Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Florida Trying to Make Microbreweries Sell, Buy Their Own Beer Back from Distributors

Nick Gillespie | 4.9.2014 10:50 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Laughing Squid

Submitted for your approval via Political Fix Florida: A proposed beer law so freaking stupid that it will make you want to get really drunk.

The legislation worming its way through the Florida state Senate forces microbreweries or other craft beer producers to sell their beer to a distributor and then buy it back before selling it to the thirsty public. Even if the microbrewers have restaurants or on-site bars.

The measure (SB 1714) has so infuriated craft brewers and beer enthusiasts that some on Twitter have christened it with the hashtag "#growlergate." The Community Affairs committee approved the bill Tuesday.

Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, was so incensed at the idea of craft brewers having to pay someone else to sell their own product that he likened it to a mobbed-up racket. Latvala has championed the microbrewery cause.

The requirement is similar to paying "protection to 'Vinnie' in New York," he said.

The bill also is favored by the Big Beer lobby, which is feeling the heat from craft beer's competition.

Ah, there you have it! The Big Beer lobby!

As The Tampa Tribune explains it, this is all part of the notorious and ridiculous three-tier system ushered in after Prohibition.

After the country's failed experiment with Prohibition from 1920 to 1933, states wanted to make sure no one - like mobsters - had monopoly control over booze.

They created a three-level system in which producers, including brewers, could sell only to wholesale distributors. The distributors then would sell to the retailers, and only retailers could sell to consumers. The idea was that nobody in one tier could unduly influence anyone in another, especially on pricing.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Kelli Stargell (R-Lakeland) and, as Political Fix notes, doesn't even require that the beer actually leave a microbrewery's property and then return. It's a pure payoff scheme. The bill also legalizes a 64-ounce "growler," or large jug of beer drawn from a tap. Currently, only 32-ounce and 128-ounce growlers are legal under state law. Because, you know, state legislatures are filled with idiots.

Hat tip: Patrick R. Gibbons

Watch "Beer: An American Revolution—How Microbreweries Promote Choice"

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle: Bush Lied. So Did Obama.

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

PoliticsBeerNanny StateWar on DrugsEconomicsPolicyAlcoholFloridaProhibition
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (60)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Tim   11 years ago

    America was stronger when I was a kid: if you wanted beer you got Bud, Bud Lite or Miller.

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      Yeah, and if you wanted to put on airs you drank Michelob.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        No, Heineken or Grolsch. God damn the beer selection was so fucking bad back then.

        1. JW   11 years ago

          Don't be dissing the Lowenbrau.

    2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

      What if you wanted something that didn't taste like cold piss?

      1. Michael Price   11 years ago

        Then you drank it warm, if it's good enough for the English...

  2. albo   11 years ago

    Wow. Even my beloved Pennsylvania LCB--where rent seekers, unions and a sclerotic legislature meet to hoist a regulated drink--doesn't require that.

  3. hamilton   11 years ago

    I would like to see that dress in the microbrew version, please.

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      aye

    2. R C Dean   11 years ago

      If they make it in a stout, will John by one for his wife/mistress?

      1. R C Dean   11 years ago

        I'm already feeling bad about this cheap shot.

        Kinda.

        1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

          I smiled.

    3. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      best I could do

  4. B.P.   11 years ago

    This isn't really unheard of. My family's distillery pays our state distributor for anything we sell on-site at the distillery. The payment does include state excise taxes.

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      But isn't that so you get a tax stamp so that people can legally transport your product over state lines?

      1. B.P.   11 years ago

        I'm to understand it's to maintain the multi-tiered alcohol distribution system. As in, we can't be our own distributor, even if the product actually goes directly from manufacturer to consumer.

        1. Brett L   11 years ago

          Ah, okay.

    2. Paul.   11 years ago

      This isn't really unheard of.

      Neither is paying protection money to a couple of guys who start warning about mishaps if you don't pay up.

      1. B.P.   11 years ago

        Oh, I'm not suggesting it's sterling public policy, just that it's not breaking news.

    3. MoreFreedom   11 years ago

      Your point being that since it's done, it's OK? In other words, you pay a distributor to do nothing, because you are forced to by government.

      Latvala is right. It's like paying protection money to the Mafia.

  5. Brett L   11 years ago

    The shitty thing is that this is the second bad bill in the FL Legislature this year, so the craft/microbrewers who testified against the first one have to haul their asses back to the Capitol to do a second round of lobbying against an even worse bill. Hopefully, we will see several people running explicitly against beer and wine distributors this fall.

    1. HazelMeade   11 years ago

      That's how the system works. You gotta pay off the politicians. Pay them to leave you alone.

      1. perlhaqr   11 years ago

        Except it doesn't fucking work. Even if you pay them, they don't leave you alone.

        At least when you pay protection money to the Mob, they actually protect you. When you pay protection money to the State, they hire more cops to fuck with you.

  6. Restoras   11 years ago

    A hearty round of applause for Gillespie's choice of illustrative picture and alt+text.

    1. db   11 years ago

      Wish I could seee the alt text on my browser.

      1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

        You need to nuke that browser. ASAP. That's the most horrible thing I've ever heard.

        64 Ounce Beer Dress Not Legal in Florida. Yet.

  7. Warty   11 years ago

    That dress is not quite as successful in execution as in conception.

    1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

      You got me. Argh!

    2. Episiarch   11 years ago

      Why must you ruin good things you monster?

    3. Restoras   11 years ago

      I guess I should be glad I can't see this from my work computer?

      1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

        Probably.

        I have a policy of not following Warty links, that's just asking for trouble.

    4. lap83   11 years ago

      This woman is a more accurate representation of the person who likes beer enough to buy that type of dress.

  8. freebooter   11 years ago

    That's not all, apparently they are trying to ban greyhound racing too. Oh well.

    I love how this article starts:

    Greyhound tracks will be able to offer card games and online betting, but not dog racing, under legislation moving quickly through the state legislature.

    Our overlords are so very generous. Note how the taking away of something is couched in what will be allowed.

    And:

    Legislation that began as a requirement to report injuries to racing greyhounds has morphed into what is being called de-coupling.

    The word end is used in the headline and elsewhere in the article but not once does the reporter use the term ban or outlaw. The whole thing makes it seem like the racing is just going stop.

    The press: copywriters for government.

  9. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    I posted this last Saturday.

    H/t redacted!

    1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

      There was a whole thread on this last week.

      1. hamilton   11 years ago

        Did it have pictures of hot girls in slinky dresses? I've been busy at work and missed a lot, I'm really only catching up here starting today.

        1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

          I'm all for new, improved versions of good threads. By next week the updated version might have a redhead instead. Plus I'll have new developments in homebrewing (waiting in secondary right now).

          I was saying that Cisco doesn't deserve a hat-tip.

          PS: Fuck you squirrels.

          1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

            By next week the updated version might have a redhead instead.

            So it'll be a ginger beer?

          2. gimmeasammich   11 years ago

            From sarcasmic's link above...

            http://instagram.com/p/WXtTw6Po7l/

            1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

              Excellent. By next month it will be professional quality taken by someone else. By this summer it'll be full on porn.

      2. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

        There was a whole thread on this last week.

        I was saying that Cisco doesn't deserve a hat-tip.

        And not ONE of you assholes pointed that out to me on Saturday?

        Thanks guyz! Leave me blowing in the wind.

        1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

          I was busy doing shit on Saturday. Mostly drinking.

  10. Cdr Lytton   11 years ago

    Idaho legislature has a current bill (passed the house) to prevent breweries from have any ownership in or control of wholesaling or retail businesses except for breweries under 30k barrels. Also prohibits wholesalers from owning or controlling a brewery. It's being sold as protecting the craft brewers from being shut out by Big Beer buying up distributors. And just happens to ban brewpubs that get too successful.

    1. eselby   11 years ago

      Already like this in Georgia.
      One of my favorite craft growler stores had to find a buyer or shut down because they were also trying to get a permit to brew. They aren't allowed to do both.

  11. prolefeed   11 years ago

    Hasn't this story already been posted several times on HNR?

    1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

      Fry: Um, I have a question. What if Bender was really giant?

      Leela: You idiot! We already saw that.

      Fry: I know. I liked it. I wanna see it again.

  12. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

    The measure (SB 1714) has so infuriated craft brewers and beer enthusiasts that some on Twitter have christened it with the hashtag "#growlergate."

    They amazing found a way to lose me as an ally.

  13. Drake   11 years ago

    I'm guessing that getting licensed as a distributor requires well connected friends and lots of grease.

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      Yep. Limited number of licenses, issued by a small bureaucracy.

  14. Freedom Frog   11 years ago

    Can I squeeze my own OJ in Florida or do I HAVE to go through Tropicana?

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      You'll have to ask The Mouse. Everyone knows that Disney makes all the legal decisions in FL.

  15. Robert   11 years ago

    After the country's failed experiment with Prohibition from 1920 to 1933, states wanted to make sure no one - like mobsters - had monopoly control over booze. They created a three-level system in which producers, including brewers, could sell only to wholesale distributors. The distributors then would sell to the retailers, and only retailers could sell to consumers. The idea was that nobody in one tier could unduly influence anyone in another, especially on pricing.

    Apparently according to the dogma of the day, business was like that?mobsters or even nobsters (Like that word for "non-mobsters"?) would cartelize it if gov't didn't prevent it. Like they'd seen how the liquor biz was under Prohib'n and figured that was just the normal way.

    That had to have been the way it came about, i.e. by disinterested true believers. It could not have been established biz interests seeking protection, because there weren't any legit operators in the liquor business then, and it could not have been discouragement in the place of prohib'n, because they could've achieved that much more simply via taxes or simply maintaining their state's prohib'n.

    1. HazelMeade   11 years ago

      The notion that people might brew liquor and sell it on the premises seems not to have occurred to anyone in 1930.

  16. HazelMeade   11 years ago

    After the country's failed experiment with Prohibition from 1920 to 1933, states wanted to make sure no one - like mobsters - had monopoly control over booze.

    They created a three-level system in which producers, including brewers, could sell only to wholesale distributors. The distributors then would sell to the retailers, and only retailers could sell to consumers. The idea was that nobody in one tier could unduly influence anyone in another, especially on pricing.

    Because a system designed for the 1930s is so applicable to the beer market of 2014.

    Repeal this, and we'll have men in pin stripe suits shooting eachother with tommy guns in the streets, FO' SURE!!!!

    1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

      Nothing screams "preventing monopoly" like "stop tiny business from selling directly to customers".

      1. perlhaqr   11 years ago

        Threadwinner. 🙂

      2. perlhaqr   11 years ago

        We don't have a fucking retard law like this in NM (yet) but we do have a pretty strict franchise state. (All beer imported for sale must be imported through a distributor. Which means that if no distributor thinks it's worth bringing something rare or weird in, we just don't get it.) But licenses are so rare, there aren't very many distributors.

        But it's not a monopoly. It's more like a tripoly. That's totally different. Argh.

  17. MoreFreedom   11 years ago

    Latvala is right, this is like paying protection money to the Mafia. But instead of the Mafia, it's the government created distributor cartel to which you pay it.

    The only difference between them and the Mafia, is they have bigger government guns and more thugs to ensure you pay up. And in both cases you get nothing of value for your protection money, just a promise to not put you out of business using their guns.

    Government is supposed to protect our liberties, including the liberty to buy and sell alcohol. Their job is to ensure competition exists to any who want to enter the alcohol distribution (or other) business, including brewers. Instead of protecting our liberties, they are becoming the mafia, extracting our money from us for their own benefit. That's criminal gangsta government.

  18. Mike Parent   11 years ago

    Big Business bullying small business with help from bought and paid for politicians.

  19. ibcbet   11 years ago

    It's being sold as protecting the craft brewers from being shut out by Big Beer buying up distributors.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's FTC Chair Is Continuing To Push Lina Khan's Antitrust
Ideology

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: They Won't Miss It

Charles Oliver | 5.22.2025 4:00 AM

America's Credit Is Falling—and the Government Is Still Digging Deeper Into Debt

Veronique de Rugy | 5.22.2025 12:13 AM

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Jacob Sullum | 5.21.2025 6:00 PM

Supreme Court Orders Maine Legislator Censured for Social Media Post Must Get Voting Rights Back

Emma Camp | 5.21.2025 4:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!