BrewMoreBeers
Well-Known Member
as long as there is a second amendment we will be fine. I'll give them my boil kettle when they take it from my cold, dead hands.
Alabama Homebrewing still Illegal
- Thread starter mmurray
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
as long as there is a second amendment we will be fine. I'll give them my boil kettle when they take it from my cold, dead hands.
lextasy23
Well-Known Member
MA Legislators wouldn't be stupid enough to make it illegal.
Boston beer drinkers are a force not to be reckoned with.
Boston beer drinkers are a force not to be reckoned with.
Same here. MY kettles will remain in operation as long as I draw breath -well that and have a way to put a fire under 'em
Come to think of it, I have an old Boston Terrier that should provide enough fuel (methane) if I could stand to get close enough to that end of the dog to bottle the uh, fuel. That or put a hose in her behind and run it to the burners.... green fuel!
Don't be so sure, at least as long as there are nutjobs like Joe Arpaio around. If he'll send a freaking tank to bust an unarmed guy running a cockfighting ring, don't doubt they'll send one to go after innocent homebrewers too.
(To be clear, I'm not comparing homebrewing, which is a totally awesome and fun hobby, to cockfighting, which is cruel and rightfully illegal. I'm just using this to illustrate that the militarization of local police departments caused by the failed drug war calls into question your strategy of "I'ma use my huntin' rifle!" to escape enforcement of laws you don't like...)
dwarven_stout
Well-Known Member
Two points:
First, military style raids in pursuit of warrants for non-violent crimes are dangerous for everyone. Problem is, too many boys like to pretend that they're elite by playing dressup with real machine guns. Did you know that no less than 30 federal agencies can form their own SWAT now, thanks to the PATRIOT act?
Second, that's not a tank. It's an APC, like a version of the Army M1117 but without the turret. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1117_Armored_Security_Vehicle
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
jsweet said:
Screw the tank, I'm more worried about steven segal. I've seen a bunch of his documentaries: Under Seige, Under Seige Two: Dark Territory, Above The Law. He is much worse than any tank.
Heh, I'd wondered about that, but all the news reports called it a "tank" so I just repeated that.
Spot-on about this shenanigans being dangerous for everyone, though. Don't even get me started about wrong-door SWAT raids. You're lucky if the only thing they kill is your dog. Bastards...
and as for the unarmed cockfighting ring, I'm not going to fault the cops for going in armed to the teeth and ready for anything. cockfighting is really big with the illegal alien crowd (Im sorry, I'm NOT going to call them by their media-mandated PC name. They are what they are, period) and those boys are rarely unarmed. We have enough of a problem with them in the areas around where I live, and working in the ER, I see the end-results of those thugs more often than I've cared to admit.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
Nightbiker said:
Agree'd, I had a co-worker who cockfighted and he had a couple AK's as well as a collection of pistols. As far as I'm concerned, people get what they deserve. You know the saying: If you do the crime, your wall gets knocked down with a f***ing tank.
Except that they actually had some info on this guy that he was probably at home, by himself, unarmed. Did you read the article? They did it for a TV show -- they had Steven Segal riding along. And the sheriff who orchestrated the whole thing is uber-tool Joe Arpaio, who never heard of a civil right he didn't want to take a giant $&*! on....
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
jsweet said:
False, gun rights. I read he was there, but I doubt that any law man would say "hmmm, we have a tv show here....let's knock down a house" else cops would have done it hundreds of times
Heh, good point. Although, I'm sure if he could take away gun rights, but only for brown people, he'd do that too.
Then you don't know Joe Arpaio...
Yep. PROBABLY at home, by himself, unarmed. Too many LEOs are dead because they followed that kind of advice. Sorry, but you have to know your clientele, and Law Enforcement has to know its' version of the same. And the fact of the matter is that you stand a very good chance of being out-gunned by these creeps.
I think I recall that article, but won't swear to it. But I DO know the type of person these thugs are -as I said, our area has its share of illegals, and now and then you read or hear about a cock-fighting ring getting busted around here. AND we DO get some of their uh, results -mix a bunch of thugs, booze, and gambling on violent roosters and what do you have? Aside from a lot of bloody and dieing yard-birds, you get stab-wounds, bullet wounds and fight-related wounds to the humans involved.
I'm as much about our rights as anyone (especially when it comes to our second amendment rights -and I don't just own hunting rifles and shotguns) but I have absolutely no compassion or use for illegals. None whatsoever. Nope. None.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
jsweet said:
He's a hard ass, but not an idiot. You may disagree, but he is getting results. On a side note, mmmm beer.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
Nightbiker said:
Again agree'd. We have a legal and illegal way of coming here. Follow the rules and enjoy freedom. Break the rules and you can kiss it goodbye. Not just illegals from our southern border, but northern and all ports too!
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
Apologies if someone already mentioned this... but... why doesn't someone actually do something about it being illegal and change the law??
The AHA has a bunch of great info on how to do just that and apparently changed the laws in Utah in 2009
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/talking-points
Educate some of these rocket scientist legislators and get it legal.
The AHA has a bunch of great info on how to do just that and apparently changed the laws in Utah in 2009
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/talking-points
Educate some of these rocket scientist legislators and get it legal.
they have been trying to change it for years. It takes a long time -especially when you have wealthy lobbyists working against you. I think things would be much better if our lawmakers actually homebrewed.
Not being a wise-ass... I'm asking sincerely...
What wealthy lobbyists are against homebrewing??
What wealthy lobbyists are against homebrewing??
I have no idea if they actually fund any anti-homebrewing activities or legislators, but off the top of my head:
- beer manufacturers
- beer distributors
- organizations that have prohibitionist tendencies, like MADD and some more fundamentalist churches
I dunno... Again, don't mean it as a wisecrack but I'm kind of skeptical there is any anti-homebrewing lobbying going on. Breweries tend to back homebrewers as we are one big communittee.
I'm sure Bud/Miller/Coors would rather you buy theirs than make your own.
I agree, I think the bigger issue is ignorance, not lobbying.
ChandlerBang
Well-Known Member
I REALLY doubt BMC has anything to do with anti-homebrew lobbying. And this "I can't fight the billion dollar lobbyists" mentality is part of why it is still illegal. Until someone has actual, real proof to the contrary, I won't entertain this as a legitimate argument.
To Alabama: Organize some homebrewers, get some donations, get a grass roots effort going to change the law. This shouldn't be a legalizing gambling or pot kind of fight. In those cases there are actual studies showing the negitive effects of those products (I still think they should be legalized and taxed.) In this case we're just talking about making homebrewing legal, not distilling, not even selling what you are making. I will go so far to say, you may even be able to get some donations from craft breweries and such if your cause/organization is legitimate.
I'm not saying that's what's going on; only that I don't think it's too far fetched. I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that they'd rather you buy theirs than brew your own and in Beer Wars it was claimed that, in 2006, big beer donated more PAC money than guns and tobacco combined.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
organ said:
I would have to agree that it's not that far fetched that bmc would contribute to anti homebrewing legislation. You think big oil companies aren't contributing to keeping dependance on oil. It's how big companies work, squash competition, there is no reason to have so many choices of how to get your bud light at the store, bottles/cans, 6/12/18/24/30/33, it's the billboard effect. They go against craft breweries as much as they go against homebrewing, loss of business.
ChandlerBang
Well-Known Member
Claimed by whom? Was it a reliable source or just an unfounded musing?
Big Oil would LOVE to drill more oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, etc. Our government has control of that one.
I understand the competition thing, but how much do potential homebrewers cost the big beer companies in lost sales? Nothing compared to their actual competition in the market. I think the idea of homebrewing making it on BMC's radar as a problem to spend money on is as laughable as you think it is legitimate. We Americans like to lay blame at big business' feet for all of our problems. Maybe this time it is just a bunch of moron politicians that don't actually know anything about homebrewing.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
ChandlerBang said:
Contributions made by Budweiser to PAC
http://www.city-data.com/elec2/elec-LOXLEY-AL.html
PAC donations to lowell barron, democrat incumbent
http://www.followthemoney.org/datab...or_details.phtml?u=14409&y=2010&ince=1&incs=1
Took me two minutes to find this. Can't research more, at work atm. I'm pro business, except when they screw me.
Edit: I tried finding voting records on this guy and what he did with the homebrew legislation and couldn't find it for last years bill. He isn't on office this year. So I guess what I said is neither pro or con to either of our arguements. Lol sorry.
ChandlerBang
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I will admit this topic needs more research. There are multiple conclusions to be drawn from the links you found. Standing alone, that information is somewhat ambiguous.
Scruffy1207
Well-Known Member
Yea, I just edited my post to say that. All it proves is BMC does give money to candidates.
I seriously doubt that homebrew legislation is on BMC's radar (and really, we should be saying AB here, because they're the real big guns when it comes to lobbying). I imagine that if you asked them, their position would be "opposed", and since they do spend a lot on lobbying -- maintaining the three-tier system is crucial to AB's strangehold on the industry -- it's possible there is some incidental influence here, but I can't imagine it's a major factor.
OTOH, I also think it's naive to chalk it up solely to legislative ignorance. I have no doubt that the legislators are ignorant on this point, but I think it has more to do with the fact that it is tricky for an elected representative to take a position that can be perceived in any way, shape, or form as pro-alcohol, pro-drug, pro-crime, etc. Anti-drinking groups and conservative religious groups will scream bloody murder, regardless of how sensible the position may be, and it opens them up to attack ads in future elections, e.g. "Bob Smith voted in favor of legalizing the illicit production of alcohol in people's basements and closets, which would have opened up the door to rampant underage drinking. Why does Bob Smith think elementary school kids should get wasted?" etc.
Look at how hard it has been to modify the blue laws in NYS? Until a few years ago, you couldn't buy liquor on Sunday, and in my county you couldn't even buy beer until noon on Sunday. This was New York, for cryin' out loud! (Liquor stores still have more severely restricted hours on Sundays) In this case, there was some unusual opposition that came from small liquor store operators for whom Sunday was their day off, who feared they would be driven out of business by bigger stores capable of employing more staff (and indeed, I have seen one or two stores go out of business since then, but them's the breaks... if your business can only exist because your competitors are being forced to comply with a bizarre antiquated law that fringes on being a First Amendment violation, I dunno what to tell you...). But a lot of the opposition was also from anti-drinking groups, etc.
If there had not been an anti-homebrewing law to begin with in Alabama, I'm sure none of these politicians would care. But they can't be seen to be "pro-drinking", so they have to oppose legalizing it. I'm sure ignorance plays a big role too, but the imperative of being re-elected by an ignorant and judgmental electorate tells them what their default position should be for lack of any, you know, actual knowledge of the issue.
OTOH, I also think it's naive to chalk it up solely to legislative ignorance. I have no doubt that the legislators are ignorant on this point, but I think it has more to do with the fact that it is tricky for an elected representative to take a position that can be perceived in any way, shape, or form as pro-alcohol, pro-drug, pro-crime, etc. Anti-drinking groups and conservative religious groups will scream bloody murder, regardless of how sensible the position may be, and it opens them up to attack ads in future elections, e.g. "Bob Smith voted in favor of legalizing the illicit production of alcohol in people's basements and closets, which would have opened up the door to rampant underage drinking. Why does Bob Smith think elementary school kids should get wasted?" etc.
Look at how hard it has been to modify the blue laws in NYS? Until a few years ago, you couldn't buy liquor on Sunday, and in my county you couldn't even buy beer until noon on Sunday. This was New York, for cryin' out loud! (Liquor stores still have more severely restricted hours on Sundays) In this case, there was some unusual opposition that came from small liquor store operators for whom Sunday was their day off, who feared they would be driven out of business by bigger stores capable of employing more staff (and indeed, I have seen one or two stores go out of business since then, but them's the breaks... if your business can only exist because your competitors are being forced to comply with a bizarre antiquated law that fringes on being a First Amendment violation, I dunno what to tell you...). But a lot of the opposition was also from anti-drinking groups, etc.
If there had not been an anti-homebrewing law to begin with in Alabama, I'm sure none of these politicians would care. But they can't be seen to be "pro-drinking", so they have to oppose legalizing it. I'm sure ignorance plays a big role too, but the imperative of being re-elected by an ignorant and judgmental electorate tells them what their default position should be for lack of any, you know, actual knowledge of the issue.
ArcaneXor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,502
- Reaction score
- 128
Having immersed myself into this a little more thanks to the various media coverage, it seems to me as if the local community and the BA/AHA didn't or couldn't properly prepare the bill's sponsor, the bill's sponsor was poorly prepared and didn't steer the debate (which centered on children and spirits) back on topic, and the representatives seem to be dumber than stones (despite Mr. Holmes being a "college educator").
I think waiting 3-5 years until re-introducing this bill, or introducing a more restrictive bill is the only way to legalize homebrewing there given what happened this year.
I think waiting 3-5 years until re-introducing this bill, or introducing a more restrictive bill is the only way to legalize homebrewing there given what happened this year.
