AB-InBev fights to prevent HB602 from becoming law

Williams 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
coryforsenate

coryforsenate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
326
Reaction score
5
Location
College Station, TX
Why does HB602 discriminate against Breweries that produce over 75,000 barrels? Seems like a dumb restriction.Let all breweries let someone purchase beer to go.
 
iaefebs said:
Why does HB602 discriminate against Breweries that produce over 75,000 barrels? Seems like a dumb restriction.Let all breweries let someone purchase beer to go.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sounds like "small beer" lobbied for something to benefit them. Imagine that! I thought craft beer producers only cared about the "art"? ;)
 
Seriously, prohibition ended more than 70 years ago. All breweries should be able to sell to who ever they want to, wherever they want and how ever they want to, unless they are selling to minors.
 
coryforsenate- fellow aggie I presume? What year?

Also, how long have you been into homebrewing? You have a lot of beer bottled, I'm only on my 1st batch. Just got into it last month.
 
wreals said:
Seriously, prohibition ended more than 70 years ago. All breweries should be able to sell to who ever they want to, wherever they want and how ever they want to, unless they are selling to minors.
Click to expand...

Hey the little guys need to drink too!:D Seriously though this is one of the times I have to side with AB/inbev. We want the big guys to play fair and give the smaller breweries a chance, we have to be willing to do the same to them.
 
Just can't see myself making a road trip to St Louis to pick up a six pack of Bud when I can buy it anywhere. I would, however, stop into a small craft brewery to make a purchase if I were in the area.

Perhaps the small brewery, with a limited distribution network, is looking to add one more outlet to their retail chain that the big boys really don't need. Then again, what the heck, let BMC sell a six pack to people who take their tour. I can't imagine the sales will have a significant impact on their bottom line like it could at the small breweries though.
 
@ trevor b

Yeah, I'm working on my Ph.D. Bachelor's was 2008. I've been brewing for about two years. I've made a lot more beer than what's listed. If I drink all of it, I remove it from my "bottled" list.

What was the first beer you made? I've got an Oktoberfest lagering right now and will probably make an american amber next week.
 
I see this is a way for a brewery to become a "food-less brew pub." It would REALLY help small up and coming breweries. As previously stated it wouldn't have much of an effect, even if there was no limit on quantity produced, to BMC. I am sure they do not want to make it easy for anyone to get their thumb into the pie...

What is funny is that there are ways to get around all that red tape nice an neat. You can sell "brewery tours" that include "drink chips". You can tell people they can have a glass filled or turn the chip in for a bottle to take home. Funny how there does not seem to ever be anyone concerned about how many tours you are buying...at least that is how it worked last weekend!
 
Well,it was the fact that bars back in the early half of the 20th were "tied houses"-tied to whatever brewery sold them their beer. And in many cases,built the bar. So many built,in fact,that there was one bar for every 80 people on average! The bar owners had to resort to prostitution & gambling to make any money for themselves to speak of. This is what brought on prohibition.
Now,the breweries want to go back to selling directly to the public. Just don't own the bar anymore. Sounds like the same old song & dance to me. The laws repealing prohibition stated that the breweries could no longer sell directly to the public so the hookers & gambling wouldn't be used by the bar owners to make any money. They saw that that caused the social problems to start with.
We better be careful that this new law doesn't send us into a backward spiral by giving breweries there old rights back.
 
coryforsenate said:
HB602 is a bill which lets small, up and coming breweries let people take home beer from the brewery. A brewery qualifies for this if they produce less than 75,000 barrels a year. Obviously, AB-InBev doesn't meet this requirement.

http://blog.chron.com/beertx/2011/05/ab-inbev-gives-hb602-a-case-of-the-hiccups/



With the sting from Goose Island still fresh, how do y'all feel about this?
Click to expand...

did you actually read it?

“We’re not against the smaller guys having the right to do that,” he said, adding that AB-InBev would simply like the same option should the brewery decide to offer regular tours.
Click to expand...

what sting from goose island??
 
I think more blame goes to the State Senators. Inbev is a business protecting there bottom line. I don't agree how they go about protecting there profits but they have that right to do it. Now the senators on the other hand are meant to represent the people and not the large corporations.

I saw this on another blog and people went on and on about inbev. Ok..... But where is the blame for the elected Senators?

I guess beer wars needs to be watched again by more people other then home brewers.

Just my opinion....
 
Airborneguy said:
Exactly. Sounds like "small beer" lobbied for something to benefit them. Imagine that! I thought craft beer producers only cared about the "art"? ;)
Click to expand...

This is from another article about the same thing. It appears to me that the bill was set up to fail to begin with. Small brewers were not pushing for barrell limit until the distributors got involved.

"But here is where it gets delicious. Small brewers were encouraged to add a brewery output stipulation to the bill by the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas. Ostensibly, as Keith Strama, an attorney for the suds lobby, told the committee, 'The bill was designed to promote local breweries as they gain market share'.”

Here's the link to the other article if anyone is interested.
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2011/0...s-bill-in-texas-legislature/1305140275.column
 
Wait...so I can buy a growler of beer from a brewpub. And I can buy a "tour" with free bottle of beer from a small brewery. But I can't buy a beer from a brewery.

That pretty much it?

All this nonsense about prohibition and prostitution (seriously dude, it's not 1918 anymore) , and with strong consideration for temperance and minority drinking, why would anyone oppose this?

Talk to me like I'm 4 years old so I can understand it.

Thanks and tip one back for "small" <ahem, 75K BBL, ahem> producers!
 
I basically thought that this would be the beginning of more new laws that would slowly get rid of the "middle man" over the course of time. It just looks like a step for the big breweries to take advantage of laws designed to help the little guy.
 
Huh? Every brewery I've been too, let me take beer home. That's half the point of their free tasting, is to sell you some beer.
 
unionrdr said:
It just looks like a step for the big breweries to take advantage of laws designed to help the little guy.
Click to expand...

That is exactley what I was thinking. I can also see the big guy's point though. We, as beer lovers, enjoy fresh beer. Where do you, hopefully, get the freshest beers? At the brewery. I'm sure Joe Regulardrinker will want to get a fresh Bud Light in St. Louis or a fresh Miller Lite in Milwaukee. I don't think that would cut out the middle men (distributors) so long as it's limited to a six pack or two person.
 
unionrdr said:
Well,it was the fact that bars back in the early half of the 20th were "tied houses"-tied to whatever brewery sold them their beer. And in many cases,built the bar. So many built,in fact,that there was one bar for every 80 people on average! The bar owners had to resort to prostitution & gambling to make any money for themselves to speak of. This is what brought on prohibition.
Now,the breweries want to go back to selling directly to the public. Just don't own the bar anymore. Sounds like the same old song & dance to me. The laws repealing prohibition stated that the breweries could no longer sell directly to the public so the hookers & gambling wouldn't be used by the bar owners to make any money. They saw that that caused the social problems to start with.
We better be careful that this new law doesn't send us into a backward spiral by giving breweries there old rights back.
Click to expand...

Why are you paying attention to the stated reasons of prohibition? The opponents of prohibition had the end result in mind already (ban alcohol), and they would say anything, true or not, to get that.

Are you telling me you really think bars will start offering gambling and prostitution again to get customers if we allowed voluntary association between alcohol producers and consumers (not that there is anything wrong with gambling or prostitution).
 
iaefebs said:
Why does HB602 discriminate against Breweries that produce over 75,000 barrels? Seems like a dumb restriction.Let all breweries let someone purchase beer to go.
Click to expand...


True! Texas has a weird, weird distribution system. I love that state, but feck, what stupid distro laws.
 
DrawTap88 said:
That is exactley what I was thinking. I can also see the big guy's point though. We, as beer lovers, enjoy fresh beer. Where do you, hopefully, get the freshest beers? At the brewery. I'm sure Joe Regulardrinker will want to get a fresh Bud Light in St. Louis or a fresh Miller Lite in Milwaukee. I don't think that would cut out the middle men (distributors) so long as it's limited to a six pack or two person.
Click to expand...

you can certainly do this in milwaukee. beer is free on every tour i've been to in wisconsin.
 
The ''discriminatory" 75K bbl. part of the legislation is the flaw -perhaps intentional- that lets the big brewers, who are not included, in the door to protest (and possibly kill) the bill.

It will be worth following to see what happens. Easily fixed, just remove the quantity restriction. But will it be fixed, or was the intention all along to write legislation that couldn't be passed in that form, not amend it, and just let it die at some point in the legislative process.

{NB The following is either analogous, or :off:, depending on your view, so read at your own risk} The Illinois General Assembly just failed to pass a CCW (carry concealed weapon) bill last week, and IMHO the proposed legislation (HB148) was per the argument above- a piece of nonsense that nobody could like. I want CCW here, but don't believe I would have voted for that thing.
 
rico567 said:
The ''discriminatory" 75K bbl. part of the legislation is the flaw -perhaps intentional- that lets the big brewers, who are not included, in the door to protest (and possibly kill) the bill.
Click to expand...
rico567 said:
It will be worth following to see what happens. Easily fixed, just remove the quantity restriction. But will it be fixed, or was the intention all along to write legislation that couldn't be passed in that form, not amend it, and just let it die at some point in the legislative process.

{NB The following is either analogous, or :off:, depending on your view, so read at your own risk} The Illinois General Assembly just failed to pass a CCW (carry concealed weapon) bill last week, and IMHO the proposed legislation (HB148) was per the argument above- a piece of nonsense that nobody could like. I want CCW here, but don't believe I would have voted for that thing.
Click to expand...

Bingo. It was not "perhaps intentional". It was intentional.
 
RIT_Warrior said:
Why are you paying attention to the stated reasons of prohibition? The opponents of prohibition had the end result in mind already (ban alcohol), and they would say anything, true or not, to get that.

Are you telling me you really think bars will start offering gambling and prostitution again to get customers if we allowed voluntary association between alcohol producers and consumers (not that there is anything wrong with gambling or prostitution).
Click to expand...

I was stating the historical facts of what being a bar owner was like when they were "tied house". The brewery OWNED YOU. You,as the bar owner,didn't make much money as a result of that,& way to many "tied houses". If the breweries can directly sell you all the beer you want,then far fewer bars,etc,if you can get it fresh. I'm not saying they will again at all. But,as often is proven with greedy humans,history repeats itself. Don't tell me you didn't get that from what has been said? That kind of thing is another reason Spitzer couldn't get his casino over in the old Lorain Port Authority he bought. The horse race track owners played up that angle,& people believed it to start with. I'm just saying that if you let them start selling directly to the public on a larger scale (which the repeal of prohibition law made illegal),then they'll want more laws changed to suit there greedy whims. Just leveling the playing field would be better,with caution.:mug:
 
unionrdr said:
I was stating the historical facts of what being a bar owner was like when they were "tied house". The brewery OWNED YOU. You,as the bar owner,didn't make much money as a result of that,& way to many "tied houses". If the breweries can directly sell you all the beer you want,then far fewer bars,etc,if you can get it fresh. I'm not saying they will again at all. But,as often is proven with greedy humans,history repeats itself. Don't tell me you didn't get that from what has been said? That kind of thing is another reason Spitzer couldn't get his casino over in the old Lorain Port Authority he bought. The horse race track owners played up that angle,& people believed it to start with. I'm just saying that if you let them start selling directly to the public on a larger scale (which the repeal of prohibition law made illegal),then they'll want more laws changed to suit there greedy whims. Just leveling the playing field would be better,with caution.:mug:
Click to expand...

I know that "tied houses" existed, and they might exist again were the 3-tier system revoked, but I don't see how some bars being "tied houses" is worse then all wholesalers being "tied wholesalers" who are bought and paid for by AB and SABMiller. A "tied house" can keep a beer off its premises. A wholesaler can keep a company out of its entire region if it wants to, and they do.

If the 3-tier system is good for craft brewers, why would craft brewers be fighting it? Are the craft brewers too dumb to know what is good for themselves? Why is AB-Inbev and SABMiller fighting to keep it? Are they too dumb to know what is good for themselves?
 
RIT_Warrior said:
I know that "tied houses" existed, and they might exist again were the 3-tier system revoked, but I don't see how some bars being "tied houses" is worse then all wholesalers being "tied wholesalers" who are bought and paid for by AB and SABMiller. A "tied house" can keep a beer off its premises. A wholesaler can keep a company out of its entire region if it wants to, and they do.

If the 3-tier system is good for craft brewers, why would craft brewers be fighting it? Are the craft brewers too dumb to know what is good for themselves? Why is AB-Inbev and SABMiller fighting to keep it? Are they too dumb to know what is good for themselves?
Click to expand...

That's why I gave the opinions I did. Not to start an argument,but rather,to get folks to think about what happened last time. And hating to think of what new modifications they could come up with to get it to go around a second time in some new form. Hence,my comment that some caution is need to make these sort of laws a bit more "greed proof". Only then can the playing field be a bit more level. Maybe do like Teddy Roosevelt did,& strictly enforce monopoly laws. Beatrice & AB & saab/miller come to mind. What they're doing is supposed to be against our fundamental laws. They say,"oh nonono,they're just selling us their business!". I say,"that's monopolizing! Sorry,fugetaboutit". There has to be a better way to do this...
 
What I think uniondr is getting at is that NO brewery, no matter how big or how small, should be able to own part of a distributorship or a bar (outside of a tasteing room at the brewery). But, that again, brings into questions self distribution rights since the self distributor is in essence a distributor.
 
coryforsenate said:
@ trevor b

Yeah, I'm working on my Ph.D. Bachelor's was 2008. I've been brewing for about two years. I've made a lot more beer than what's listed. If I drink all of it, I remove it from my "bottled" list.

What was the first beer you made? I've got an Oktoberfest lagering right now and will probably make an american amber next week.
Click to expand...

My first beer is an English Pale Ale, it should be ready to bottle this weekend. I plan to brew a lot more once I graduate (Friday) and land a decent job.
 
If someone wants to go to a brewery, regardless of the brewery's size, and buy beer straight from them, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so so long as the brewery is willing to sell it? That's all that should matter. If I want to buy beer and they have beer they're willing to sell to me, what does it matter how big the brewery is?
 
DrawTap88 said:
What I think uniondr is getting at is that NO brewery, no matter how big or how small, should be able to own part of a distributorship or a bar (outside of a tasteing room at the brewery). But, that again, brings into questions self distribution rights since the self distributor is in essence a distributor.
Click to expand...

Bingo! yahtzee! Whaada we have for him,Johnny? lolz. The law basically states that. You can't be a distributor & brewery at the same time. They want to sneak that back in a new way. Whatever form that may take...:confused:
 
I don't see where a "smaller" brewery could benefit or not over allowing people the ability to take home beer from the brewery? If the brewery makes good beer then people will buy it where it is available! Samples from a tour is the way to draw the crowd and hook them to your product!

If the volume of beer being purchased by tourists can affect the overall sales then it would seem this bill is more closely linked to distributors and not the "macro" breweries!
I agree that any brewery no matter how big or small should have the right to sell their product directly from the brewery. As long as taxes are being paid and legal age is being enforced, what is the big deal??

If the distributors get hurt because of it then too bad they make enough money anyway, I know, we have a distributor in the family and they are doing just fine!

Let them all sell direct, there will still be plenty of business for the distributors!
 
eddie said:
If someone wants to go to a brewery, regardless of the brewery's size, and buy beer straight from them, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so so long as the brewery is willing to sell it? That's all that should matter. If I want to buy beer and they have beer they're willing to sell to me, what does it matter how big the brewery is?
Click to expand...
Because it's against the law that brought beer back. I've said that a couple of times already. Read.
KevinW said:
I don't see where a "smaller" brewery could benefit or not over allowing people the ability to take home beer from the brewery? If the brewery makes good beer then people will buy it where it is available! Samples from a tour is the way to draw the crowd and hook them to your product!

If the volume of beer being purchased by tourists can affect the overall sales then it would seem this bill is more closely linked to distributors and not the "macro" breweries!
I agree that any brewery no matter how big or small should have the right to sell their product directly from the brewery. As long as taxes are being paid and legal age is being enforced, what is the big deal??

If the distributors get hurt because of it then too bad they make enough money anyway, I know, we have a distributor in the family and they are doing just fine!

Let them all sell direct, there will still be plenty of business for the distributors!
Click to expand...
It's not the distributors causing it. Distributorships were created by the law that gave back our beer. Giving it back to the brewers is just like saying,"hey! Let's give all the rights back to the brewer! We want the old BS problems back!". It's all checks & balances. "But I don't understand. Why can't I just go to the brewer & get my beer?"...Sheeze,folks,read & study...
 
unionrdr said:
That's why I gave the opinions I did. Not to start an argument,but rather,to get folks to think about what happened last time. And hating to think of what new modifications they could come up with to get it to go around a second time in some new form. Hence,my comment that some caution is need to make these sort of laws a bit more "greed proof". Only then can the playing field be a bit more level. Maybe do like Teddy Roosevelt did,& strictly enforce monopoly laws. Beatrice & AB & saab/miller come to mind. What they're doing is supposed to be against our fundamental laws. They say,"oh nonono,they're just selling us their business!". I say,"that's monopolizing! Sorry,fugetaboutit". There has to be a better way to do this...
Click to expand...

Well I still haven't heard anything that happened "last time" that even approaches what happens right now in terms of screwing consumers. So AB owns a bar and only sells AB stuff. So what? Go to another bar. If I don't like the products a bar sells I'll go somewhere else. Compare this to what happens right now: wholesalers can and do block entire companies from entering their region.

Changing the laws would be simple if anyone wanted to do it: just repeal any law dealing with freedom of association and contract involving alcohol. No thought required, no way to game the system.

DrawTap88 said:
What I think uniondr is getting at is that NO brewery, no matter how big or how small, should be able to own part of a distributorship or a bar (outside of a tasteing room at the brewery). But, that again, brings into questions self distribution rights since the self distributor is in essence a distributor.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they? Who is authorized to make the decision on what a brewery can and can't sell besides the brewery itself? I just don't see what the big deal is with letting them self-distribute.
 
unionrdr said:
Because it's against the law that brought beer back. I've said that a couple of times already. Read.

It's not the distributors causing it. Distributorships were created by the law that gave back our beer. Giving it back to the brewers is just like saying,"hey! Let's give all the rights back to the brewer! We want the old BS problems back!". It's all checks & balances. "But I don't understand. Why can't I just go to the brewer & get my beer?"...Sheeze,folks,read & study...
Click to expand...



I think you're the one that needs to read/study. You're applying ancient laws and problems in today's society. Doesnt make any sense.

You need to go read & study, what Margaret Thatcher did to the English beer industry, and then come back and have a legitimate discussion about it without being condescending and rude.
 

Similar threads

beernerds
BREAKING: Anheuser-Busch InBev in final talks to buy a Texas Brewery
Replies
18
Views
2K
Lutter
Lutter
gregkoko
AB-InBev to Purchase Blue Point
Replies
11
Views
1K
jaIsPoAn
jaIsPoAn
M
  • Article
Do We Really Care Who Makes Our Beer?
Replies
12
Views
1K
MaddBaggins
MaddBaggins
C
  • Article
Trends in Beer
Replies
25
Views
1K
frettfreak
F
thedude00
About AB InBev trying to take over beer
Replies
34
Views
6K
Stand
Stand

Latest posts

Back
Top