GREEN MOUSE follows up: "How Dollar Stores Became Magnets for Crime and Killing."

Picking up where we left off on February 13, when I asked, "What sort of upper crust prohibitionist’s rationale is being advanced here?"

GREEN MOUSE SAYS: Neo-prohibitionism, foppery and hypocrisy at Indiana Landmarks as Family Dollar on Vincennes gets a perfectly legal alcohol sales permit.

This led to a traumatic Facebook kerfuffle, deletions and recriminations, and subsequently I was made aware of other back-channel goings-on, but by then the dark pandemic clouds were gathering and nothing much happened with any of it. Honestly, I've no idea whether the Family Dollar in question ever received the alcohol permit.

At the time, I was perfectly well aware of the controversies engendered by the contemporary growth of Family Dollar, Dollar General and other such carpetbagging stores in the context of impoverished areas, employment practices, food deserts, inept local governments and a host of other ills that capitalism gleefully exploits for the benefit of the accumulators of capital, at the expense of ordinary people who exist to be steamrolled.

What particularly bothered me back in February was the involvement of Indiana Landmarks, whether active and real or merely tactically suggested by opponents of the Family Dollar alcoholic beverages permit, as well as the paternalistic attitude of more than one self-identified (and Reisz-stuffed) historic preservationist concerning their responsibility to help the poor folks lest too many paychecks get squandered on booze -- an argument that was tired and regrettable a century ago in the run-up to Prohibition.

To be precise, I take none of it back -- not a word -- and note only that with the intervention of more important matters, the discussion came to an end. So it goes.

Now, about Family Dollar, Dollar General and others of the species. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power, and in this gripping long read, Alec MacGillis explains "How Dollar Stores Became Magnets for Crime and Killing."

 ... The Gun Violence Archive, a website that uses local news reports and law enforcement sources to tally crimes involving firearms, lists more than 200 violent incidents involving guns at Family Dollar or Dollar General stores since the start of 2017, nearly 50 of which resulted in deaths. The incidents include carjackings in the parking lot, drug deals gone bad and altercations inside stores. But a large number involve armed robberies in which workers or customers have been shot. Since the beginning of 2017, employees have been wounded in shootings or pistol-whippings in at least 31 robberies; in at least seven other incidents, employees have been killed. The violence has not let up in recent months, when requirements for customers to wear masks have made it harder for clerks to detect shoppers who are bent on robbery. In early May, a worker at a Family Dollar in Flint, Michigan, was fatally shot after refusing entry to a customer without a mask.

The number of incidents can be explained in part by the stores’ ubiquity: There are now more than 16,000 Dollar Generals and nearly 8,000 Family Dollars in the United States, a 50% increase in the past decade. (By comparison, Walmart has about 4,700 stores in the U.S.) The stores are often in high-crime neighborhoods, where there simply aren’t many other businesses for criminals to target. Routine gun violence has fallen sharply in prosperous cities around the country, but it has remained stubbornly high in many of the cities and towns where these stores predominate. The glowing signs of the discount chains have become indicators of neglect, markers of a geography of the places that the country has written off.

But these factors are not sufficient to explain the trend. The chains’ owners have done little to maintain order in the stores, which tend to be thinly staffed and exist in a state of physical disarray. In the 1970s, criminologists such as Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson argued that rising crime could be partly explained by changes in the social environment that lowered the risk of getting caught. That theory gained increasing acceptance in the decades that followed. “The likelihood of a crime occurring depends on three elements: a motivated offender, a vulnerable victim, and the absence of a capable guardian,” the sociologist Patrick Sharkey wrote, in “Uneasy Peace,” from 2018.

Another way of putting this is that crime is not inevitable. Robberies and killings that have taken place at dollar store chains would not have necessarily happened elsewhere. “The idea that crime is sort of a whack-a-mole game, that if you just press here it’ll move over here,” is wrong, Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, told me. Making it harder to commit a crime doesn’t just push crime elsewhere; it reduces it. “Crime is opportunistic,” he said. “If there’s no opportunity, there’s no crime” ...

BEER WITH A SOCIALIST: A belated farewell to Brian O'Donnell.

Three bullet points to begin the week ...

Leading off, I'm six months late to the news, but it's better than not knowing at all. A few days back a weird urge struck me to do a Google search, and I learned that Brian O'Donnell, esteemed owner of the Hi-B (Hibernian) Bar in Cork, Ireland, died last December. I wrote an appreciation at Food & Dining Magazine.

Hip Hops: Brian’s song will play forever more at the Hi-B Bar in Cork

When O’Donnell died last December, the Irish Examiner’s eulogy by Dan Buckley painted a picture of curmudgeonly eccentricity, undoubted erudition and sheer longevity; O’Donnell’s parents had owned the bar since 1924 when he took it over in the early 1960s, and his wife and daughter continued the family tradition when age and ill health compelled him to retire.

O'Donnell was well into his 80s, although his actual date of birth seems not to have been revealed anywhere. It's genuinely true: they don't make 'em like him any longer, and that's too bad.

Every modern theory on hospitality management of which I'm aware frowns on throwing a customer's mobile phone out the open window or banning visitors for chewing gum.

And no, I never consciously modeled my own career as publican (1990 - 2015) on O'Donnell's mindset. He and I met only twice, maybe three times, on those very occasions from 1987 when visiting Cork. However, he struck up a friendship with my cousin. I'd have enjoyed sitting in the corner and listening as they debated politics and sang operatic arias together.

Rest in power, Brian O'Donnell.

Today's second item concerns draft Dogfish Head SeaQuench Ale, which will be sold at Pints&union by the growler starting tomorrow (May 20). SeaQuench is a very new-school way of thinking about formulating a beer, but incorporates old-school styles from Germany in route to urging margarita cocktail lovers to try it. I wrote about SeaQuench at the Pints&union website. Each day this week I'll be adding a short refresher about the draft beers we currently are pouring into growlers for take-away. 

Finally, from yesterday:

One thousand times this: "American liquor laws are pretty stupid. And the COVID-19 pandemic gives us a once in a century chance to change them."

I am delighted, thrilled and hopeful to see these many recent media references to the post-lockdown period as a propitious time to reassess American society's attitudes toward a panoply of head-scratching alcoholic beverage laws.

It's time to get these conversations started.

One thousand times this: "American liquor laws are pretty stupid. And the COVID-19 pandemic gives us a once in a century chance to change them."

Photo credit: The Atlantic.

A pandemic is awful, and it's also an awfully good time to make common-sense reforms.

As a preface, frequent readers will recall that I'm a hardcore atheist. This said, thank God for Andy Crouch. For a very long time he's been one of my favorite beer writers. Right now, I'd vote for him over Trump or Biden.

Quite literally I've been saying this for DECADES.

The Case for Public Drinking, by Andy Crouch (Beer Edge)

America has long relegated the consumption of alcohol to bars and restaurants. In doing so, localities have further sought to control the public’s ability to consume alcohol under stringent liquor laws. Many states and cities limit the number of alcohol sale licenses, causing an artificial and inflated market for their value. Each year, the bar, restaurant, or brewery pays a few hundred or thousands of dollars in these markets to renew their licenses, paying the fees directly to the city or state. If you want to open a new establishment in an area that has hit its limit on licenses, you either have to contemplate not serving booze—something that is rarely tenable in major markets—or you have to buy someone else’s license.

This governmental created scarcity causes the value of liquor licenses to skyrocket, often going for hundreds of thousands of dollars on the open market. And none of this profit goes to the city or state, only into the pockets of private companies and owners.

And:

As much as I would like to sit arm to arm with a complete stranger at a local bar, casually discussing local events or the weather, it’s going to be a long time before most people feel comfortable doing that.

Until we’re able to return to that kind of normalcy, assuming it can return, local and state governments should continue the creative thinking they’ve developed during the pandemic response and contemplate allowing breweries or bars to operate beer gardens in large, outdoor public settings and to relax local laws governing open containers.

With the weather improving, people want to get together while still being able to maintain proper physical distancing. Beer gardens satisfy a long suppressed hunger for open-air forums of public fun. The public should be allowed to enjoy some communality and conviviality, fresh air, and a beer or two all in the company of good friends and their restorative laughter.

The restaurant industry press has noticed, too (thanks, W) ...

Restaurants profit from looser alcohol regulations during coronavirus pandemic, by Bret Thorn (Nation's Restaurant News)

With to-go beer, wine and cocktail sales thriving, will states revise rules on booze delivery, takeout and curbside pickup permanently?

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept the country, many state liquor authorities displayed uncharacteristic flexibility in loosening their regulations, allowing many restaurants to sell beer, wine, spirits and cocktails for takeout and delivery for the first time in an attempt to help those businesses survive.

Restaurateurs responded with alacrity, developing bottled cocktails and cocktail kits, launching wine discounts or even reducing their inventory of premium spirits in order to manage cash flow better.

And even as state restrictions are being lifted and restaurants gradually reopen for dine-in, many operators are hoping the added revenue stream of to-go alcohol will remain in place permanently — or at least longer into what is expected to be a slow recovery.

... as has journalists covering food and drink from the consumer's end of them.

Liquor Laws Loosen Up in the Face of Delivery-Only Dining, by Caleb Pershan (Eater)

Some states are letting restaurants turn to takeout booze to make up for lost profits

If all goes well with temporarily relaxed liquor laws, waivers could very well be extended, and conceivably made permanent. “The best case is people figure out how to do this well, and realize they could have done it lawfully this whole time... A lot of [restaurants] who might just never have thought of it might find that the condo across the street will buy $20 or $30 bottles of wine with carryout.”

BEER WITH A SOCIALIST: Prohibitionists see an opportunity amid COVID-19's onslaught.

But riots would violate social distancing, right?

Beer writer Andy Crouch, who is from Massachusetts:

"Liquor stores are filling growlers out of kegs in the back of a truck in customers' driveways. There are no liquor laws anymore. How we go back to "normal" after all of this is beyond me."

Here in Indiana, watching as dozens of alcoholic beverage laws vanish (temporarily) overnight has been like watching the Warsaw Pact crumble in 1989. The Indy Star explains, focusing on a key point.

Indiana, once a last bastion of blue laws, considers alcohol sales 'essential', by Chris Sikich (Indianapolis Star)

Political watchers say it's unlikely anyone had to make pleas to the governor, or at least plead very hard. Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics, said there would be civil unrest if the government had tried to outlaw alcohol when everyone was stuck at home.

"He's doing something that both meets demand and doesn't create a new problem," Downs said.

He said (Eric) Holcomb's likely chain of thought was quite logical.

"Grocery stores are open and would have continued to sell alcohol," Downs said. "So that means liquor stores had to be an essential service too (to ensure an even playing field). And if we're trying to make sure that restaurants can survive, that means people who order food for carryout absolutely should be able to get their booze there rather than create more risk by travelling elsewhere."

According to a high-powered medical authority, it isn't so simple. Peter P. Bach says that continuing to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages during the pandemic, when people are compelled to stay at home with their loved ones, only enhances domestic violence.

Consequently, a new reason for prohibitionism.

Ban alcohol sales during the pandemic, by Peter B. Bach (Boston Globe)

Domestic violence appears to be rising and states need to shut down liquor stores until home isolation is no longer needed.

Millions are beaten and injured annually in the United States by drunken domestic partners and parents, and that is when times are good. With the economy tanking and families locked together because of stay-at-home orders to combat the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, domestic violence rates appear to be soaring. This requires an urgent response: States should immediately order the closures of liquor stores. They can reopen when home isolation is no longer needed.

And yet this: "Most adults drink rarely or not at all. Just 10 percent of adults account for 75 percent of all alcohol sold, consuming 10 or more drinks per day."

No question that confinement of families, sudden demands to oversee home schooling, precipitous job loss, and worry over an invisible viral predator are the ingredients of a toxic domestic brew. But alcohol is what turns it into a second invisible public health crisis.

Most adults drink rarely or not at all. Just 10 percent of adults account for 75 percent of all alcohol sold, consuming 10 or more drinks per day. That kind of excessive use impairs judgment, engenders anger agitation and dysphoria, and can lead to violent behavior.

Reducing access to alcohol during the crisis will reduce the frequency of home violence. Finland’s liquor store employee strike in the 1970s as well as Sweden’s curtailment of liquor store sales on certain days in the 1980s, both had that effect. South Dakota imposed twice daily sobriety breathalyzer checks for individuals with multiple arrests for drunk driving last decade. That worked too. Not only did drunk driving rates fall, but so did calls for domestic violence — both by about 10 percent.

These data could support curtailing liquor sales at any time, and reducing domestic violence was one of the motivations for the temperance movement a century ago. But our response to the coronavirus pandemic itself is what makes this move appropriate now and for the duration of home isolation, as the isolation frustrates an array of safeguards we have in place to identify domestic abuse in the first place.

The reasoning leads to a predictable place: "These data could support curtailing liquor sales at any time, and reducing domestic violence was one of the motivations for the temperance movement a century ago."

And, we recall how the temperance movement a century ago played out, eh?

Indiana is following suit as Kentucky temporarily allows alcoholic beverage carryout and delivery by licensed restaurants.

Governor Beshear temporarily loosens restrictions on alcoholic beverage carryout and delivery by licensed restaurants (Food & Dining Magazine)

Indiana's measures broke just before 9:00 p.m. on Thursday evening. The Alcohol & Tobacco Commission will be allowing restaurants already licensed to sell adult beverages inside their buildings to temporarily expand their permits to carryout sales.

In short, take home a few beers with your food. The relaxation does not apply to draft beer, which remains the domain of small breweries.

In some instances, it appears this may extend to deliveries, too; it's a little-known fact that several types of ATC permit always have allowed deliveries, even if few establishments take advantage of it.

The ATC will be requiring establishments to apply for a supplemental carryout addendum, and the "devilish" details are as yet not forthcoming. Then again it's been only 12 hours. There'll undoubtedly be hitches and glitches, but I can say with certainty that quality people are "on it," and I'll try to thank them all profusely in due time.

Maybe ... to repeat MAYBE ... some restaurants will have permission by the end of the business day today (Friday). If not, next week seems probable.

ON THE AVENUES: If it's a war, then the food service biz needs to be issued a few weapons. We need improvisation and flexibility to survive the shutdown.

ON THE AVENUES: If it's a war, then the food service biz needs to be issued a few weapons. We need improvisation and flexibility to survive the shutdown.

Noon Friday Update (March 20): As of yesterday evening, Indiana is implementing certain temporary carryout privileges for restaurants, as advocated in this column. It's an ongoing story, with an overview here.

This will be a truncated edition of the weekly column. Since last week's entry, everyday "normality" as most of us have experienced it throughout our lives has been suspended -- temporarily, or so we're told, although it's worth remembering that most challenges of COVID-19's magnitude usually end with a plethora of new, altered realities, some big and others small.

As a social worker, Diana as yet remains in the trenches, seeking to provide daily needs and services to at-risk populations. My world is the food, drink and hospitality business, and we're in a state of siege. It is an existential crisis unlike any we've faced in the past century.

What I'm about to write may strike some as trivial in the context of society's needs at this juncture, so let me assure you that I'll not be asking for the moon and stars at a time of universal dumpster fires. Rather, I'm urging a common-sense improvisation pertaining to measures already announced, something that might assist my brethren to make it through to emergency's end.

There may be other relevant improvisations I'm missing, and if so, let me know. Ears are wide open, and there's ample opportunity for consideration.

---

My thinking on this matter began evolving when I saw this quote in the Indy Star by Eric Holcomb, governor of Indiana.

"We are at war with COVID-19 and we will win this war."

This is when it occurred to me that in the context of state-mandated closure orders for restaurants and bars -- my family, my community -- we're the ones being asked to bear the brunt of the anti-COVID-19 resistance by buying time and being crippled or extinguished if necessary -- in effect, to do what we can with to delay the invading hordes while stronger lines of resistance are being built in the rear.

It's a common theme in military history, although it may not be the best time to recall what happened to Poland's cavalry at the outset of the Second World War.

If it's wartime analogies the governor prefers, then mine make perfect sense. It is not at all far-fetched, considering that the business fatality rate will escalate exponentially the longer the closure order (exempting food carryout) stands.

If this is a war, and if normality is subject to experimentation and revision, then perhaps it would be a good idea to examine further ways to help us fight the battle. 

And boost morale.

Naturally restaurants and bars are eager to do their part within these revised (and improvised) frameworks of operation. It remains that carry-out, curbside and delivery meals alone are an imperfect compromise for many of us, given that our business models rely on the margins from alcoholic beverages.

Those of us without state permits allowing for alcoholic beverage carryout sales, as with holders of riverfront area licenses, are being placed at even more of competitive disadvantage as we all struggle to make it through the state-mandated suspension of normal activities.

We're holding inventories of beer, wine and spirits that are locked down. Most beers and wines don't improve with age, either. Meanwhile package stores, supermarkets and drug stores are not subject to this p(P)rohibition.

If all on-premise sales are off-limits for now, restaurants and bars already have lost one of their stool's three legs. Without alcoholic beverage sales, the second leg is gone, too.

One-legged stools might be tenable, but only barely.

Concepts that include words like "temporary," "modification," "expedient" and "let's throw this against the wall and see if it sticks" need to be considered. As I wrote on Facebook:

"If we're at war, and if restaurants and bars are expected to bear the brunt of a calculated wartime strategy of 'social distancing,' then can they at least be allowed to use the weapons they already possess to stay alive, so they can continue to fight another day?"

I hope that Governor Holcomb will consider a short-term departure from the "everyday" that would allow us to serve the needs of customers for the duration of the war against coronavirus, as well as give us a statistical chance of surviving the conflict.

Holcomb should instruct the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission to temporarily suspend enforcement of Indiana's bewildering carry-out alcohol laws, until such a time when restaurants and bars can go back to operating as they did before the crisis. Merely loosen up, temporarily. Existing permit holders know the rules, and the vast majority follow these procedures.

We aren't newbies. We just don't have a box checked on a sheet of paper.

Our patrons are accustomed to coming inside, hanging out, eating a meal and having a couple of beers. For an indefinite period, almost surely long after March 30, they can't do this. Buying bottles and cans of beers and wine to take away with their food does not seem like a radical reordering of civilization.

I'm saving the most corona-vincing argument for last, because as it pertains to relaxing enforcement of an alcohol law or three to help keep us in the ballgame.

KENTUCKY
ALREADY
IS DOING IT. 

That's right. The Kentucky Restaurant Association lobbied Governor Andy Beshear for a measure of temporary rationality, and I'm told that by Friday 20 March restaurants will be able to sell carry-out beverages with food -- only with food, which is a proper distinction, as are other qualifiers (package not draft, etc)that might be required.

I've written this in one sitting, straight through, and there'll be mistakes. I understand perfectly well that my topic isn't a priority, and nor should it be, which actually reinforces the simplicity of the point being made here.

This isn't rocket science.

It's a tool (or a weapon, your choice) to assist us in carrying on as we carry out ... calmly.

---

---

Recent columns:

March 12: ON THE AVENUES: Keep calm and carry on.

March 5: ON THE AVENUES: I've got the spirit, but lose the feeling.

February 27: ON THE AVENUES: There is a complete absence of diversity among regular News and Tribune columnists.

February 20: ON THE AVENUES: For downtown New Albany, escaping reality might soon be a bridge too far.

GREEN MOUSE SAYS: Neo-prohibitionism, foppery and hypocrisy at Indiana Landmarks as Family Dollar on Vincennes gets a perfectly legal alcohol sales permit.

Heavens, these people make it hard to take a sabbatical, but someone has to provide the "free press" counterweight by offering an opposing point of view, and it might as well be the Green Mouse. Jeeebus, can you let us rest for once?

In which Greg Sekula of Indiana Landmarks, evidently unaware that the docket for the monthly meetings of the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission’s local board us announced weeks in advance, and furthermore, finds at long last that 1:00 p.m. weekday meetings are difficult for normal folks to attend, strenuously objects to an Indiana alcohol sales permit approved for Family Dollar on Vincennes, and does so on behalf of his employer Indiana Landmarks, which if I’m not mistaken in the past has actually hosted a meeting of the Brewers of Indiana Guild in Indianapolis (which I attended), at which the viability of alcohol sales as a means of saving (that’s right) landmarks was both discussed and advocated.

In fact, is there not a special class of Indiana alcohol sales permits precisely intended for listed historic structures (not newer “shittier” non-contributing buildings), to be used primarily in dense downtown areas, and available as a means of placing alcohol permits where they otherwise might be rejected (in cases of proximity to a church, for example)?

And, isn’t the long existing Uptown Liquors equidistant from New Albany High School? Is the same effort being undertaken to shut it down?

We’re all aware of the Dollar General/Family Dollar opprobrium. It’s real enough, and these sort of stores generally are opposed by the well-heeled, who resent untrammeled capitalism’s inelegant but apparently thriving solution to the absence of shopping options in poor neighborhoods.

You don't hear them questioning untrammeled capitalism, do you?

It’s also quite hard to see how hypocritically massing New Albany’s elite clique cadre against Family Dollar on the grounds of alcohol sales makes sense given the proximity of Uptown Liquors to the high school.

There are numerous reasons why the Vincennes Street corridor has declined, and most begin with the closing of the automobile lanes on the K & I Bridge 40+ years ago. Family Dollar’s very presence in this neighborhood is a symptom of numerous other issues pertaining to institutionalized squalor, which four decades of New Albany civic “leadership” refused to address, and now the beautiful people are disturbed by the ensuing mess.

I’m no fan of Family Dollar, but in terms of alcohol sales permits, what exactly has the company done wrong? If the store is located too close to the school, the local ATC board would not receive a recommendation to approve it. If the store elects to sell to minors, you can rest assured the ATC will intervene, as it does elsewhere. There are very few state institutions that perform their functions as capably as the ATC, trust me.

What sort of upper crust prohibitionist’s rationale is being advanced here?

Is it because Family Dollar won’t be selling $20 six-packs of craft beer, but reasonably priced mass market beers (even hard seltzer) to people who don’t have ready surpluses of disposable income -- or, precisely the reason why Family Dollar exists where it does in the first place?

The supreme irony is this: if the K & I Bridge reopened tomorrow as a pedestrian and bicycle link to Louisville, overnight the desirability of alcohol sales permits located on the Vincennes Street corridor would skyrocket, and just as quickly, Sekula and his pals would be advocating on behalf of Indiana Landmarks to expand the riverfront development area to include the corridor and make more three-ways available for the investors who’ll save historic buildings by selling $15 martinis to gentrifiers.

Those opposed to Family Dollar's lawful exercise are planning a remonstrance with the ATC. It’s not clear to me what real-world criteria they have to oppose it (precious little, me thinks), but I’ll try to keep abreast of this and inform you.

Greg, if you’re reading -- You're okay, but please, enough of this hypocritical elitism. It’s woefully shabby. Can you and Barksdale just stick to buildings and inanimate objects? You’re both very good at that, although the wheels invariably come flying off every time local preservationists pretend to think about actual people.

Following is the correspondence the Green Mouse stumbled across (thanks, D).

---

Subject: Family Dollar, Vincennes Street Alcohol Sales Permit Issued - URGENT ACTION NEEDED

New Albany colleagues,

At today’s meeting of the Floyd County Board of the Indiana Alcohol Tobacco Commission, a permit/license for beer and wine sales was approved for the Family Dollar on Vincennes Street. Unfortunately, I was alerted about this meeting at the 11th hour and was luckily able to be in attendance to voice my objection on behalf of myself (a nearby resident) and Indiana Landmarks. Regrettably, only four individuals were in attendance (myself, David Barksdale, John Clere, and a representative of Carter Management), all of whom spoke in opposition to the permit. Other than the Family Dollar representative (who was not from the area and even acknowledged that he was not familiar with the local store), no one spoke in favor of the application. Since the meeting was at 1 in the afternoon, many folks were unable to attend due to work or school obligations.

Shockingly, the Board voted to recommend approval of the license to the State Board! There is a 15-day appeal time frame, the application of which is attached along with the state guidelines that govern the license process. See attachment and link.

Allowing Family Dollar to sell alcohol will be a setback for efforts to revitalize the Vincennes Street Corridor and surrounding historic neighborhoods – Midtown, Uptown, and Depauw Ave. Historic District. Close proximity to New Albany High School is a major concern in addition to trash potential and access to cheap alcohol by a vulnerable population. Successful efforts have been mounted in neighboring states (specifically Dayton , OH, and Louisville, KY) to stop licenses from being granted to specific stores, particularly in vulnerable neighborhoods.

I believe a united effort is needed to stop this! What is uncertain is whether someone who was not in attendance can enjoin an appeal. Shane Gibson, can you see what options we have?

Greg Sekula,
Indiana Landmarks

BEER WITH A SOCIALIST: "In short, hemp and hops can only work together if state and federal regulators get out of the way."

This is an excellent essay about innovation, regulation and weirdness. Thanks to E for the link.

As for me, a pint of Fuller's London Pride will do just fine, but by all means, get out there and expand the perimeter.

Hemp Beer Is Dank, Delicious, and Coming Soon to a Bar Near You... by Eric Boehm (Reason)

... if regulators don't get in the way first

In a lot of ways, hemp and hops seem like they're just meant to go together. After all, they share common ancestors, common flavor profiles, and common recreational uses, says Tom Hembree, the co-founder of the Dad and Dudes Breweria in Aurora, Colorado.

At the end of 2012, the state voted to legalize recreational marijuana. Since shortly after, Dad And Dudes has been out front in the effort to develop and market a beer made with cannabis. The next batch of brew infused with cannabidiol (CBD) oil, a non-psychoactive compound extracted from cannabis, is almost ready to be put in cans. For Hembree, hemp and other cannabis byproducts like CBD are "just another hop essence."

If only it were that simple.

Beers made with hemp have been around for decades: In 1999, while returning from Mexico aboard Air Force One, President Bill Clinton reportedly sampled some Hemp Gold, a cream ale produced by the now-defunct Frederick Brewing Company of Maryland. But despite the explosive growth of America's craft beer scene and the growing acceptance of legal weed, the production and popularity of hemp beers has been limited by a litany of federal and state restrictions, while other laws make it difficult to distribute across state lines.

That's true even in places like Colorado, where craft beer is a booming industry and recreational marijuana is legal. Just down the street from the brewery, you can stroll into a dispensary and find cannabis to be smoked, weed-infused bakery items or candies to be munched, and concentrate to be vaped.

But Dad and Dudes had to get permission from three different federal agencies, along with state authorities, before brewing their George Washington's Secret Stash—so named because the president grew hemp on his farm at Mount Vernon in the days before such production was banned by federal fiat. And when federal rules about using hemp changed abruptly in December 2016, production had to be shut down. "It's been a struggle," says Hembree. Only now, a year and a half later, after a lawsuit and with the beer's legality still somewhat unclear, are they ready to try again."

THE BEER BEAT: "One hundred years ago, Britain nationalized hundreds of its pubs — and invented a better drinking culture."

Photo credit.

Simply stated, speaking as one who is fascinated by World War I and British pub culture and the notion of prohibition, this is a worthy digression to which I'll be returning.

In the interim, it's a pleasure to be introduced to the writing of Phil Mellows, and for more on the topic: The Carlisle Experiment – limiting alcohol in wartime, by Roger Kershaw (The National Archives UK)

Absolutely compelling stuff, this.

Nationalize the Pubs, by Phil Mellows (Jacobin)

A hundred years ago, at the height of World War I, the British government faced a dilemma. As the slaughter on the Somme reached its climax, a vast munitions factory had been built on the border between England and Scotland, on an area covering more than fourteen square miles. Some 12,000 workers, plus thousands more builders and a military guard, were drafted into the area.

Most were billeted in townships near Gretna on the Scottish side of the border, but only a short train journey from Carlisle, a city in northern England. With little else to amuse themselves, Carlisle’s pubs became a home for the workers and their unusually generous pay packets, every evening swelling a native population of just 50,000. At Boustead’s, a watering hole near Carlisle station, they would line up 500 whiskies along the bar, ready for the first after-work customers off the train.

By the summer of 1916, convictions for drunkenness in the town had soared six-fold. But, of course, it wasn’t disorder that primarily concerned the authorities. When future prime minister David Lloyd George, then munitions minister, declared that “We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and as far as I can see, the greatest of these three deadly foes is drink,” he was referencing the widespread view that the effects of alcohol were threatening production.

Outright prohibition was on the agenda for a time, something which was to come to pass in America only four years later with a constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcohol. But by the outbreak of the First World War the temperance movement in Britain had passed its high-water mark. In 1908, the House of Lords threw out a licensing bill which had proposed closing 30,000 of the 96,000 pubs in England and Wales.

But war had sharpened the drink question once more — and something had to be done. Against this backdrop, the Carlisle Experiment, as it became known, was born ...