tilted the scales to end prohibition. Norway had prohibition from 1916 to 1927, again, from the same temperance movement that was strong in the US.
- endersshadow 12y ago
  I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like a good idea at the time. In reality, these things, especially laws, go through complex histories, compromises, concessions, and interests. I gave an overly brief history of the alcohol laws in the US, or at least their influences. Just to give a little context. In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: sigh.
  - alexeisadeski3 12y ago

jpatokal 12y ago

There are plenty of western European states with very similar laws. For example, all the Scandinavian states have varying levels of government monopolies for the distribution of harder liquor, which in Sweden translates to "anything more than 3.5% ABV". Not that this makes any more sense in Europe though. In Finland, it's a national pastime to make booze runs across to Estonia, where alcohol is far cheaper. Since both countries are in the EU, there's very little Finland can do about it (free trade and all that), and there's even judicial precedent that importing a minivan stacked full of vodka falls under "personal use" if you happen to have a wedding or birthday party coming up.

litek 12y ago
Denmark is the notable exception. You can buy hard liquor at the local 7-eleven at any hour.
- epaladin 12y ago
  Sounds like how it goes in Japan (including the 7-11)

sliverstorm 12y ago

Well, it's presumably what the people of those states want. I'm a bit of a federalist (at least for now). I live in a state whose liquor laws I generally like, and if other states want different liquor laws that is their prerogative.