Alabama Homebrew Legislation 2013

Yeah, another example would be a guy with two 5-gal kegs in his kegerator, two 5-plus-gal batches of wine in secondary, a 5-gal batch of Apfelwein bulk aging, 5 gals of RIS and 4 of barleywine fermenting, 3 gals of mead nearly ready to bottle, and dozens of bottles of wine, mead and beer of various ages. Guy typically drinks 1-to-2 per day, typically.

This hypothetical guy would be in violation under even the proposed AL legalization bill, but at least he'd only be under misdemeanor threat instead of felony.

Well done, MS. Here's hoping you set an example we can follow here.

-Rich

What are the limits on amounts that are being proposed? And is beer still in the fermenter/carboy counted as a finished product?

That's crazy! Good on your rep! You can buy beer legally from huge corporations but you can't make it for yourself at home??! Ludicrous.

BamaProud said:

What are the limits on amounts that are being proposed? And is beer still in the fermenter/carboy counted as a finished product?

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the limit is 15 gallons per calendar quarter. Well below the national standard, but hey, that's how we like it in Alabama. At least it is better than the current limit.

That is in any stage...fermenting, bottled, aging, etc.

Wow 15 gals...yea that isn't much.
you couldn't drink 1 homebrew per day.

MTate37 said:

If I remember correctly the limit is 15 gallons per calendar quarter. Well below the national standard, but hey, that's how we like it in Alabama. At least it is better than the current limit.

That is in any stage...fermenting, bottled, aging, etc.

Click to expand...

You remember correct.

The current bill would limit POSSESSION to 15 gallons at any 1 time and would limit PRODUCTION to 15 gallons per quarter.

Yes, that is well below the federal limits. In the many years of working the bill, there have been some compromises made in an attempt to get it passed. The bill this year, both HB9 and SB171, are identical to the bill that passed the House last year.

What are you hearing, Huff? Are we going to get a vote?

We have a bill that the beer distributors and the ABC board signed off on. We get that passed first, so we aren't practicing felons, then we can work on reducing limits in the coming years.

CGVT said:

What are you hearing, Huff? Are we going to get a vote?

Click to expand...

Mac continues to say "Be patient"

At this point, it is a huge timing issue. With all the recent stalling by the Dems as payback for the Flex Bill, we don't want to waste our chances of getting on the SOC on days where we know we won't make it to the floor. So it's kinda up to Mac to judge when is the right time to place it on the SOC.

Continue to drum up support where you can. Ask your friends who like your beer to call their Legislators. If you facebook, make a post about it. Let folks know. If you use twitter, get to tweeting! Write an editorial and send it to your local paper and tv station. The news outlets have been very receptive of Right to Brew articles. If you don't want to quote yourself or offer yourself as a contact person, get in touch with the guys at http://www.alahomebrewing.org/contact-us and they can provide info!

Vman said:

That's crazy! Good on your rep! You can buy beer legally from huge corporations but you can't make it for yourself at home??! Ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Let me apologize in advance if I misssed this. I've been trying to keep up on this thread, but will admit, I haven't seen every page.

This made me wonder, does any of the anti-bill sentiment have to do with people worrying about lost taxes?

I'm sure it's not a dent that anyone would realy notice, but Illinois has definitely lost alcohol tax revenue from me, once I started homebrewing. I wonder if anyone put together numbers on lost revenue, via estimated increase in sudden jump to homebrewing, once it were legalized.

Clonefan94 said:

Let me apologize in advance if I misssed this. I've been trying to keep up on this thread, but will admit, I haven't seen every page.

This made me wonder, does any of the anti-bill sentiment have to do with people worrying about lost taxes?

I'm sure it's not a dent that anyone would realy notice, but Illinois has definitely lost alcohol tax revenue from me, once I started homebrewing. I wonder if anyone put together numbers on lost revenue, via estimated increase in sudden jump to homebrewing, once it were legalized.

Click to expand...

Not really. The opposition is almost 100% based in morality. As in, brewing beer in our homes will lead to increased alcoholism and plus, beer is just plain evil.

someone did mention taxes in mississippis debate but really I feel like you pay just as much or more considering you pay taxes on all ingredients, equipment(but just once) and fuel source be it electricity or propane. you could save there by farming yeast and trees for fuel I suppose...

Quick question, everyone is saying that the proposed bills would limit possession of home brew to only 15 gallons? The language of the bill only specifically mentions a production limit (which admittedly would be difficult to enforce). Is everyone just assuming the same interpretation of the law?

jhoneycutt said:

someone did mention taxes in mississippis debate but really I feel like you pay just as much or more considering you pay taxes on all ingredients, equipment(but just once) and fuel source be it electricity or propane. you could save there by farming yeast and trees for fuel I suppose...

Click to expand...

Just wondering. I know in Illinois the beer tax is pretty big. 23 cents/gallon. Yeah, I pay the normal sales tax on equipment, but grains are taxed as food, so that's less than normal sales tax, which buying a keg, I'd pay the full 10%ish sales tax, plus the $3.50 beer excise tax on 15.5 gallons. Considering I brew on average twice a month, the tax they are losing is adding up. And since our state is all up in arms about their crap situation with funds, it just made me think about it. I have a feeling if this debate were happening in Illinois right now, taxes would be at the forefront.

I do understand though that morality trumps all when it comes to the alcohol debate, especially in the south. so that makes sense. Obviously, morality isn't a big deal with politicians in Illinois.

GulfBrewMD said:

Quick question, everyone is saying that the proposed bills would limit possession of home brew to only 15 gallons? The language of the bill only specifically mentions a production limit (which admittedly would be difficult to enforce). Is everyone just assuming the same interpretation of the law?

Click to expand...

There were some problems with HB9 when it was originally assigned back prior to the session. They pulled the wrong bill.

Take a look at SB171 Here

That is the actual bill that is being worked. The text of HB9 as posted on the Legislature Website is not correct.

Clonefan94 said:

Just wondering. I know in Illinois the beer tax is pretty big. 23 cents/gallon. Yeah, I pay the normal sales tax on equipment, but grains are taxed as food, so that's less than normal sales tax, which buying a keg, I'd pay the full 10%ish sales tax, plus the $3.50 beer excise tax on 15.5 gallons. Considering I brew on average twice a month, the tax they are losing is adding up. And since our state is all up in arms about their crap situation with funds, it just made me think about it. I have a feeling if this debate were happening in Illinois right now, taxes would be at the forefront.

I do understand though that morality trumps all when it comes to the alcohol debate, especially in the south. so that makes sense. Obviously, morality isn't a big deal with politicians in Illinois.

Click to expand...

geez. I feel like I've heard somewhere the beer tax here is something like .24 per 12ounce beer. just hearsay though never bothered to really care. I just know no matter what my tax dollars are never spent how I want them to be.

That clears up my confusion. Thanks huff.

Clonefan94 said:

Just wondering. I know in Illinois the beer tax is pretty big. 23 cents/gallon. Yeah, I pay the normal sales tax on equipment, but grains are taxed as food, so that's less than normal sales tax, which buying a keg, I'd pay the full 10%ish sales tax, plus the $3.50 beer excise tax on 15.5 gallons. Considering I brew on average twice a month, the tax they are losing is adding up. And since our state is all up in arms about their crap situation with funds, it just made me think about it. I have a feeling if this debate were happening in Illinois right now, taxes would be at the forefront.

I do understand though that morality trumps all when it comes to the alcohol debate, especially in the south. so that makes sense. Obviously, morality isn't a big deal with politicians in Illinois.

Click to expand...

Food is taxed the same as any other good in our backward state, so not as big of a concern here.

Also, for the record, politicians only care about morality when it applies to other people (or helps them win votes).

Huff360 said:

Mac continues to say "Be patient"

At this point, it is a huge timing issue. With all the recent stalling by the Dems as payback for the Flex Bill, we don't want to waste our chances of getting on the SOC on days where we know we won't make it to the floor. So it's kinda up to Mac to judge when is the right time to place it on the SOC.

Click to expand...

I have felt like that is what was going on. I trust Mac.

Anyone got any news for this week yet?

What about progress on the Senate version of the bill? Any luck there?

Typical ridiculous hillbilly Alabama politics. As usual.

The party in power ALWAYS rams its bills through (Obamacare, anyone?). That's the nature of having an unblockable majority. Pouting about it and refusing to do your job should ensure that you are defeated come election season.

Sadly, most are so ignorant of what goes on that this kind of shennanigans goes on pretty much unchecked.

This sounds good...

@AlaHomebrewing: Thanks @billholtzclaw for calling into the Rocket City Brewers meeting tonight!

homebrewdad said:

Food is taxed the same as any other good in our backward state, so not as big of a concern here.

Also, for the record, politicians only care about morality when it applies to other people (or helps them win votes).

Click to expand...

As I said, in Illinois. Morality is the last concern of our politicians. So, I was just asking.

alestateyall said:

This sounds good...

@AlaHomebrewing: Thanks @billholtzclaw for calling into the Rocket City Brewers meeting tonight!

Click to expand...

A little info on the call -

http://www.district2.us/1/post/2013/03/day-12-of-the-2013-session-from-budgets-to-homebrew.html

Huff360 said:

A little info on the call -

http://www.district2.us/1/post/2013/03/day-12-of-the-2013-session-from-budgets-to-homebrew.html

Click to expand...

That was an interesting read. I like Holzclaw more every time I learn more about him.

Even though it'll be a while before this sees a vote, I got a reply from Rep. Steve Clouse saying that he plans on supporting the bill as it is written. Take that however you want, but I'm leaning towards a positive thing.

Not on the special order today.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/mobile_county_prosecutor_disci.html

Even public officials in Alabama homebrew. It's time to get this bill passed!

LOL From the comments:


synic65
We dare defend our rights to be a national laughingstock.

Long-time listener, first-time caller. A lot of our problem is jackweeds like this:

http://www.myfoxal.com/category/240204/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8643969

ALCAP's whole stance is weak.
All I see is a bunch of folks who are on the losing end and the only defense they have is the "it's about the kids" argument. They don't have a real world reason other than "it's alcohol". They are protecting the children.
Too bad this, so called, Christian isn't telling lies and half truths to try and make a point. He doesn't want kids to be exposed to alcohol but he doesn't mind showing them how to lie and twist the truth to get their way.

Coincidentally I heard the same line applied to another nameless religious group on the radio when I went to grab lunch yesterday.

tikibruno said:

Long-time listener, first-time caller. A lot of our problem is jackweeds like this:

http://www.myfoxal.com/category/240204/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8643969

Click to expand...

Excellent spot. That's the first I have seen of that one. Seems like the interviewer was pretty tilted in our favor.

I didn't think Mac did as good a job on that one as he usually does. The "Who is going to enforce the limits" question is a good one for the other side and tough to answer.

From their point of view, the people that will make sure that the limits are not exceeded are the homebrewers themselves, and if they are homebrewing now, they are already breaking the law. What would make them follow the new law if they are breaking the old law?

I think our side has done a pretty good job in selling this as a personal freedom issue, and those that are against alcohol in any capacity (ALCAP) will never buy in to it.

Hopefully we have turned enough heads on this. Now if it could just get to a vote.

And it's official, we are the one and only state left where its completely illegal and not at least gonna be legal shortly....

The representative from ALCAP's argument was mediocre at best but frankly after the point where he stated they oppose it JUST BECAUSE it pertains to Alcohol eliminated any validity in his argument from the getgo. Additionally, am I to believe that the man never speeds or breaks any other law? Right now the law in question has not been challenged in court, at least not in recent years. Using Louisiana as an example, homebrewing is recognized as legal because it went to court and the court said it was reasonable and didn't violate federal law and was (at least in part) an invalid application of said law. (I'm going to restrain repeating my father's stated experience with the ALCAP guy (He was forced to work with him in the past) as it doesn't belong here suffice to say the word "Hypocrite" and "Self Righteous" came up quickly and my father is rather anti-alcohol.) Mac's wasn't the best comeback admittedly and I wish he had made it more clear to the general public that might have been watching.

With that in mind, per some of the interpretations I've read of the law that make it "illegal" in Alabama to brew it would make every pot in the ALCAP guy's kitchen (among other things to include fun things like coffee pots...) illegal as well. Would they ever enforce it that way? No, of course not unless they wanted to harass and let's face it... There are more than a few examples of Alabama law being used to harass people be it righteous or otherwise even in the recent past.

CGVT said:

I didn't think Mac did as good a job on that one as he usually does. The "Who is going to enforce the limits" question is a good one for the other side and tough to answer.

From their point of view, the people that will make sure that the limits are not exceeded are the homebrewers themselves, and if they are homebrewing now, they are already breaking the law. What would make them follow the new law if they are breaking the old law?

Click to expand...

The "who is going to enforce the limits" question should be an argument not to have such limits. While this law has been a felony with a limit of zero, there has been no interest in enforcing it, so why would there be an interest in enforcing the limits after the current bill becomes law? Indeed, a classic argument against retaining any law has always been the lack of ability or will to enforce it. Having laws which are either not enforced or only rarely enforced creates great unfairness, with special bias against exactly those people who least deserve it.

What limits are really about (at least most other places) is to have some kind of marker which makes it easy to get evidence of an unlicensed commercial operation, not to keep people from getting too much alcohol. "Temperance" seems to be the idea behind our limits, but this is stupid since alcohol is more easily and cheaply obtained without brewing it.

Thus, all ALCAP can accomplish by eliminating homebrewing is seeing to it that commercial brewers are as wealthy as possible. A question with which ALCAP should be confronted is "Are you just trying to make sure that any alcohol consumption which takes place also makes someone wealthy and, if not, then why are you against homebrewing?" Of course, the answer has already been given, though not in a public interview in the following words: "We wish to bring in full prohibition." What they have said--"We oppose all laws favorable to alcohol"--implies it.

Orthobrewsky said:

The "who is going to enforce the limits" question should be an argument not to have such limits. While this law has been a felony with a limit of zero, there has been no interest in enforcing it, so why would there be an interest in enforcing the limits after the current bill becomes law? Indeed, a classic argument against retaining any law has always been the lack of ability or will to enforce it. Having laws which are either not enforced or only rarely enforced creates great unfairness, with special bias against exactly those people who least deserve it.

What limits are really about (at least most other places) is to have some kind of marker which makes it easy to get evidence of an unlicensed commercial operation, not to keep people from getting too much alcohol. "Temperance" seems to be the idea behind our limits, but this is stupid since alcohol is more easily and cheaply obtained without brewing it.

Thus, all ALCAP can accomplish by eliminating homebrewing is seeing to it that commercial brewers are as wealthy as possible. A question with which ALCAP should be confronted is "Are you just trying to make sure that any alcohol consumption which takes place also makes someone wealthy and, if not, then why are you against homebrewing?" Of course, the answer has already been given, though not in a public interview in the following words: "We wish to bring in full prohibition." What they have said--"We oppose all laws favorable to alcohol"--implies it.

Click to expand...

Very well said.