Say it aint so: Craft beer distributors support Prohibition

Reads 18093 • Replies 86 • Started Saturday, September 18, 2010 4:25:27 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen
 
SamGamgee
beers 2452 º places 182 º 19:07 Mon 9/20/2010

Originally posted by Cletus
Back to the original post, what did calling out a handful of craft brewers who probably had no idea what was going on accomplish here? Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this is not a beer related issue?


How is this not beer related? Industry actions and policies are something that craft beer consumers should be aware of. If you don’t care what industry people do, you might as well just drink something from Coors.

 
mowz
19:53 Mon 9/20/2010

Originally posted by mowz
Originally posted by Cletus

It’s a thread about the legalization of pot in a local municipality and you are definitely overreacting. How many of the ads on this site come from companies you think support this proposition? This is making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Are you saying the companies that advertise on here are in support of Prop 19? I’m just asking because there was some confusion earlier in the thread about what support of Prop 19 meant.

As to you thinking that "this is making a mountain out of an ant hill", I beg to differ. The passing of the proposition could have a national affect especially if California starts to treat it as the huge cash cow it could be. Other states might follow suit to try to plug up its deficits. This may also be a huge topic of political debate, especially since we are nearing the November primaries. Controversy, politics, money, economy. I dunno. They all sound like big deals to me.

I just wanted to point out that I, in no way, think that states can use the legalization of marijuana to completely plug up their deficits. But it’ll at least provide some sort of relief.

 
dankman
beers 257 º places 20 º 19:54 Mon 9/20/2010

I’d bother writing an argument but anyone that follow this logic has the same frame of mind bhops does.


Any and all arguments you make for or against legislation of marijuana went out the window a while ago when you posted about the subject in OT-M; I can go back and produce exact quotes but to cut to the chase you said something along the lines of "the poor people won’t be able to handle it". You claim to be conservative but are against personal liberties that don’t match your specific set of morals, you don’t make a government smaller by creating laws that don’t work; you are a prime example on why the republican party is a dead fish.



Sincerely yours,

A Ratebeerian for a smaller government


Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by dankman38
Find me one documented case and I’ll send you a nice box of beer. I can provide several reputable medical studies that state otherwise. I won’t say smoking pot does no harm to your respiratory system (COPD is a common side effect to the long term smoking of marijuana in large amounts) but the damage done isn’t nearly as bad as what happens to people that smoke tobacco. To be honest eating/drinking or vaporizing marijuana eliminates 99.9% of the cancer/COPD effects of marijuana use.


I won’t be the douche that tells you that there are no negative effects but I think a hard core stoner is more reliable than a hard core drunk any day.





Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by ratman197
Alcohol and nicotine are drugs as well. And I see no reason scientific or otherwise that marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. I personally consider todays marijuana laws to be prohabition and can’t see how it would interfer with beer sales, heck it might help increase them.
Cudos to Stone and Sierra Nevada for stating their position.
Originally posted by bhops
why can’t a brewery choose to be pro-beer and anti-drug? Drugs and beer are not necessarily chemically equivalent (esp depending on the drug) and not morally equivalent under the law. Plus, there are legitimate business reasons to oppose legalization of drugs in this instance.

I can understand a brewery’s desire to remain neutral but I also understand that they might have contributed to the California Beer & Beverage Distributors for other business reasons and not specifically in support of their stance on prop 19.

I give politically but that doesn’t mean that I support every position taken by the recipient of my donation. Plus, this is complicated by business relationships.

I definitely appreciate their opinions. But I would not fault a brewery that came out either way on this issue.

Alcohol is good and salubrious for you in certain quantities. It actually increases the health of a naturally healthy person. Most addictive drugs have many negative side effects. Smoking pot causes lung cancer, does it not?

well, my point was that pot, even in small quantities, is not "good" for you, whereas alcohol is good for you in appropriate quantities.

But cannabis does contain known carcinogens, so basically what you are doing is reverting back to the pre-tobacco litigation stance of the tobacco companies that claim happy ignorance on the long term health consequences of tobacco on the lungs.

Talk about strange bedfellows (as Joet mentioned earlier)...

 
dankman
beers 257 º places 20 º 19:57 Mon 9/20/2010

Sorry for going all OT-M on your ass.




Originally posted by dankman38
I’d bother writing an argument but anyone that follow this logic has the same frame of mind bhops does.


Any and all arguments you make for or against legislation of marijuana went out the window a while ago when you posted about the subject in OT-M; I can go back and produce exact quotes but to cut to the chase you said something along the lines of "the poor people won’t be able to handle it". You claim to be conservative but are against personal liberties that don’t match your specific set of morals, you don’t make a government smaller by creating laws that don’t work; you are a prime example on why the republican party is a dead fish.



Sincerely yours,

A Ratebeerian for a smaller government


Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by dankman38
Find me one documented case and I’ll send you a nice box of beer. I can provide several reputable medical studies that state otherwise. I won’t say smoking pot does no harm to your respiratory system (COPD is a common side effect to the long term smoking of marijuana in large amounts) but the damage done isn’t nearly as bad as what happens to people that smoke tobacco. To be honest eating/drinking or vaporizing marijuana eliminates 99.9% of the cancer/COPD effects of marijuana use.


I won’t be the douche that tells you that there are no negative effects but I think a hard core stoner is more reliable than a hard core drunk any day.





Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by ratman197
Alcohol and nicotine are drugs as well. And I see no reason scientific or otherwise that marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. I personally consider todays marijuana laws to be prohabition and can’t see how it would interfer with beer sales, heck it might help increase them.
Cudos to Stone and Sierra Nevada for stating their position.
Originally posted by bhops
why can’t a brewery choose to be pro-beer and anti-drug? Drugs and beer are not necessarily chemically equivalent (esp depending on the drug) and not morally equivalent under the law. Plus, there are legitimate business reasons to oppose legalization of drugs in this instance.

I can understand a brewery’s desire to remain neutral but I also understand that they might have contributed to the California Beer & Beverage Distributors for other business reasons and not specifically in support of their stance on prop 19.

I give politically but that doesn’t mean that I support every position taken by the recipient of my donation. Plus, this is complicated by business relationships.

I definitely appreciate their opinions. But I would not fault a brewery that came out either way on this issue.

Alcohol is good and salubrious for you in certain quantities. It actually increases the health of a naturally healthy person. Most addictive drugs have many negative side effects. Smoking pot causes lung cancer, does it not?

well, my point was that pot, even in small quantities, is not "good" for you, whereas alcohol is good for you in appropriate quantities.

But cannabis does contain known carcinogens, so basically what you are doing is reverting back to the pre-tobacco litigation stance of the tobacco companies that claim happy ignorance on the long term health consequences of tobacco on the lungs.

Talk about strange bedfellows (as Joet mentioned earlier)...

 
joet
admin
beers 2900 º places 125 º 20:01 Mon 9/20/2010

Originally posted by SamGamgee
The CCBD’s reasoning on this is pretty lame. Just because they can’t drug test, their drivers are all going to come to work stoned? How would the policy for coming to work under the influence of marijuana be any different than drinking on the job? We don’t test employees for alcohol, do we? This is a thinly veiled attempt to protect their business economically by eliminating potential competition.


I’m glad someone else saw this as a transparent insult to the intelligence of the craft beer audience.


If the issue were really about workplace safety, we would not have seen the nation’s "anti-drug" (unless you’re talking about nicotine or ethanol) campaigns like the Partnership For A Drug-Free America financed most heavily by Anheuser-Busch, Philip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds and not any of the many other companies with a greater interest in workplace safety - like commercial transportation, hazardous waste, logging, commercial fisheries, nuclear energy, etc.


The craft beer industry distinguishes itself from the larger beer industry with responsible business practices, non predatory tactics, a willingness to talk honestly and often social and environmental responsibility as well. It is clear by its statement on this issue that the CBBD comes from a different business culture where a lack of transparency and antagonism within and outside the industry is tolerated and practiced.

Sierra Nevada deserves credit for distancing itself from the CBBD as a result of its political actions and the public statements it has issued in response to the related public outcry.

 
JK
beers 7218 º places 442 º 21:20 Mon 9/20/2010

Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by SamGamgee
The CCBD’s reasoning on this is pretty lame. Just because they can’t drug test, their drivers are all going to come to work stoned? How would the policy for coming to work under the influence of marijuana be any different than drinking on the job? We don’t test employees for alcohol, do we? This is a thinly veiled attempt to protect their business economically by eliminating potential competition.


I’m glad someone else saw this as a transparent insult to the intelligence of the craft beer audience.


If the issue were really about workplace safety, we would not have seen the nation’s "anti-drug" (unless you’re talking about nicotine or ethanol) campaigns like the Partnership For A Drug-Free America financed most heavily by Anheuser-Busch, Philip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds and not any of the many other companies with a greater interest in workplace safety - like commercial transportation, hazardous waste, logging, commercial fisheries, nuclear energy, etc.


The craft beer industry distinguishes itself from the larger beer industry with responsible business practices, non predatory tactics, a willingness to talk honestly and often social and environmental responsibility as well. It is clear by its statement on this issue that the CBBD comes from a different business culture where a lack of transparency and antagonism within and outside the industry is tolerated and practiced.

Sierra Nevada deserves credit for distancing itself from the CBBD as a result of its political actions and the public statements it has issued in response to the related public outcry.




Strange you want to talk about social responsibility, but then pissed when part of the industry says they do not endorse the use of illegal drugs. If anything is irresponsible, it seems like it is Ratebeer’s endorsement of legalized marijuana, particularly when presented in a hedonistic, everyone should be free do what they want (only if we are talking about drugs) manner.

 
bhops
beers 433 º places 37 º 09:13 Tue 9/21/2010

Originally posted by dankman38
I’d bother writing an argument but anyone that follow this logic has the same frame of mind bhops does.


Any and all arguments you make for or against legislation of marijuana went out the window a while ago when you posted about the subject in OT-M; I can go back and produce exact quotes but to cut to the chase you said something along the lines of "the poor people won’t be able to handle it". You claim to be conservative but are against personal liberties that don’t match your specific set of morals, you don’t make a government smaller by creating laws that don’t work; you are a prime example on why the republican party is a dead fish.



Sincerely yours,

A Ratebeerian for a smaller government


Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by dankman38
Find me one documented case and I’ll send you a nice box of beer. I can provide several reputable medical studies that state otherwise. I won’t say smoking pot does no harm to your respiratory system (COPD is a common side effect to the long term smoking of marijuana in large amounts) but the damage done isn’t nearly as bad as what happens to people that smoke tobacco. To be honest eating/drinking or vaporizing marijuana eliminates 99.9% of the cancer/COPD effects of marijuana use.


I won’t be the douche that tells you that there are no negative effects but I think a hard core stoner is more reliable than a hard core drunk any day.





Originally posted by bhops
Originally posted by ratman197
Alcohol and nicotine are drugs as well. And I see no reason scientific or otherwise that marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. I personally consider todays marijuana laws to be prohabition and can’t see how it would interfer with beer sales, heck it might help increase them.
Cudos to Stone and Sierra Nevada for stating their position.
Originally posted by bhops
why can’t a brewery choose to be pro-beer and anti-drug? Drugs and beer are not necessarily chemically equivalent (esp depending on the drug) and not morally equivalent under the law. Plus, there are legitimate business reasons to oppose legalization of drugs in this instance.

I reasons and not specifically in support of their stance on prop 19.

I give politically but that doesn’t mean that I support every position taken by the recipient of my donation. Plus, this is complicated by business relationships.

I definitely appreciate their opinions. But I would not fault a brewery that came out either way on this issue.

Alcohol is good

well, my point was that pot, even in small quantities, is not "good" for you, whereas alcohol is good for you in appropriate quantities.

But cannabis does contain known carcinogens, so basically what you are doing is reverting back to the pre-tobacco litigation stance of the tobacco companies that claim happy ignorance on the long term health consequences of tobacco on the lungs.

Talk about strange bedfellows (as Joet mentioned earlier)...

you can still have a small govt and a good policing system

as for my comments on effect of legalization, I’m not sure you are accurately quoting me, but I do think my first hand knowledge of how drugs have devastated families in the poorer communities provides me with some level of authority to speak on the issue.

regardless, the point of this thread is not to debate legalization, but rather to discuss whether it is hypocritical for a brewery to oppose legalization of drugs for business reasons or otherwise. I contend that it is not.

but because most craft beer drinkers are left leaning, I guess brewers should know their target audience.

Kind of like the Dixie Chicks bashing GWB

 
errantnight
09:28 Tue 9/21/2010

Originally posted by JK
Strange you want to talk about social responsibility, but then pissed when part of the industry says they do not endorse the use of illegal drugs. If anything is irresponsible, it seems like it is Ratebeer’s endorsement of legalized marijuana, particularly when presented in a hedonistic, everyone should be free do what they want (only if we are talking about drugs) manner.


You’re implying that there is a justification for marijuana’s illegal status. And that justification is... that it’s already illegal. That’s some circular logic for you.

There is a strong, compelling argument that the argument in favor of legalizing marijuana (and for other drugs) is an argument FOR social responsibility. Whether there are individuals who’s opinions coincide with those arguments who are in favor of a "hedonistic, everyone should be free do [sic] what they want manner" is entirely beside the point.

 
bhops
beers 433 º places 37 º 09:34 Tue 9/21/2010

and dank, unless drugs are completely un-policed and unregulated, then I don’t see how that would result in smaller govt’


more rules means more gov’t.

 
errantnight
09:45 Tue 9/21/2010

Originally posted by bhops
and dank, unless drugs are completely un-policed and unregulated, then I don’t see how that would result in smaller govt’

more rules means more gov’t.



yeah, it’ll be so much better if we can do away with this government thing and just hand it over to the big corporations directly, as opposed to forcing them to work through lobby proxy.