AB-InBev fights to prevent HB602 from becoming law

[RIT_Warrior]

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.

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?

 

[unionrdr]

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?

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...

 

[DrawTap88]

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.

 

[trevor_b]

@ 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.

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.

 

[eddie]

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?

 

[unionrdr]

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.

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...

 

[KevinW]

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!

 

[unionrdr]

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?

Because it's against the law that brought beer back. I've said that a couple of times already. Read.

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!

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...

 

[RIT_Warrior]

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...

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.

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.

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.

 

[doctorRobert]

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...

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.

 

[unionrdr]

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.

 

[slawre5]

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.

+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.

 

[motobrewer]

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.

 

[RIT_Warrior]

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.

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?

 

[Acoma]

Why would InBev do this?

 

[doctorRobert]

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.

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.

 

[Caboose]

“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...

 

[unionrdr]

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.

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...

 

[Chemkrafty]

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.

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

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

 

[dino2gnt]

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.

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

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

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.

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.

 

[thezepster]

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

 

[RIT_Warrior]

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...

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?

 

[doctorRobert]

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.

 

[TacoBrew]

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

 

[thezepster]

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

 

[MistyMountainHops]

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.