Decent Missouri 3-tier commentary...

[jiggs_casey]

SWMBO sent this to me. I thought this was a good read. Some pretty good points...

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/s...-legislation-will-make-voters-cry-their-beer/

 

[I_B_Mongo]

Thanks for the read. As a fellow Missourian I'd really like to see them do away with the 3 tier system.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

Well, I'm not in Missouri, but, after carefully reading that article, I'm still waiting for the author to explain WHY that law is a travesty, or quackery, or whatever.

I'm not defending the law. I don't have a clue what that law is about. But, while the author of that article made it abundantly clear that he's absolutely against it, he didn't provide a single reason why anybody else should share his view, even after so patronizingly stating he'd "explain" what it's all about.

So, maybe he's right. Maybe he isn't. If I was a Missourian, I'd go get a copy of the proposed law, study it, understand its REAL pros and cons, and then go talk to my congressman about it, instead of trusting the word of some (obviously biased) columnist.

 

[jiggs_casey]

I thought it was fairly clear, and to be honest, I felt rather compelled to write my congressman in MY effort to dump the 3-tier system.

The 3-tier system, in any form, is a way to manipulate / monopolize what beer is being sold where. Being that this is done through a commercial party, the emphasis will be on maximizing profit and not on individual choice. How? I have never seen a 'DFH 90 Minute IPA' on a shelf here... Nor, have some of you seen a 'Boulevard Double-Wide IPA'.

I should have the right to sell my beer at the local open-air market the same way my neighbor can sell her 'almond honey hand creme', and that's the point. It doesn't make much sense. It's about controlling a market for the benefit of profit and it's wrong.

 

[maltbarleyhops]

jiggs, you explained it completely and concisely.
...and im a missourian who is livid about what beers we can and cannot get here.
and why i cant have a booth at ANY county fair type gathering to sell my beer.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

The 3-tier system, in any form, is a way to manipulate / monopolize what beer is being sold where. Being that this is done through a commercial party, the emphasis will be on maximizing profit and not on individual choice. How? I have never seen a 'DFH 90 Minute IPA' on a shelf here... Nor, have some of you seen a 'Boulevard Double-Wide IPA'.

Really? Have you actually READ the law? I'm not talking about some bozo's interpretation of the law, but the law itself. Did you read it? Can you transcribe it here, or link your source?

So you haven't seen a "DFH 90 minute IPA" in Missouri. We don't have that law in Florida, and I haven't seen it here either. So, are you sure it's because of that law, or may it be just that people don't sell it because people don't buy it? Isn't that the way "economic freedom" works?

 

[jiggs_casey]

There is no law that regulates that I can't buy THAT particular beer here. There is a law somewhere in here that states I cannot sell my beer directly to the public, nor can I buy my beer directly from the producer. It is being regulated by a 3rd party that governs what is and isn't sold here and THAT is the problem. If I want a 'dfh 90 minute ipa', or any other beer, I should have the right to call them directly and be allowed to have them ship it to me.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

You're avoiding the subject.

Did you, or did you not, read the law we're talking about?
You did express your opinion of the effects of such law, so I assume you did read it, didn't you? So, can you PLEASE transcribe it, or post a link, so we can all read its contents, and then have an informed opinion?

And about your last post, I may be wrong, but I don't think anybody here needs you to show them what a Parliament Building looks like. You say there's a law that impedes you to buy directly from the producer. I assume you know what you're talking about. Can you, again, transcribe the contents of that law, or post a link to it?

In most places, the consumer can't buy directly from the producer, not because of some law, but just because the producer is normally not interested in selling retail. Those who are, will usually open an outlet store for that purpose. So it's not about your right to buy from them, but about the fact that they will not sell to you anyways.

 

[ArcaneXor]

Breweries can't self-distribute in Florida either. That sucks, but we have a couple of great distributors that get lots of imports and craft beer.

 

[maltbarleyhops]

SB 64 Prohibits beer manufacturers from having any interest in liquor wholesalers
Sponsor: Parson
LR Number: 0613S.01I Fiscal Note: 0613-01N.ORG
Committee: Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment
Last Action: 3/1/2011 - Hearing Conducted S Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee Journal Page:
Title: Calendar Position:
Effective Date: August 28, 2011


Full Bill Text | All Actions | Available Summaries | Senate Home Page | List of 2011 Senate Bills

Current Bill Summary

SB 64 – This act prohibits brewers or beer manufacturers as well as their officers, directors, agents, employees or affiliates, from having any direct or indirect interest in the license, business, assets or corporate stock of a wholesaler.

Exceptions are made for security interests in products sold to the wholesalers and interests resulting from a default judgement against the wholesaler. Also, the brewer may acquire title to the business, assets or corporate stock upon the written request of the wholesaler for a ninety-day period to transfer the business to an owner not affiliated with the brewer.

 

[maltbarleyhops]

HB 258 -- Beer Wholesalers

Sponsor: Cox

This bill prohibits a beer brewer or manufacturer from possessing
any interest in the license, business, assets, or corporate stock
of a liquor wholesaler. A security interest in products sold to
a wholesaler until the full purchase price has been paid is
exempt from the prohibition as well as a brewer's interest held
as the result of a judgment against the wholesaler or due to
acquisition of title to the business, assets, or corporate stock
as a result of a written request of the wholesaler. A brewer is
allowed to maintain ownership of or an interest in the business,
assets, or corporate stock for up to 90 days for the purpose of
transferring the business to an owner not affiliated with the
brewer.

 

[maltbarleyhops]

full text of sb 64
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL NO. 64
96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR PARSON.
Pre-filed December 29, 2010, and ordered printed.
TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.
0613S.01I
AN ACT
To repeal section 311.180, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections
relating to the relationship between manufacturers of beer and wholesalers.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Section 311.180, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections
2 enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 311.180 and 311.183, to read as
3 follows:
311.180. 1. No person, partnership, association of persons or corporation
2 shall manufacture, distill, blend, sell or offer for sale intoxicating liquor within
3 this state at wholesale or retail, or solicit orders for the sale of intoxicating liquor
4 within this state without procuring a license from the supervisor of alcohol and
5 tobacco control authorizing them so to do. For such license there shall be paid
6 to and collected by the director of revenue annual charges as follows:
7 (1) For the privilege of manufacturing and brewing in this state malt
8 liquor containing not in excess of five percent of alcohol by weight and the
9 privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting orders for the sale
10 of malt liquors containing not in excess of five percent of alcohol by weight, to, by
11 or through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of two hundred
12 fifty dollars;
13 (2) For the privilege of manufacturing in this state intoxicating liquor
14 containing not in excess of twenty-two percent of alcohol by weight and the
15 privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting orders for the sale
16 of intoxicating liquor containing not in excess of twenty-two percent of alcohol by
17 weight, to, by or through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of
18 two hundred dollars;
SB 64 2
19 (3) For the privilege of manufacturing, distilling or blending intoxicating
20 liquor of all kinds within this state and the privilege of selling to duly licensed
21 wholesalers and soliciting orders for the sale of intoxicating liquor of all kinds,
22 to, by or through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of four
23 hundred and fifty dollars;
24 (4) For the privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting
25 orders for the sale of malt liquor containing not in excess of five percent of alcohol
26 by weight, to, by or through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum
27 of fifty dollars;
28 (5) For the privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting
29 orders for the sale of intoxicating liquor containing not in excess of twenty-two
30 percent of alcohol by weight, to, by or through a duly licensed wholesaler within
31 this state, the sum of one hundred dollars;
32 (6) For the privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting
33 orders for the sale of intoxicating liquor of all kinds, to, by or through a duly
34 licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars;
35 (7) For the privilege of selling intoxicating liquor containing not in excess
36 of five percent of alcohol by weight by a wholesaler to a person duly licensed to
37 sell such malt liquor at retail and the privilege of selling to duly licensed
38 wholesalers and soliciting orders for the sale of malt liquor containing not in
39 excess of five percent of alcohol by weight, to, by or through a duly licensed
40 wholesaler within this state, the sum of one hundred dollars;
41 (8) For the privilege of selling intoxicating liquor containing not in excess
42 of twenty-two percent of alcohol by weight by a wholesaler to a person duly
43 licensed to sell such intoxicating liquor at retail and the privilege of selling to
44 duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting orders for the sale of intoxicating liquor
45 containing not in excess of twenty-two percent of alcohol by weight, to, by or
46 through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of two hundred
47 dollars;
48 (9) For the privilege of selling intoxicating liquor of all kinds by a
49 wholesaler to a person duly licensed to sell such intoxicating liquor at retail and
50 the privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting orders for the
51 sale of intoxicating liquor of all kinds, to, by or through a duly licensed
52 wholesaler within this state, the sum of five hundred dollars, except that a
53 license authorizing the holder to sell to duly licensed wholesalers and to solicit
54 orders for sale of intoxicating liquor, to, by or through a duly licensed wholesaler,
SB 64 3
55 shall not entitle the holder thereof to sell within the state of Missouri, direct to
56 retailers;
57 (10) For the privilege of selling to duly licensed wholesalers and soliciting
58 orders for the sale of vintage wine as defined in section 311.191, to, by, or
59 through a duly licensed wholesaler within this state, the sum of five hundred
60 dollars.
61 2. Solicitors, manufacturers and blenders of intoxicating liquor shall not
62 be required to take out a merchant's license for the sale of their products at the
63 place of manufacture or in quantities of not less than one gallon.
64 3. The provisions of this section relating to the privilege of selling malt
65 liquor are subject to and limited by the provisions of sections 311.181 [and],
66 311.182, and 311.183.
67 4. The licenses prescribed in this section for the privilege of selling
68 intoxicating liquor by a wholesaler to a person duly licensed to sell such
69 intoxicating liquor at retail shall allow such wholesaler to sell intoxicating liquor
70 to licensees licensed by the gaming commission to sell beer or alcoholic beverages
71 pursuant to section 313.840.
311.183. 1. The provisions of subsection 2 of this section apply
2 to the following entities:
3 (1) Any person engaged in the business of brewing or
4 manufacturing beer;
5 (2) An officer, director, agent, or employee of an entity described
6 in subdivision (1) of this subsection;
7 (3) An affiliate of an entity described in subdivision (1) of this
8 subsection, regardless of whether the affiliation is corporate or by
9 management, direction, or control.
10 2. No entity named in subsection 1 of this section may have any
11 interest, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in the license,
12 business, assets, or corporate stock of a wholesaler to whom this
13 chapter applies, except:
14 (1) A security interest granted to the entity of the type provided
15 for by the uniform commercial code under chapter 400 in products sold
16 to a wholesaler until the full purchase price has been paid therefor; or
17 (2) An interest in the business, assets, or corporate stock of a
18 wholesaler as a result of:
19 (a) A judgment against the wholesaler arising out of a default by
SB 64 4
20 the wholesaler; or
21 (b) Acquisition of title to the business, assets, or corporate stock
22 as a result of a written request of the wholesaler. A brewer may
23 maintain ownership of or an interest in the business, assets, or
24 corporate stock under this paragraph for not more than ninety days
25 and only for the purpose of facilitating an orderly transfer of the
26 business to an owner not affiliated with the brewer.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

I have just downloaded and read (although not as carefully as I'd like) the contents of the SB 64 bill (thanks Maltbarleyhops for posting it).
As I suspected, the "explanations" given in the article cited by the OP are shamelessly biased.

The bill states, besides the prices of licenses for different tiers in the commercial chain, the prohibition for the brewers to own, total or partial interests in a WHOLESALER. That is, regardless of what the article author says, a fairly effective anti-monopoly law, as it precludes the big companies from buying the distributors, and then stop selling the small brewer's merchandise, effectively killing their competition. Believe it or not, I have seen this happen, several times in the past, in my country, and I've actually been affected by it, once. That law is a good law.

What that law doesn't say anywhere is that the brewer is not allowed to sell retail, or to own, partially or totally, any retail store. So, as I suspected, that law has nothing to do with not allowing the customer access to the producer, but it's actually meant to forbid the big brewers from taking control of the market.

And THAT is the reason you have to read the whole thing, before you make a decision about something.

 

[Atl_Brew]

In theory the 3 tier system is great. In reality it has been badly corrupted by the large breweries. You don't often see an "independent" distributor carrying Bud and Miller. To keep the contract with the larger brewery the distributor has to buy in large quantities which do not leave much room on their truck for micro brews. Regardless of ownership, the distributors are largely controlled by BMC.

Removing the three tier laws would allow smaller breweries to self-distribute to bars and customers. I'm sure that Coors does not want someone showing up at the loading dock for a 40, but a lot of small breweries do.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

Whether or not you see a beer in a particular state or market within the state is a component of two issues: one, whether or not the brewery's labels (and product, for that matter) has been approved for use within the state. Many, if not all states, have labeling requirements for alcohol that may be more particular than the minimum FDA standards; and two, whether or not the brewery's distribution system reaches a particular state or market. Most breweries do not self-distribute and likely would not self-distribute on a large scale (nationwide) even if they could because running a fleet of trucks and several warehouses would be extremely expensive. Instead, like many manufacturers, they can hire a distributor for cheaper.

The tiered distribution system is different. It exists to create a barrier between brewery and consumer. Pre-prohibition one of the suggested causes of all the evils of alcohol was that there were lots of brewpubs and most full-scale breweries had their own bar they served their alcohol directly to the public. When prohibition was repealed, the states bought into the idea that the direct access was the problem and requiring a distributor and a retailer as intermediaries somehow would stop people from drinking too much. The larger breweries got on board because it makes it a lot less profitable for smaller breweries to operate if they can't sell at retail price direct to the public.

 

[frailn]

My gut feeling is that this law is designed to further protect AB. It was introduced by a pro-business legislator. My theory is that AB does not have a need to own interests in distributor businesses. They have that part locked down. This law would make it harder for smaller breweries to distribute their product since they cannot run their own distribution company.

On the surface, it seems anti-monopoly, but my guess is that this actually helps keep AB on top. Remember, they are headquartered in St Louis, MO. I'm sure they have some influence on the state politics.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

In theory the 3 tier system is great. In reality it has been badly corrupted by the large breweries. You don't often see an "independent" distributor carrying Bud and Miller. To keep the contract with the larger brewery the distributor has to buy in large quantities which do not leave much room on their truck for micro brews. Regardless of ownership, the distributors are largely controlled by BMC.

That has nothing to do with any law, but is actually one of the undesirable side effects of free market. You get a product (any product) to be popular enough, and you rule the market. Look what happens with Coca Cola and Pepsico. They didn't need any 3 tier law to corral the market. They just tell the retailer, if they don't sell exclusively their brand, they won't be able to buy from them. Go to restaurants and other soda retailers, and see how many small brands you can find.

Removing the three tier laws would allow smaller breweries to self-distribute to bars and customers. I'm sure that Coors does not want someone showing up at the loading dock for a 40, but a lot of small breweries do.

You need to read the law. The law doesn't say anywhere that brewers can't sell to the general public. It just says they can't own a distributor.

Most breweries do not self-distribute and likely would not self-distribute on a large scale (nationwide) even if they could because running a fleet of trucks and several warehouses would be extremely expensive. Instead, like many manufacturers, they can hire a distributor for cheaper.

Which is why the 3 tier protects the small brewer, by not allowing the big brewers to monopolize the distribution system. The big brewers are perfectly capable of distributing their merchandise nationwide, and even worldwide, if they so choose. It's the small brewer who depends on distributors to do the same.

The tiered distribution system is different. It exists to create a barrier between brewery and consumer.

Not at all. Where in the letter of the law did you see that barrier? How many distributors do you think a small brewer can own?
Like I said before, nowhere in that law is mentioned, or even implied, that a brewer can not sell retail. What it says is that a brewer can not own a distributor.

 

[jfr1111]

Are you a lawyer, because if you are, reread the law carefully.

311.180 -> No one can sell any intoxicating beverages wether at wholesale or retail without the required license.

 

[jfr1111]

And let it be known that the commentary on the proposed legislation is far from being decent, unless decent means using buzzwords and scaremongering tactics.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

Are you a lawyer, because if you are, reread the law carefully.

311.180 -> No one can sell any intoxicating beverages wether at wholesale or retail without the required license.

I'm not a lawyer, just somebody who can read. In the section you quoted doesn't say you can't sell. It just says you need to purchase a license, in order to sell. You didn't think the government was gonna let you do business for free, did you?

And let it be known that the commentary on the proposed legislation is far from being decent, unless decent means using buzzwords and scaremongering tactics.

I couldn't agree more. But what scares me is that so many people would fall for it.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

Not at all. Where in the letter of the law did you see that barrier? How many distributors do you think a small brewer can own?
Like I said before, nowhere in that law is mentioned, or even implied, that a brewer can not sell retail. What it says is that a brewer can not own a distributor.

First of all, I was speaking generally of the genesis of the tiered distribution system, not specifically to any specific system or law.

Second, this bill -- it is not law -- is not a standalone entity. It is repealing and replacing parts of the state's alcohol code, so you would have to look at the rest of the code and see whether or not it disallows breweries from owning or operating retail facilities as well.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

I'm not a lawyer, just somebody who can read. In the section you quoted doesn't say you can't sell. It just says you need to purchase a license, in order to sell. You didn't think the government was gonna let you do business for free, did you?

If you don't have a license to sell, you legally cannot sell.

The license creates an inclusive set of privileges -- including the ability to sell to certain parties. If a privilege does not exist to sell to a certain party or class of parties then it is not permitted under the license.

The license only permits licensees to sell to wholesalers. Because retailers are by definition not wholesalers, a licensee cannot sell direct to or through a retail outlet.

 

[jfr1111]

I'm not a lawyer, just somebody who can read. In the section you quoted doesn't say you can't sell. It just says you need to purchase a license, in order to sell. You didn't think the government was gonna let you do business for free, did you?

And who can get such a license in order to sell ? Not breweries, wich means that they cannot self-distribute anymore, even to private customers, because of the special rules concerning the sale of beer. This isn't rocket science, guy who can read.

A brewery can sell their beer either to:
a) In kegs/bottles to licensed distributors who will then sell to licensed retailers.
b) By the pint/glass/shot/growler to customers, if they have a brewpub/tavern/sell on premise license, whatever the wording your state/province/country/warlord province uses. This is not included in the bill.
c) Directly to licensed retailers or customers.

The proposed legislation would ban c), because to do c), you need a distributor's license and no brewery can get one. It doesn't create a middleman as much as it opposes the breweries from acting like one.

The reason I'm not so sure the article takes a level-headed take on things is that:
a) I very much doubt customers in Missouri have a vast choice now (how many brewpubs self-distrubte there?)
b) The customer might not like that choice
c) The big 3 already have the hegemony over the beer drinking market: states that have the 3-tier and states that do not have it still prefer the big 3.

Yes, it's legislation that restricts free-market capitalism, but the sale of beer is already very well restricted and regulated, three-tier legislation notwithstanding.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

Second, this bill -- it is not law -- is not a standalone entity. It is repealing and replacing parts of the state's alcohol code, so you would have to look at the rest of the code and see whether or not it disallows breweries from owning or operating retail facilities as well.

I was under the impression it was already scheduled to enter into effect on August 2011. Either way, I understand this "bill" is part of a bigger code, but this bill modifies that code, in a way defined by its own content, and nowhere in it it says a brewer is not allowed to sell retail, once it purchases the corresponding license.
I don't need to see the rest of the state's alcohol code. That's already in effect. THIS BILL, and the modifications it introduces to the code, is what's being discussed here.

If you don't have a license to sell, you legally cannot sell.

The license creates an inclusive set of privileges -- including the ability to sell to certain parties. If a privilege does not exist to sell to a certain party or class of parties then it is not permitted under the license.

The license only permits licensees to sell to wholesalers. Because retailers are by definition not wholesalers, a licensee cannot sell direct to or through a retail outlet.

Which is exactly my point. The brewer is not forbidden to own a retail store. It's forbidden to own a distributor. That means any brewer can purchase a retailer license, and sell to the general public, if they so desire.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

I was under the impression it was already scheduled to enter into effect on August 2011. Either way, I understand this "bill" is part of a bigger code, but this bill modifies that code, in a way defined by its own content, and nowhere in it it says a brewer is not allowed to sell retail, once it purchases the corresponding license.
I don't need to see the rest of the state's alcohol code. That's already in effect. THIS BILL, and the modifications it introduces to the code, is what's being discussed here.

No. The bill deletes and replaces part of the code, so it is a part of the code, not a standalone act onto itself. It has to be read in the context of the rest of the law. You can't take single sections of law as the entirety of what the law permits or prohibits.

Which is exactly my point. The brewer is not forbidden to own a retail store. It's forbidden to own a distributor. That means any brewer can purchase a retailer license, and sell to the general public, if they so desire.

Other parts of the state code may prohibit a brewer from owning a retail outlet. That is different from stating that it may sell its product direct to its retail outlet.

As I said before, licenses create an inclusive list of privileges. That means in turn all other related conduct not permitted by the license is prohibited. The license specifically permits sales to wholesalers, therefore that is the only manner in which breweries can sell their product in that state.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

And furthermore, to fully disprove your assertion:

311.070. 1. Distillers, wholesalers, winemakers, brewers or their employees, officers or agents shall not, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, have any financial interest in the retail business for sale of intoxicating liquors, and shall not, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, loan, give away or furnish equipment, money, credit or property of any kind, except ordinary commercial credit for liquors sold to such retail dealers. However, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, for the purpose of the promotion of tourism, a distiller whose manufacturing establishment is located within this state may apply for and the supervisor of liquor control may issue a license to sell intoxicating liquor, as in this chapter defined, by the drink at retail for consumption on the premises where sold; and provided further that the premises so licensed shall be in close proximity to the distillery and may remain open between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight, Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Sunday. The authority for the collection of fees by cities and counties as provided in section 311.220, and all other laws and regulations relating to the sale of liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises where sold, shall apply to the holder of a license issued under the provisions of this section in the same manner as they apply to establishments licensed under the provisions of section 311.085, 311.090, or 311.095.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

This isn't rocket science, guy who can read.

No, it isn't. That's why I'm so surprised nobody seems to get it.

A brewery can sell their beer either to:
a) .........................................
b) By the pint/glass/shot/growler to customers, if they have a brewpub/tavern/sell on premise license, whatever the wording your state/province/country/warlord province uses. This is not included in the bill.

Exactly. And because it's not included in the bill, it's not modified by it. So, if before the introduction of this bill, a brewer is allowed to sell retail, once the bill is passed, they will still be allowed to do so.

c) Directly to licensed retailers or customers.

Do I need to explain that part?

The proposed legislation would ban c), because to do c), you need a distributor's license and no brewery can get one. It doesn't create a middleman as much as it opposes the breweries from acting like one.

No, you don't. You need to have a distributor license to sell to a retailer, not to sell to the public. You don't need a middleman, because you don't need to sell your product to yourself.

The reason I'm not so sure the article takes a level-headed take on things is that:

c) The big 3 already have the hegemony over the beer drinking market: states that have the 3-tier and states that do not have it still prefer the big 3.

Exactly. And no law will change that. But there's a difference between hegemony and monopoly (or oligopoly, as it'd be the case here). What this bill aim to avoid is the big 3 taking control of the distribution of beer, effectively killing the small brewer. This bill is PROTECTING the small brewer, not hurting it.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

And furthermore, to fully disprove your assertion:

311.070. 1. Distillers, wholesalers, winemakers, brewers or their employees, officers or agents shall not, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, have any financial interest in the retail business for sale of intoxicating liquors, and shall not, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, loan, give away or furnish equipment, money, credit or property of any kind, except ordinary commercial credit for liquors sold to such retail dealers. However, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, for the purpose of the promotion of tourism, a distiller whose manufacturing establishment is located within this state may apply for and the supervisor of liquor control may issue a license to sell intoxicating liquor, as in this chapter defined, by the drink at retail for consumption on the premises where sold; and provided further that the premises so licensed shall be in close proximity to the distillery and may remain open between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight, Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Sunday. The authority for the collection of fees by cities and counties as provided in section 311.220, and all other laws and regulations relating to the sale of liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises where sold, shall apply to the holder of a license issued under the provisions of this section in the same manner as they apply to establishments licensed under the provisions of section 311.085, 311.090, or 311.095.

You're not disproving my assertion, you're making my point.

That section is NOT part of this bill, so I should assume it's already in effect.
That means, once again, that it's not this bill that prevents brewers from selling retail, but the law already in place.

 

[jfr1111]

Which is exactly my point. The brewer is not forbidden to own a retail store. It's forbidden to own a distributor. That means any brewer can purchase a retailer license, and sell to the general public, if they so desire.

What's the point in having a single retail outlet if you already have a brewpub ? Look, either you do not know how the sale of beer works or your are trolling us. No small brewery makes their money by the sale of beer off-premises in a single liquor store: you need a wide distribution and volume in order to start reaping in some money and even then, most breweries will make their money by selling in their own brewpub. Many do not even dare enter the keg/bottle game because of the high startup costs and low margins compared to serving pints on premise. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that they are "free" to buy a retailer and get the license. I can't see this being a sound decision and we are not sure if it even would be legal to do so. FDA officials aren't daft and they can spot someone trying to circumvent the law.

I know that some people had gripes eariler because the proposed legislation wouldn't allow them to pitch a table at any market and sell their wares, but that's beyong the point. bill or no bill, they can't do this, and it's not only alcoholic beverages that are hit by strict regulations. Ask the people who get busted and fined for selling bathtub cheese their opinion on this.

The beef breweries will have with this is that before, they could distribute their beer THEMSELVES to retailers, cutting the middle man (and the cost associated with it). If this passes they won't be able to. Is that so hard to understand ? You're the only one trying to argue that they can still sell to customers if they get a retailer's license. Newsflash: no brewery can withstand such high costs that will be penalized by the government taking away their privilege of self-distribution.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

You're not disproving my assertion, you're making my point.

That section is NOT part of this bill, so I should assume it's already in effect.
That means, once again, that it's not this bill that prevents brewers from selling retail, but the law already in place.

WTF?

You said this:

Which is exactly my point. The brewer is not forbidden to own a retail store. It's forbidden to own a distributor. That means any brewer can purchase a retailer license, and sell to the general public, if they so desire.

and I am saying the law directly contradicts that assertion. It cannot contradict and prove your point at the same time.

You are trying to make some nonsensical argument that because one component of the law (i.e. this bill) doesn't speak to another issue then somehow what the rest of the body of law says is irrelevant because this component doesn't intent to affect what is already in place. Using your logic, I could look only at the part of the law that references having a drivers license, and finding no mention of murder, presuming murder is no longer illegal. That makes no sense at all. That is why you have to read the body of law as a whole, not in its individual components.

You are coming to a conclusion based upon reading a single bill, out of the context of the code it affects, without any regard for either the history behind why the code (or this bill) was written or the effect of the code over time.

In short, you are autonomously deciding what you think the law is and what its effects are without any regard for reality.

 

[Yooper]

The tiered distribution system is different. It exists to create a barrier between brewery and consumer. Pre-prohibition one of the suggested causes of all the evils of alcohol was that there were lots of brewpubs and most full-scale breweries had their own bar they served their alcohol directly to the public. When prohibition was repealed, the states bought into the idea that the direct access was the problem and requiring a distributor and a retailer as intermediaries somehow would stop people from drinking too much. The larger breweries got on board because it makes it a lot less profitable for smaller breweries to operate if they can't sell at retail price direct to the public.

You need to read the law. The law doesn't say anywhere that brewers can't sell to the general public. It just says they can't own a distributor.
Which is exactly my point. The brewer is not forbidden to own a retail store. It's forbidden to own a distributor. That means any brewer can purchase a retailer license, and sell to the general public, if they so desire.

IP, You're saying totally different things here! You're arguing both sides, and have no idea exactly what you're talking about.

A brewery can NOT own a distributor. That's a good thing, in theory. BUT a brewery can not sell its products on its own, other than at its brewpub or own business. It MUST go through a distributor in order to be distributed to bars. Bars don't get their beer from a package retail store- they MUST buy from a distributor.

So, if Bar A wants a few kegs of beer from my brewery, they are prohibited by law from buying it from me. They must go through a distributor. I can't sell my beer where I want. Not to retail stores, not to bars, etc. It MUST go through a distributor- no direct sales allowed.

And that's why the law is so weird. There was a bar in PA that got busted because they add a couple of beers (bottles) available for sale that aren't normally in PA. They didn't buy them from their distributor, so they got busted and lost their liquor license. For giving customers good beer for sale but not going through the "3-tier system".

The 3-tier system only is advantageous for the distributor, and some of the big BMC breweries. Not for microbreweries, brewpubs, or the customer.

The laws in Minnesota right now prohibit Surly Brewing Company from expanding. Because if they expand their brewery, they can no longer have a taproom (going from brewpub to "brewery" over a certain size).

The laws vary from state to state, but many have "locks" in place to prevent growth and sales.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

*

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

WTF?

You said this:



and I am saying the law directly contradicts that assertion. It cannot contradict and prove your point at the same time.

You are trying to make some nonsensical argument that because one component of the law (i.e. this bill) doesn't speak to another issue then somehow what the rest of the body of law says is irrelevant because this component doesn't intent to affect what is already in place. Using your logic, I could look only at the part of the law that references having a drivers license, and finding no mention of murder, presuming murder is no longer illegal. That makes no sense at all. That is why you have to read the body of law as a whole, not in its individual components.

You are coming to a conclusion based upon reading a single bill, out of the context of the code it affects, without any regard for either the history behind why the code (or this bill) was written or the effect of the code over time.

In short, you are autonomously deciding what you think the law is and what its effects are without any regard for reality.

My point is that THIS BILL doesn't preclude the brewer from owning a retail store. The LAW does, but in this thread we're not discussing the law, WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS BILL!!!
WTH is so difficult to understand? Go back to the original post, and READ THE ARTICLE. The article says that THIS BILL will stop the brewers from selling retail, NOT THE LAW, THAT'S ALREADY IN EFFECT.
So, when you say the LAW already says a brewer can't sell to the public, YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT that the problem is not the bill, but the law, that's already in effect.

Clear enough?

 

[Yooper]

My point is that THIS BILL doesn't preclude the brewer from owning a retail store. The LAW does, but in this thread we're not discussing the law, WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS BILL!!!
WTH is so difficult to understand? Go back to the original post, and READ THE ARTICLE. The article says that THIS BILL will stop the brewers from selling retail, NOT THE LAW, THAT'S ALREADY IN EFFECT.
So, when you say the LAW already says a brewer can't sell to the public, YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT that the problem is not the bill, but the law, that's already in effect.

Clear enough?

No. The problem is the three tier distribution system. But you're not hearing the explanations. That's the whole point of changing the current law.

Capital letters don't make people listen. They just make you look a little on edge, by the way.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

No. The problem is the three tier distribution system. But you're not hearing the explanations. That's the whole point of changing the current law.

Capital letters don't make people listen. They just make you look a little on edge, by the way.

Go back to the original post, and read the linked article. It's about SB64 and SB258 specifically, and how they should be rejected, because they limit free commerce, or, like the author calls it, "economic freedom".
From the beginning, this thread has been about that article, and, from the beginning, I've been saying the author of that article is full of it.
The 2 bills have nothing to do with the prohibition of brewers to sell retail. That's part of the law, and rejecting the bills won't change that. Those bills are actually a good thing for the small brewer, and rejecting them is playing into the big brewers' game. It's not me who's not hearing the explanations. It's all of you who don't seem to know how to read your own language.
I couldn't care less about Missouri's alcohol code. This thread is not about Missouri's alcohol code. It's about SB64, and SB258.

And yeah, maybe I'm on edge. Or maybe I'm just tired of repeating myself for nothing.

That law doesn't affect me. Even if I lived in Missouri, that law wouldn't affect me. I'm amazed that you people, who claim to be affected by it, will choose to blindly accept the rantings of some idiot with an agenda, instead of taking the time to do your own research, and make up your own mind.