A Good Beer Blog


Have you read The Unbearable Nonsense of Craft Beer - A Rant in Nine Acts by Alan and Max yet? It's out on Kindle as well as Lulu.

Maureen Ogle said this about the book: "... immensely readable, sometimes slightly surreal rumination on beer in general and craft beer in particular. Funny, witty, but most important: Smart. The beer geeks will likely get all cranky about it, but Alan and Max are the masters of cranky..."

Ron Pattinson said: "I'm in a rather odd situation. Because I appear in the book. A fictional version of me. It's a weird feeling."


Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

Knut Albert -

Interesting. And sometime they have to change the law, because someone higher up in the system find out they have to adhere to some principles. When Norway decided to adopt a big chunk og European Union legislation to get access to the Eruopean market for salmon, oil and whatever, they found out that you could no longer ban strong beer because it is beer. This means that the premium Belgian trappist ales are available here now. On the other hand, they use the tax system, making sure a bottle of premium beer is now the same price as a everyday bottle of wine. This is of course very convenient for the chattering classes, who drink their wine in moderation, while the others, who drink beer or the hard stuff, have to be guided by those who are enlighted. The concept of craft beer dioes not fit into this world view.
And it is a paradox that while we have modernized our public sector in many ways, the department of substance abuse is still there, thinking out What is Good for You. I'd be interested in knowing the percentage of the Norwegian regulators who don't touch a drop or alcohol. Would we do that in other sectors? We are talking about stuff that you legally can buy and consume, after all.
And I cannot see that the binge drinking among teenagers has changed over the last few decades, either.

Your quote is illuminating, Alan:
"Our findings suggest that jurisdictions that have been historically reluctant to regulate alcohol availability currently have the most to gain from implementing any given alcohol policy initiative."

Who is gaining? Not the consumer who has his rights eroded piece by piece? No, it's the substance abuse guys. And they are not Big Brother, they are little gnomes sitting there behind their desks, never being able to taste a glass of well hopped beer in the sunshine. No wonder they are som petty minded!

Pootz -

Don't get me started on manipulation of the written law...theoretically there isn't supposed to be any "policy" just the law..equal and all encoumpasing...nations who enforce "policy" in place of law are not constitutional democracies under the rule of law....rant mode off.

My other tick ( as a stalward libertarian) are liquor laws and particularly provincial statute law whoth "zero tolerance" policy very publically attached to it...aside from the obvious removal of both extenuating circumstance it is a "policy" which denies the existance of any due diligence and presumes to have set rigid standards that are universally accurate.

Now anyone who has had a drink can tell you alcohol effects differnt people differntly...I have friends that can pound em back and appear and act as sober as a judge ( I hate this kind they always clean up at poker)...so essentially one zero tolerance standard for all is a basic flaw in realities, traditional legal reason and certainly inconsitant with "reasonableness" and fairness in the justice system.

It is obvious that "zero tolerance" policy crept into provincial hiway statutes as the result of pressue from extremist single issue axe grinders..it is unsettling modern government is so quick to embrace uncivil extremism....but then again we saw them dive on "prohibition" and to date, we spend billions of dollars annually trying to irradicate the use of, and prosecute people who possess, a plant that is common in 75% of the earth's climates and land mass...and to date I've yet to see the social benefits of "zero tolerance" laws outweigh the danger of living with a minor tyranny entrenched in law.

I think the thing that bothers me most is being chrged with a statute crime where there is no criminal malice, no evidence of a breach of the peace, no victim, no complaintant and no defense.

I can only hope some day more rational forces in the legal community and government return us to "resonableness" in public intoxication laws.

Until that day our public hiways remain a virtual gulag and harmless victimless crimes will continue to ruin lives.