AB-InBev fights to prevent HB602 from becoming law

RIT_Warrior said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1 I couldn't agree more.

Only people I can see getting hurt by this are the distributors but that is their problem...markets evolve. Major beer distributors have had a monopoly for long enough.

there's no way AB can use this to get around distros.

as I've said before they already do this, although obviously not in texas. you get free beer on the miller tour. i can buy lakefront beers right from the brewery. 6ers and bombers, not just taps.

unionrdr said:

boy,you guys are unbelievable. Those "antiquated" laws are what makes this country what it is,& people that don't care,as long as they get what they want,don't care what the government & their controlling corporations do. This is how history repeats itself. Go back & learn,then you can talk to me. You wanna talk poi-sci,or just win an argument? I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? Oh.man...You need to grow up,& stop arguing for something that'll hurt in the long run.

Click to expand...

Well please, unionrdr, paragon among brewing historians, shower us with your wisdom. All I ask is negative consequences that will arise if we demolish the 3-tier system, as I still haven't heard any. Do I ask too much?

Why would InBev do this?

unionrdr said:

boy,you guys are unbelievable. Those "antiquated" laws are what makes this country what it is,& people that don't care,as long as they get what they want,don't care what the government & their controlling corporations do. This is how history repeats itself. Go back & learn,then you can talk to me. You wanna talk poi-sci,or just win an argument? I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? Oh.man...You need to grow up,& stop arguing for something that'll hurt in the long run.

Click to expand...

1. Who called you stupid?

2. Our antiquidated laws, have the ability to be changed. This is how prohibition was started, and repealed in the 1st place.

3. Go back and learn what? Is that your answer to everyone who disagrees with you. Why don't you englighten us?

Why don't you respond to other comments, such as how introducing distributors in the English market ruined the beer market for the consumers and created beer oligopolies. The smaller breweries shut down and became pubs instead, because that was more profitable for them. In the end, the consumers lost out as there were only a handful of breweries left.

So if you want BMC dominating the beer market, then continue to support stupid laws while you tell everyone else to read. Here's a thought, why don't you aleast share withe everyone what they should read.

“We’re proud to brew beer in Texas and we’re proud of what we brew,” Bordas reiterated after his appearance before the Senate Business and Commerce Committee.

Apparentaly he has never sample their fine product...

doctorRobert said:

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.

Click to expand...

Right here,you didn't have to express it literally to say it figuratively. So far as the US is concerned,imo,he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it. I still say that,looking at history,the breweries,that came before distributors,had too much power to govern what you were getting at a given bar. You'd be all over town,depending on what beer you wanted back then. Wanna do it again? Not mention,more lost jobs by getting rid of distributorships. Look,all I'm saying is to be sure we do it right,before more lives are ruined. I'm done...

Did anyone here even read HB602??? (attached below) The whole amendment is only to distribute enclosed bottles to someone who has gone on a tour. It appears to have NOTHING to do with self distributing to bars, distributing to a bar owned by a brewery, or impacting distribution. This is why AB only objects to the size limit. People aren't even allowed to "purchase" beer. It has to be part of the tour package. So that alone negates about 90% of the comments in this thread related to HB602. Am I missing something?!?!?!

Sec. 62.15. TOUR OF LICENSED PREMISES. (a) The holder of a
manufacturer's license may give tours of the manufacturer's
premises and may charge an admission fee for the tour.
(b) The holder of a manufacturer's license may, at the end
of a tour of the manufacturer's premises, give beer or ale to tour
participants in unbroken packages for off-premises consumption
without an additional charge.
(c) The total amount of beer a tour participant may receive
in a single day under this section, together with the amount of ale
the tour participant receives under Section 12.07 at the same
premises, may not exceed 48 12-ounce bottles.
(d) This section does not authorize the holder of a
manufacturer's license to sell beer to an ultimate consumer.

for the most part all of your opinions are stupid (<--- that is my opinion )

there is no happy medium.

big corporations use government to stifle their competetion. the solution is to repeal all regulation and let the free market decide how it should work. Someone back there mentioned Freedom of Association and Contract laws - that's it. everything else is BS we were talked into agreeing with.

the real problem is that to even be involved the in the industry you have to pay your cut to the governement for a "license" to do something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place and once you do, that same governemnt has already made a deal with a bigger company to limit the way you run your business to the benefit of themselves and with the 3-tier system the government makes money at each tier as well as off the consumers and business that violate these laws. pretty good deal, right?

not only that but as consumers our market options are vastly reduced by unfair competition. who would be buying BMC if craft beer was the same price because they had a level playing field? uhhh no one. you'd be buying awesome beer from the guy down the steet for about $1 a beer. THAT is the free market.

this "news" was reported back in February http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-02-25/legeland-brew-the-looking-glass/

also, who ever said the real blame lies with the representatives who are introducing and passing this legislation is 100% correct. any law can be repealed if enough lazy mofos learn what their rights are, how the system works, and take action. this OUR own fault - we did nothing when they introduced it, nothing when they passed it, and still haven't done anything to date. this is what you want? this is what you get. Liberty is not given, it is taken.

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.Thomas Jefferson

doctorRobert said:

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.

Click to expand...

...which is against the law in Texas. Hence HB602.

Chemkrafty said:

Did anyone here even read HB602??? (attached below) The whole amendment is only to distribute enclosed bottles to someone who has gone on a tour. It appears to have NOTHING to do with self distributing to bars, distributing to a bar owned by a brewery, or impacting distribution. This is why AB only objects to the size limit. People aren't even allowed to "purchase" beer. It has to be part of the tour package. So that alone negates about 90% of the comments in this thread related to HB602. Am I missing something?!?!?!

Sec. 62.15. TOUR OF LICENSED PREMISES. (a) The holder of a
manufacturer's license may give tours of the manufacturer's
premises and may charge an admission fee for the tour.
(b) The holder of a manufacturer's license may, at the end
of a tour of the manufacturer's premises, give beer or ale to tour
participants in unbroken packages for off-premises consumption
without an additional charge.
(c) The total amount of beer a tour participant may receive
in a single day under this section, together with the amount of ale
the tour participant receives under Section 12.07 at the same
premises, may not exceed 48 12-ounce bottles.
(d) This section does not authorize the holder of a
manufacturer's license to sell beer to an ultimate consumer.

Click to expand...

people just like to argue and not know all the facts. there were actually 2 Bills being debated- 602 and 660. the article i linked to in my post above sums it up quite nicely:

"The bills are mirror images of each other: Microbrewers (small brewers who do nothing but make beer) want the right to sell their products directly to drinkers on the premises of their breweries. Meanwhile, brewpubs (restaurants and bars that make their own beer) want the ability to sell their brews off-premises."

brewpubs can't sell their product in-State, or would have to move out of texas to sell it in texas staores. THAT is crony capitalism.

One giant step for small brewers (in texas), one small leap for beer kind

unionrdr said:

Right here,you didn't have to express it literally to say it figuratively. So far as the US is concerned,imo,he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it. I still say that,looking at history,the breweries,that came before distributors,had too much power to govern what you were getting at a given bar. You'd be all over town,depending on what beer you wanted back then. Wanna do it again? Not mention,more lost jobs by getting rid of distributorships. Look,all I'm saying is to be sure we do it right,before more lives are ruined. I'm done...

Click to expand...

Or, as has been said, you could go to a different bar. There are plenty of bars right now that only serve BMC. I don't give them my business. If a bar wants my business, they have to sell products I like. Actually, this is true of every place of retail I visit. I'm not sure I get why this has to be complicated.

As for lost jobs, isn't that a good thing? If distributors lose jobs because brewers are no longer forced to utilize their services, that means we were paying people's salaries (through increased cost of beer) that were not doing anything useful before. This will free up those individuals to do something useful, while giving us cheaper beer.

If you think having people do useless activities to "create jobs" is good, you should immediately demand a 100 tier system, where the brews will have to go through 98 middlemen before they hit the consumer's fridge. This would create millions of jobs, would it not?

Beer still needs to be distributed. No jobs would be lost, perhaps actually created as micros would hire people to distribute their beer.

Again, go study the history of english beer and what Thatcher did. Much more relevant in this arguement than factless conjecture on why the 3 tier system was established.

Anyone know a tour that provides 48 x 12 oz of beer? I'm interested.

Shouldnt we be celebrating the fact that micro and craft breweries are making headway in another state?

Hey - the good news is we are all so lucky to have a government that likes to protect us. I am not sure what from, but thank the lord they're there.

Don't even get me started on ass backwards laws regarding beer/alcohol. I have lived in TX, Alaska, Illinois, and now reside in (J)oklahoma. This place takes the cake on antiquated laws.

My opinion on this article is: like we need another place to buy ****ty beer. They already own 85% of the shelf space (if not more), do we really need another outlet for InBev? If you can't innovate, litigate.