“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” — Pericles, 430 B.C.
Not much has changed in 2400 years since this ancient promoter of democracy penned those words. I am bewildered every time I hear the complacent citizen state: “I don’t care about politics.” It is hard for me to grasp how someone can care so little about a system and the people within it that are passing laws that have such an intimate impact on their lives.
When it comes to the alcohol industry, the amalgam of both state and federal regulations form a dense jungle that not only make it difficult for brewers to to do business, but for consumers to purchase their product. The majority of the time, alcohol legislation is very reactionary in nature and does little to no good in resolving the problem it is addressing.
Such is the case with the California proposal to ban caffeinated brew. Legislatures, as they see it, who perceive themselves as appointed watchdogs for the citizens, feel that caffeinated brews are detrimental to the well being of the consumer. The consumer may feel that the stimulant effect of caffeine are counter-effective the depressing effect of the alcohol, rendering them effective vehicular navigators despite intoxication. I’m sure this happens.
I’ve been to clubs and seen slobbering drunk but hyperactive college students with Red Bull and Vodka or a Sparks energy beer in hand dancing further into the night than if they were drinking straight Vodka. I’ve seen hop into their cars and hit the road, putting their lives and others at risk. But I’ve also seen their friends drink Corona all night long and hit the road as well. Sure. They are breaking the law.
But is banning the drink the right solution? Will drunk driving stats really diminish with caffeinated alcohol off the market? And, as a recent article points out, craft or artisanal beer is threatened in California. As you are surely aware, coffee is often a key ingredient in many finely crafted craft brews. Should such a law banning beers with alcohol pass, you can forget finding your favorite coffee stout on the shelves of you favorite bottle shop, a beer that I would guess hardly contributes to the problem. Seriously, when is the last time you popped into your local techno club and saw a dude dancing with glow sticks in one hand and a bottle of Kentucky Breakfast Stout in the other.
Besides the fact that this is classic case of throwing the baby out with bathwater, should even a beer such as Sparks, marketed to reckless youth be banned? I mean, there seems to be legislation in place already that is aimed at protecting the citizen: Drunk driving laws and public intoxication laws come to mind.
The passing of such a law damages not only you, the conscientious consumer, but the brewer, who looses sales and has to add yet another legal mine to navigate past.
Now I hate to be pragmatic, as I would simply be flawed methodology of the lawmakers in this case. Alcohol laws are slippery slopes into further legislation that restricts the purchase freedom of the consumer. Just watch Beer Wars and attempt to grapple with the silly distribution laws that evolved from some piece of well intentioned legislation.
But we asked for this. Yes, we Americans have continually been abdicating all normal responsibilities of adulthood–like responsible living, driving, and alcohol consumption–to higher authorities. That’s no political statement, just an objective observation. Perhaps we need to take a stand and tell our lawmakers that in this case, we can get buy without their watchful hand. Sure we might need to take on some responsibility and take a little bit more time to teach our kids that Sparks is best enjoyed while the keys to the car out of reach (or in my case, teach them that Sparks is downright gross) and that alcohol while a great beverage, a treat, a blessing, and perhaps a livelihood, does have the potential to cause harm.
Last time I checked, we are still a representative democracy; that is, our lawmakers are hired by us to represent our opinions, not pass arbitrary legislation that they feel does our body good. If such is the case, call your lawmaker at every level (city, state, federal) and voice your opinion. If you cherish the freedom to walk down to the store and pick up a Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout, your senator will not know unless you tell him/her. The passionate devotees to prohibition-esque causes are placing their phone calls, are you?
Sure politics may not be your thing. You might hate talking about it, but politics is talking about you, and your beer. I’m not being cynical or a jerk. I am sure that many behind this bill love their constituents and want them to feel safe when they navigate the road their taxes paid to pave…I just don’t think another restrictive purchasing law is the solution.
Update:
Scott from the BrewClub passed along this link for all those Californians who are interested in trying to keep their shelves stocked with their favorite coffee brews:


Agree 100%.
The blame it often seems, is placed on the intimate object, and not the irresponsible idiot making poor decisions. How many times to you hear “cigarette causes house fire” when it was really someone falling asleep with small fire in his hand who is the real cause. I could go on, but unfortunately you can’t make stupidity illegal, so its just easier to protect us from ourselves with overbearing and ineffective laws. Being in CA, you should put up a link so to the CA legislature so people can contact them about this issue.
Like this. http://www.legislature.ca.gov/port-zipsearch.html
Remember, its for the children.
[Reply]
Thanks for the link Scott, and I’m loving the cigarette analogy. It is very fitting. You are right, stupidity can’t be made illegal…but it’s on the rise.
I used to work with teens…directed a local youth non profit. Loved these kids…they had great hearts! but they displayed an utter lack of responsibility. Of course our organization worked with them on this, but I realized they expected more and gave less (thought and effort) than when I was a teen.
All that to say…I agree…personal responsibility needs to be bolstered at every level!
[Reply]
I am just as annoyed with the law as everyone else. However, it occurs to me that craft brewers may be able to get around it by switching to decaf coffee.
[Reply]
beer_scientist Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Dean,
What worries me is the very fact that the government is getting involved. Giving ground on various points and various times can lead to a lot of future trouble. The switch to decaf might be meaningless now but what about the next thing?
[Reply]
Wow, had heard of talk about this didn’t think it had gone this far. If these people are so concerned for our health, then why have they not banned soda, coffee, cigarettes, or even the alcohol.
As you guys said it is personal responsibility that needs to be held to a higher standard. If these people are that concerned about drinking and driving why not mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles sold???
One more thing, would be able to add chocolate, which has a lot of caffeine in it?
(love answering questions with questions
[Reply]
@Dean I thought about that too, but personally, decaf has an unpleasant taste to me…very chemical laden…but I’ve only had cheap Folgers Decaf…nothing premium
@Peter Slippery slope for sure. Japan has made obesity illegal. Maybe the US should follow suite? I forgot about Chocolate…that’s a great point.
[Reply]
Ay Caramba! No me gusta!
In principle, this is troubling. However, we’ve been long down this path with various laws enacted for our supposed safety. From seat belts, child car seats, cell-phone usage etc… there’s an underlying assumption that you aren’t responsible enough to make prudent decisions on your own. You need the “benevolent” government to help you make these decisions. (Car seat laws are a particular sore spot with me and my large kids, that and the lobbying meant to tug on your heartstrings.)
I’m willing to bet the reason the government is involving itself in this matter is due to special interest groups, probably led by some neo-prohibitionist group. I’d even guess that they bring in some testimony of people whose lives have been irreparably affected by some dude that drank way too much Sparks. “If only he hadn’t been drinking caffeinated booze that night, he wouldn’t have driven, and my Toby would still be here today. [sniff]” Heart strings have thus been pulled, and you are an insensitive monster to vote against such legislation.
Sorry for the rant, but this really touches a nerve with me. I don’t mean to lack compassion for those whose lives have been affected by drunk driving and other alcohol related offenses. The solution is not complicate the laws with ever more legislation. The solution lies with effectively enforcing the laws we currently have. Possibly, create programs that provide an alternative to driving. I’ve seen that at my alma mater as well as a former employer. In the end, we need to make responsible decisions, both at the personal level as well as at institutional levels. More regulations encourages the opposite, IMHO.
[Reply]
Not at all, Tex. It’s a well deserved rant and you are free to do so any time. It is interesting that psychological and emotional aspects of it play a huge role, which is funny when there is a supposed objectivity among judges, legislators, etc. Of course it’s sad that Toby died; it’s tragic, but that simply isn’t enough to deal with the root problem that we deny personal responsibility when it comes to drinking and driving.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses from all of you.
[Reply]