Alabama Homebrew Legislation 2013

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Congrats fellas. You may be able to brew and not worry about who knows about your hobby or may find out. :) Hopefully everything is smooth sailing from here.
 
I think it may be important for the point be made that most home brewers brew 5 gallon batches and 5 gallons of beer is only a little more than two cases.

I'm sure that 15 gallons sounds likes a lot of beer to these guys. It might be a bit more acceptable for them to think of it in cases.
 
CGVT said:
I think it may be important for the point be made that most home brewers brew 5 gallon batches and 5 gallons of beer is only a little more than two cases.

I'm sure that 15 gallons sounds likes a lot of beer to these guys. It might be a bit more acceptable for them to think of it in cases.
Click to expand...

That's a great point. We may be able to use that in future to push the limit up higher. After all, when you think of it in terms of 12oz servings, the federal limit of 100 gallons/year is roughly equivalent to 3 bottles per day or a bit over 2 pints (if I did the math right LOL)
 
I was very pleased to see that my representative, K.L. Brown, switched to a yes vote after voting 'no' last year and 'no' the previous year on a more generous homebrew bill which he had also sponsored. I've rescinded the order I gave my wife last year to not allow my dead body ever to pass through his funeral home. His is the only place to take the dead in this town, so it would have been somewhat inconvenient for the family. Now I can depart in peace, but I may just stick around for a while anyway.
 
CGVT said:
I think it may be important for the point be made that most home brewers brew 5 gallon batches and 5 gallons of beer is only a little more than two cases.

I'm sure that 15 gallons sounds likes a lot of beer to these guys. It might be a bit more acceptable for them to think of it in cases.
Click to expand...

This raises the question as to why they don't seem to have a concern about limiting the amount of commercial beer stored at a residence. My neighbor has at least 15.5 gallons every time he gets a new keg. Presumably, even we homebrewers could have 15 gallons of homebrew plus 20 more gallons of commercial beer and 30 gallons of Chivas Royale. Why is commercial alcohol so sacred, but homebrew so dangerous? Hmmm...I guess it does tend to be much more tasty than "Budweiser...Coors...what are some of the names of them other beers? They drank purty good."
 
If it were up to a lot of these guys, there would be no alcohol allowed at all. I don't think that is the way to approach it at all. If you say "Well, you can have all of the Bud you want, why should we limit this? " you are only playing into their neo-prohibitionist fears.

I think that the point should be that 15 gallons is not much. Speaking in cases rather than gallons may be something that these guy may understand.

If you say that most home brewers make 5 gallon batches that take 3 to 6 weeks and even longer to make and stress that it is only a little over two cases in six weeks, the issue may be more palatable to the fence sitters.

I don't think that message gets across very well. Most of these guys think that you brew it up in your bathtub and drink it tonight.
 
Yes, I think you are right about the way they hear the word "gallon" and the thought of us brewing up a bathtub full in the afternoon and drinking it all at once. Hypothetically, a guy like me could have been running close to 30 gallons around the house since last fall, but maybe I've had a RIS just conditioning since August and doing a bunch of lagers which I condition for months, so that what is actually ready to drink is, on the average, the 10 gallons in my 4 keg keezer (assuming the average keg in there is half empty).

Hypothetically, of course.
 
Huff360 said:
No plan in the Senate right now.

We are "Strategerygizing" as Bush Jr. would have said. Give me a few days and we will have an action plan. I'll pass along here.

Thanks to everyone who wrote, called, faxed, and e-mailed House members. We will need an effort just as strong in the Senate. Holtzclaw has not had 3 years of defending this bill like Mac has, so we are going to have to do our part to take some of the pressure off of him.
Click to expand...

We can only hope that the Senate doesn't pick up on the "register with the Sheriff movement" or add any other amendments, for that matter.

Hopefully it will get through and to the Governor as is...
 
The biggest issue and the most pressure seemed to be the "Who is going to regulate it?" question that Mac had trouble with in the interview. Common sense says if the law is broken, law enforcement officials will get involved the same as any other law, but that is a hard sell to the prohibitionists and it seems to strike a chord with those that are on the fence or ambivalent about the issue. It was pretty obvious in the close vote on the register with the Sheriff amendment. Saying, "I voted for it, but made sure that they have to register" is good politics even though we know that it is unnecessary and really only a feel good move.

They have to come up with a better way to answer that question when it gets to the Senate floor or we may see that amendment added and then it will have to go back to the house. It could actually have this thing shot down because of added costs to regulate... **sigh**
 
CGVT said:
They have to come up with a better way to answer that question when it gets to the Senate floor or we may see that amendment added and then it will have to go back to the house. It could actually have this thing shot down because of added costs to regulate... **sigh**
Click to expand...

That's what I'm really worried about right now.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cj5IFdapS8] Wat rong wit tha beer we got? [/ame]

Reminds me of the politicians I had to listen to when living in Birmingham. How do these ignorant folks get elected?
 
Alvin Holmes represents his constituents and works for their best interest. He comes off as ignorant, but he gets the job done for his district. I've listened to him quite a bit over the last couple of years and he is actually quite astute in his own way.
 
Ha!

stay thirstyII.jpg
 
Huff360 said:
HB9 got a first reading in the Senate today. It was referred to committee.
Click to expand...

I thought the SB already made it through committee, or did the language in the HB change? I thought if the language in the bills was the same, you could replace one with the other if it advanced further. My question is clear as mud I realize....

Regardless, I'm glad the bill is advancing.
 
StoneHands said:
I thought the SB already made it through committee, or did the language in the HB change? I thought if the language in the bills was the same, you could replace one with the other if it advanced further. My question is clear as mud I realize....

Regardless, I'm glad the bill is advancing.
Click to expand...

That was my (apparently incorrect) understanding, as well.

In fact, I thought that the Senate version had already been through committee.

Shows what I know.
 
StoneHands said:
I thought the SB already made it through committee, or did the language in the HB change? I thought if the language in the bills was the same, you could replace one with the other if it advanced further. My question is clear as mud I realize....

Regardless, I'm glad the bill is advancing.
Click to expand...

I thought that also. BUT I was wrong. Here's what I was told: "The points of dual bills are (1) if one house is ready to work the bill before the other, you don't have to worry that your bill is in the wrong house (i.e., you get as big a head start as possible). And (2) HB9 should be a no-brainer through committee, as the committee has already figured it out with SB171."


McRedimus said:
The suspense is killing me. Any new news? I cannot find anything.
Click to expand...

We are #1 on a schedule of 3 bills to be considered by the JC&ED committee on Wednesday at 11:00am. Seeing as the bill is identical to SB171, which this committee recently passed, there is no reason that they shouldn't move this bill on along it's way.
 
Not related to homebrewing, but of interest; HB530 would allow brewpubs and micros to sell growlers. Bill is sponsored by reps Ball and Mask
 
homebrewdad said:
This needs to pass, too.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Of course, it will meet opposition simply because it removes a certain restriction on the sale of alcohol. But what does this restriction actually do for us? It tells the consumer, "No, you cannot take this growler home. Your only option is to sit here, drink a pitcher, and then drive home."

I've never done a scientific survey, but I'm pretty sure almost all homebrew is consumed at home too.
 
I'm sure most of you have heard already but for those that haven't:
The Legislature opted to meet today, so all Senate committee meetings were canceled, delaying the expected committee approval of HB9.
 

Similar threads

Happyflowerlady
Alabama lady learning to make kombucha.
Replies
8
Views
539
T Murph
T Murph
MMP126
Homebrewers Hop Quality
Replies
10
Views
874
ncbrewer
N
J
Non-alcoholic homebrew - buzzed feeling?
Replies
7
Views
567
mashdar
mashdar
wsmith1625
Atlantic Brew Supply Podcast
Replies
1
Views
522
3 Dawg Night
3 Dawg Night
bigken462
Current state of craft homebrewing hobby
Replies
24
Views
2K
Conehead
Conehead
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top