Hopefully a "W" for beer today in Arkansas!

[estricklin]

My home state of Arkansas, is going to the polls today to vote on issue No. 3. If it passes, all 75 counties will be "wet". Currently only 37 are. We have the most ancient and ridiculous liquor laws of any state to my knowledge. Many people can't imagine driving 30 miles to purchase beer, or 50 miles to purchase spirits, but that's exactly what many have to do in certain parts of this state.

County line liquor store lobbyist groups have tried tooth and nail to keep this Issue away from the voting public; but luckily haven't succeeded.

I think the current dry county/wet county laws actually hurt our craft beer selection because liquor stores aren't really in competition with each other.

I'm sure that even if this passes, there will still be many more hurdles before our alcohol beverage laws are up to par with the rest up the country but hey it's a start. I wonder what it would be like to to buy beer ANYWHERE in the state???

Anyway, asking everyone to keep their fingers crossed!

 

[pointcity-homebrew]

Living in Mississippi, I feel your pain. Although, I have never lived in a dry county. Last year home brewing was legalized and the cap of 6%ABV was lifted to allow for a better selection of craft beer. So we are slowly coming out of the dark ages.

 

[homebrewdad]

Good luck, Arkansas. We have this nonsense all over the place in Alabama.

What's crazier, we have a few "wet" cities in "dry" counties. Sigh.

 

[Newsman]

In my neighboring state of Tennessee, they have a strange law to limit sales of high ABV beer to liquor stores only.

 

[SquidPope]

Good luck! We're still probably years away from getting to vote on ending the asinine liquor situation in Ontario.

 

[b-boy]

It's hard to believe that there are still remnants of prohibition in the country. It seems crazy.

 

[soccerdad]

You guys don't understand - individual liberty is a BAD, BAD thing - for Americans and Canadians. You must be controlled ! NOW !

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Have they ever tried to explain why they keep these sort of draconian laws around? Without referencing the bible or other religious texts? Not to attack anyone at all, please don't take it that way, but thats the only way I (in my mind) could see a politician justifying keeping around these sort of laws. Are there actual statistics that wet counties have more problems related to alcoholism than dry counties?

 

[estricklin]

Have they ever tried to explain why they keep these sort of draconian laws around? Without referencing the bible or other religious texts? Not to attack anyone at all, please don't take it that way, but thats the only way I (in my mind) could see a politician justifying keeping around these sort of laws. Are there actual statistics that wet counties have more problems related to alcoholism than dry counties?

That's a really good question but unfortunately merits a more complicated answer. Yes there religious groups involved, after all that's how the laws got there in the first place after the appeal of prohibition. Many of the opponents of this issue say "Let's keep the decision local", but the problem with that is; dry counties cannot collect enough signatures easily to get any alcohol amendments on the local ballot. In the case of allowing the sale of alcohol, it takes something like 40% of registered voters signatures, compared to a sales tax increase or virtually anything else I think it's 10-15%. So of coarse if people do start a petition, (and they have), the surrounding wet counties with county line liquor stores throw a bunch of money at the problem, and so it never shows up on the ballot in the dry county. So actually the entire argument for that is a falsehood. These laws were put in place after prohibition, and they gave the local counties the right to choose to allow the sale of alcohol. This will be the first time for most voters, in generations that they will actually get a say so.

Would also like to remember that this issue doesn't just allow the sale of alcohol statewide, but the manufacture as well.

 

[Talgrath]

Have they ever tried to explain why they keep these sort of draconian laws around? Without referencing the bible or other religious texts? Not to attack anyone at all, please don't take it that way, but thats the only way I (in my mind) could see a politician justifying keeping around these sort of laws. Are there actual statistics that wet counties have more problems related to alcoholism than dry counties?

There's no justification at all, other than it's a good excuse to lock people up.

 

[stu4stew]

Good old California

 

[uncleleon]

This law is no good, read the bill and you can see how much more it takes away than gives. Your blind trust is very dangerous.

 

[soccerdad]

Say more Leon ... this being a local ballot initiative, most of us have probably not seen any of it. What are the hidden grenades?

 

[estricklin]

This law is no good, read the bill and you can see how much more it takes away than gives. Your blind trust is very dangerous.

Thank you for pointing out my "blind trust". Maybe you could point me to the specific part of the issue you are referring to.

 

[estricklin]

Say more Leon ... this being a local ballot initiative, most of us have probably not seen any of it. What are the hidden grenades?

http://www.uaex.edu/business-communities/voter-education/FSPPC315AlcoholAmend.pdf

If you care to read it, there is some information there, also the measure as it appears on the ballot as we speak. It's actually Issue No. 4, (earlier I said 3).

I certainly do not intend to debate politics here. I mostly started this thread to show others in states with blue laws, that there is hope. Contact your representative!

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

This law is no good, read the bill and you can see how much more it takes away than gives. Your blind trust is very dangerous.

Statements like this really need to including citation of sources and what exactly in the bill is taking away rather than giving.

From what I could gather reading about the bill, it just prevents county level government from voting themselves wet or dry. I could see an argument for restraint. Maybe a law lowering the requirement for having it on a county level ballot issue (rather than nearly 40% of the voters signatures, making it equivalent to the other ballot issues like tax increases and such).

Half measures have a habit of being not enough and not effective though, as generally one side or the other will figure out a way to abuse the half measure. Not arguing one side or the other in this, but you really should point out the parts of the bill that could be abused.

 

[estricklin]

Statements like this really need to including citation of sources and what exactly in the bill is taking away rather than giving.

From what I could gather reading about the bill, it just prevents county level government from voting themselves wet or dry. I could see an argument for restraint. Maybe a law lowering the requirement for having it on a county level ballot issue (rather than nearly 40% of the voters signatures, making it equivalent to the other ballot issues like tax increases and such).

Half measures have a habit of being not enough and not effective though, as generally one side or the other will figure out a way to abuse the half measure. Not arguing one side or the other in this, but you really should point out the parts of the bill that could be abused.

I agree.

As I stated earlier, this is only the first step, I'm positive there will be some negatives from it as well, IF it passes. BUT, it's got to be a step in the right direction.

 

[JohnSand]

So, what happened?

 

[monkeyman1000]

I feel your pain as well. I used to live in Tulsa (OK has/had some stupid rules too). I went fishing for the weekend in Arkansas and on the way back (Sunday morning) I hit a deer. My car was screwed and I had to stay in small town overnight until the rental place opened on Monday. I wanted a beer sooooo bad but as luck would have it the county was dry. Horrible weekend.

 

[estricklin]

So, what happened?

Issue 4 did not pass, 57% voted against it. Doubtless, many of the people that voted against it were in wet counties.

 

[uncleleon]

I agree.



As I stated earlier, this is only the first step, I'm positive there will be some negatives from it as well, IF it passes. BUT, it's got to be a step in the right direction.

I respectfully disagree that is would have been a step in there right direction. Looks more like slipping further into corporatism too me. Maybe we could agree that "the power" needs to be spread as thin as possible so it is less likely to be abused. Like on a more local level. Just my 2 cents.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I respectfully disagree that is would have been a step in there right direction. Looks more like slipping further into corporatism too me. Maybe we could agree that "the power" needs to be spread as thin as possible so it is less likely to be abused. Like on a more local level. Just my 2 cents.

Here's the thing, though... when power is fragmented and localized you get things like dry counties to begin with.

 

[uncleleon]

And? You are free to move if distance to a 40oz is a priority.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

And? You are free to move if distance to a 40oz is a priority.

This is an entirely hyperbolic argument. See below I will use your same logic, notice the difference in the wronged group.

I don't know why the Jewish population in Europe didn't just move somewhere where Hitler couldn't get to them, I mean, what's moving a few thousand miles to stay alive.

I don't know why the native Americans didn't just move away from the white men when they started landing in the new world, if your land is so important go find some more somewhere where white men aren't.

Notice the differences?

 

[dnslater]

I'm surprised and disappointed that this didn't pass.... Although perhaps I really shouldn't be that surprised. Here in Indiana, Sunday liquor sales are illegal. They keep trying to change the law..... The biggest opponents are fundamentalist churches and liquor store owners.... Who think they won't be able to compete against grocery stores if God forbid they have to be open 7 days. So it is a coalition of church and liquor store owners that keeps defeating it. Bizzaro.

 

[Yooper]

We travel through AR twice per year, but generally only stay two nights per year. I dislike the whole "last liquor store for the next 6 counties!" environment.

AR is a beautiful state, and I love so much of it. I have to laugh, because one time we were taking the scenic route, as always, and right across the state line was a big "novelty shop". Bob and I had a good giggle, as apparently it's ok to buy an anal plug in that county (and god knows what else), but not a beer.

"Blue" laws are part of the culture in many areas, particularly in the rural south. I know that there is plenty of booze being made, and in private clubs it's abundant, but it doesn't encourage us to stay. I like a glass of wine with dinner, and a beer or two when I go out. While the people are very nice, and the weather appealing, there are lots of rivers, and I love the wildlife (birding, especially hawks is great!), I'm not inclined to stay in eastern or southern AR.

I recently became more familiar with the western part, and up towards Fayetteville, and that is nice in a different way and is more progressive so we might stay there next time if it works out for us.

 

[brewguyver]

We travel through AR twice per year, but generally only stay two nights per year. I dislike the whole "last liquor store for the next 6 counties!" environment.



AR is a beautiful state, and I love so much of it. I have to laugh, because one time we were taking the scenic route, as always, and right across the state line was a big "novelty shop". Bob and I had a good giggle, as apparently it's ok to buy an anal plug in that county (and god knows what else), but not a beer.



"Blue" laws are part of the culture in many areas, particularly in the rural south. I know that there is plenty of booze being made, and in private clubs it's abundant, but it doesn't encourage us to stay. I like a glass of wine with dinner, and a beer or two when I go out. While the people are very nice, and the weather appealing, there are lots of rivers, and I love the wildlife (birding, especially hawks is great!), I'm not inclined to stay in eastern or southern AR.



I recently became more familiar with the western part, and up towards Fayetteville, and that is nice in a different way and is more progressive so we might stay there next time if it works out for us.

Blue laws are huge in the original 13 as well. They're slowly being taken off the books. People have finally found ways around the must buy beer at distributors and only by the case laws. It makes MA look downright advanced.

And we totally have dry towns back in MA. Everything is done at the town level except the courts - those are county.

 

[Fedora]

NW Arkansan here. I'm disappointed that it didn't pass although it doesn't directly affect me as my county ( Boone) voted itself wet a few years ago. It was a long, hard fought battle to get our booze, I'll say that. Now liquor stores and gas stations selling beer are commonplace.

There has been no appreciable increase in alcohol related offenses and the increased tax revenue in my town is being put to good use on municipal improvements.

We even have a small brewpub in town at which ( shameless self promotion) I happen to be head brewer. State laws still prohibit Sunday carry out sales, although you can drink on premises in the couple of bars/ restaurants in town. In fact the only carry out sales that ARE allowed on Sunday are growlers of house brew at the brewpub. Our Native Brewer permit exempts us.

Hey @Yooper, next time you're up my way let me know. Would love to have you come by the brewery and have some lunch and beers.

 

[dkevinb]

We've been to many horse shows in Texas and there are some odd laws there. In some places restaurants can't serve alcohol, but clubs can. Anyone can eat in the club, but only members can buy alcohol. It costs $1 to join, and they give new members a $1 discount on their first drink. Am I missing something?

 

[Newsman]

We've been to many horse shows in Texas and there are some odd laws there. In some places restaurants can't serve alcohol, but clubs can. Anyone can eat in the club, but only members can buy alcohol. It costs $1 to join, and they give new members a $1 discount on their first drink. Am I missing something?

Nope. They just found a work-around to the archaic blue-laws.

My area had liquor-by-the-drink on the ballot this year (again.) It finally passed, I believe. As in many areas, it's not state-wide, but city-by-city. MY area finally passed it, but the next town over voted it down. Guess we'll get more taxes than they do.

We just got alcohol sales on Sundays last year from like 12:30 PM to 11:30 PM, I think it is. I remember having to drive across the state line (I live about 10 minutes from the state line) to buy alcohol at the first convenience store in Tennessee on Sunday night if I wanted a beer.

 

[uncleleon]

This is an entirely hyperbolic argument. See below I will use your same logic, notice the difference in the wronged group.

I don't know why the Jewish population in Europe didn't just move somewhere where Hitler couldn't get to them, I mean, what's moving a few thousand miles to stay alive.

I don't know why the native Americans didn't just move away from the white men when they started landing in the new world, if your land is so important go find some more somewhere where white men aren't.

Notice the differences?

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

 

[Dirty25]

We've been to many horse shows in Texas and there are some odd laws there. In some places restaurants can't serve alcohol, but clubs can. Anyone can eat in the club, but only members can buy alcohol. It costs $1 to join, and they give new members a $1 discount on their first drink. Am I missing something?

Same dumb stuff in AR also. Plenty of places give you a member card or make you sigh their member book to drink. My parents from Pittsburgh couldn't understand they couldn't have a beer with dinner at most places in Ar still though..I just became numb to it after 6 years I guess. I'm making up for lost time here in Germany, plenty of alcohol everywhere!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Hell, even here in NY you cant buy beer or spirits before noon on a Sunday. As I understand it, this was to cut down on church absenteeism. Seeing as how I only step foot in a church when under extreme mental or physical coersion, I would say that I represent a test case for the law being more or less useless.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

For all my joking about making this or that illegal I really dont believe that making something illegal a) makes it go away or b) is just. Having a special exception in a small local area to LEGALIZE something is a very very very different proposition than making something illegal in a small localized area.

An example of both off the top of my head. A nudist colony or nudist resort is a good idea. A small localized area decided it was ok to be naked or only partially clothed in that area. This is a good idea. I think one could make a rather compelling argument that nudity shouldnt be allowed in public nationwide, but in a small area it is a-ok.

The large soda ban was an example of the opposite. Making something unlawful that the rest of the nation enjoys in a small localized area (albeit one with a massive population). This was a terrible idea.

Granting more rights and priviledges to the people is a good idea. It makes for a happier populace. Reducing them, even on the local area, is a bad one. It makes for a less happy populace, and very often opens the door to a menagerie of side-effect issues.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

That is so far from the same logic. It's more like, here is a way to solve an individual's problem without it effecting other people. And you say I'm trying to apply it to large groups.

Regardless of what logic one uses, as the bill was worded it would have usurped power from a smaller local and more representative level to that of a larger more central level. If that's how you want it, fine. But, the fact is that alcohol was never totally illegal in the first place.

I suggest anyone that wanted this to pass should attempted to do it locally, or better yet apply for a brewpub or package brewery license. Maybe stock up on beer? This was a state constitutional amendment!

It would seem I'm in the minority here, except the voters have spoken with me.

Are you suggesting only a single person is inconvenienced by this? You can't honestly think that is the case. Your logic 100% applies in my situation, you scoff at it because it's taken to an extreme situation.

Don't like that your county is dry? So what, I dont care if the hurdles to changing that are so high it's nearly impossible to change that.

As I've stated before though I'm all for local self determination. That's great, but sometime you run into the tyranny of the majority. What did it pass by? 53 or 57% of the vote? Of the portion of people that voted. That's hardly a blank check to suggest the entire state thinks the old system should stay.

Suggesting someone that doesn't like it should just move. So would you say the same thing about PPACA, everyone's at doesn't agree with Obama should just move out of the country?

Shouldn't the dry communities feel secure in that, their community is tight knit enough, and that the people in it are responsible, and would not abuse alcohol suddenly because its a wet county? Or am I missing the point of a dry/wet county separation? To me, it creates a have and have-nots sort of situation. You have some counties with a handful of people that own liqour stores that can rake in the cash, and people that could or want to work for or own a business selling liqour, but cannot do that due to what is barely a majority in their county (and then you have the owners of county line stores dumping money to prevent dry counties from becoming wet). This doesn't scream local self determination.

 

[uncleleon]

Why don't we repeal the law that makes it illegal instead of adding conditions to its legality. It's just like medical marijuana. Everyone's like ok that's good it's a step in the right direction. I say it's a step toward oligarchy. Look at the taxes they imposed with the legalization.

Your getting your freedom sold back to you with interest.

 

[uncleleon]

I'm suggesting people have to prioritize their wants and that they are free to have a liquor store near their home. Simple problem simple answer.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Why don't we repeal the law that makes it illegal instead of adding conditions to its legality.

NOW you're making an argument I could agree with.

 

[uncleleon]

Never mind, I've changed my opinion. I was wrong everyone else is right. God bless.

 

[helibrewer]

Maybe the legal marijuana states should adopt "pot counties and non-pot counties"...the fact that alcohol is singles out in all of this is just ridiculous. Can you buy cigarettes in all AR counties? I bet you can!