March 9th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
As feared, the other shoe has dropped.
Last night, the State Police raided Origlio Beverage, the wholesale distributor that supplied some of the beer that was confiscated at Local 44, Resurrection and Memphis Taproom. My colleague, Bob Warner, and I will be reporting more details in tomorrow’s Daily News, but here’s some of what I know:
The Bureau of Liquor Enforcement agents arrived about 7 p.m. last night and conducted a search of the warehouse, specifically looking for Origlio’s share of brands they’d confiscated from the bars last week. This includes: Duvel, Monk’s Cafe Sour Flemish Ale, Hacker-Pschorr and Russian River Supplication.
They reportedly confiscated only the Supplication because they would’ve needed a tractor trailer for the rest. They ordered Origlio not to distribute any of the other brands.
That’s why, as I reported in a previous blog post, shipments of Duvel in Philadelphia have ceased. I’m already hearing from local bar owners that they’re running out. (Ironic, because it’s assumed the snitch who alerted the PLCB about the unregistered brands is probably a local bar operator who will now have to suffer along with everyone else.)
As I reported on Monday, Duvel is an especially troublesome brand in the midst of all of this because it is clearly registered. It’s just that the brand name on the state’s list of registered brands is “Duvel Beer” and the label actually reads “Duvel Belgian Golden Ale” - a fact that the Daily News stressed in its first report, and which the BLE surely knows.
What we’re witnessing isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence or the result of outdated laws. This is an act of unrepentant arrogance. As one local restaurant operator remarked of the BLE, “They don’t answer to anybody. They’re running amok.”
Meanwhile, other distributors are scared shitless that they’re next in line. They’re lawyering up and desperately re-checking records to make sure every “i” is dotted.
The good news is that this whole episode might be a tipping point in the whole battle over beer regulation in Pennsylvania. It’s provoked a chorus of outrage online, and the grousing at area bars is deafening. Take away our beer? How dare they!
If this stuff outrages you, complain to the PLCB and write your state legislator now!
Posted in Regs, Beer etc. | 10 Comments »
March 9th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
Word arrives this afternoon that some bars are having difficulty getting new shipments of Duvel Belgian Golden Ale - certainly one of the biggest selling Belgian ales in America - because the PLCB registration list refers to it only as “Duvel Beer.” In other words, distributors are suddenly gun-shy because of the State Police beer raid… More to come.
Posted in Regs, Beer etc. | 3 Comments »
March 9th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
Somebody please set this to music:
Today we salute you, Over-Reacting PLCB Agent.
(Mr. Over-Reacting PLCB Agent)
Any state cop can chase speeders all day on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. But it takes real talent to conduct a raid on a bar over a clerical error.
(This is a bust!)
Packing heat and carrying a briefcase, you meticulously double-check beer labels and enforce all that red tape.
(Pliny the Younger? Book him!)
And even though you wouldn’t know a stout from a pilsner, you tirelessly uphold senseless laws from the 1930s, certain that you’re protecting the public welfare.
(Carry Nation lives!)
So crack open an ice-cold Jack Boot Beer, Over-Reacting PLCB Agent, because that’s the closest you’ll get to being a real policeman.
Posted in Regs, Beer etc. | No Comments »
March 9th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
Yesterday’s report about the State Police beer raid drew an incredible amount of response. Last time I checked, my Day 1 story had drawn more than 350 comments.
Here’s the Day 2 report from my colleague, Bob Warner, in which the state’s ranking Republican on the House liquor committee calls it “a ridiculous use of manpower.”
Here’s my latest take on the raid, which echoes some of the observations I shared yesterday - mainly that beer has changed, and the laws haven’t kept up.
I did a live studio interview about it all with NBC10 yesterday afternoon, but I can’t find it online. Maybe somebody’ll send me a link.
Fox29 chimed in here. Note Sgt. William LaTorre suggesting that if his guys confiscated any properly registered beer, it was the PLCB’s fault. He also claims the beer is being kept at “cellar temperature.” And Action News does a spot here, with Sgt. LaTorre basically agreeing that the bars are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
If you have the time to read, there are some pretty good discussions about the episode at Beer Advocate and Lew Bryson’s NOPLCB and Jack Curtin’s Liquid Diet, especially in this post.
Other bloggers have noticed, including Jay Brooks out in Californy. Here’s the chatter at the Brew Lounge, FooBooz, Philly Speaks/West Philly & /Food & Drink.
Posted in Regs | 2 Comments »
March 8th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
The blogs were buzzing this weekend about the raid on three local beer bars over unregistered beer. I teamed up with Daily News reporter Bob Warner for a full report here.
There’s one fairly esoteric angle to this story that we didn’t tackle - one that was raised in some very thoughtful emails from Resurrection/Local 44/Memphis Taproom co-owner Leigh Maida. Namely, the increasingly popular practice among tavern owners of cellaring beers for later sale.
Among the beers that the State Police confiscated in the raid were a handful of bottles of Heavyweight Lunacy. South Jersey’s Heavyweight Brewing, of course, has been out of business for several years. Presumably the bottles were purchased years ago, when Heavyweight beers were, in fact, registered for sale in Pennsylvania. But that brand is no longer registered, for obvious reasons,which apparently makes them illegal.
(By the way, I don’t think this is an over-zealous interpretation of the law by the at the numbskulls at the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement. The law says the beer you sell must be registered, period.)
That law puts puts EVERY vintage bottle in EVERY bar at risk. As Leigh notes, her husband, Brendan Hartranft, has a thing for Orval, and he’s been aging bottles of the brand for years. What happens if Orval goes out of business or stops exporting its beers to the U.S.? Under the current rules, it appears it would be illegal to sell those beers - even though they were properly registered when they were purchased.
I know of several bars that are holding beers whose breweries are extinct. There are hundreds of “retired” beers out there. It’s a point of pride - like, this is the only place you’ll ever see this particular beer. In some cases, these treasures are worth thousands of dollars. But unless their names are properly registered, they’re presumably illegal.
The same thing goes if the brand name changes - a not uncommon occurrence as importers edit labels over the years. No aged bottle of Zotten, either, once Weyerbacher re-issues the brand, as announced, as Verboten.)
And how about all of those one-time-only anniversary beers we love? Not to pick on Weyerbacher, again, but I’d imagine that bottles of Decadence - issued for the brewery’s 10th anniversary in 2005 and, at 13% abv, intended to be aged - would be illegal to sell.
Allow me to finish by pointing out one obvious fact here: The same Pennsylvania law does not apply to wine.
So the wine cellar at Le Bec Fin is a treasure. But the beer cellar at Local 44 is a crime scene.
Posted in Regs, Beer etc. | 3 Comments »
February 16th, 2010 Joe Sixpack
State Sen. John Rafferty (R-Montco) is taking another shot at Pennsylvania’s Byzantine sixpack law. His proposal announced yesterday would give distributors the right to sell sixpacks (not just full cases) while creating a new F license for grocery stores. Here’s the press release with fact sheet.
If I’m reading it correctly, it looks like the proposed regs would allow one to purchase any beer amount at any licensed location.
In an attempt to placate the nanny crowd, Rafferty’s proposal also calls for 100 percent carding, which means that - regardless of adult’s legal right to drink - authorities will be able to track their consumption.
Posted in Regs | 2 Comments »
June 22nd, 2009 Joe Sixpack
Before you go off complaining about the damn Pennsylvania Supreme Court and its ruling last week against sixpack sales in convenience stores, realize that what was required to enable those sales in this case was an activist court.
Quick recap: Sheetz, kind of the Wawa of western Pa., sought a retail license - the type that’s available to delicatessens (the Foodery) or even supermarkets (Wegman’s), as long as they maintain a separate seating area inside the store where customers can consume the beer. Sheetz had made no such provision, and wanted to sell beer for takeout only.
I know, stupid rule - the whole idea of sixpacks is they’re handy for taking home. The PLCB must’ve been on the same page, because it granted the license.
The state’s beer distributor association appealed the decision and won in Commonwealth Court. Sheetz was joined by the PLCB in the appeal to the state Supreme Court.
The high court rightly rejected the licensing because the PLCB clearly ignored the explicit intent of the law.* Namely, that there are two basic licenses:
- R-retail. Permits consumption of beer on premises and sixpack sales to go.
- D-distributor. No requirement to maintain seating on premises, but must sell beer by the case.
Sheetz, the court noted, wanted it both ways: sales of sixpacks without the obligation to maintain a separate seating area. Allowing an R licensee that right would be patently unfair to those who paid substantial fees for their D license, the court said.
Yes, the wording of the rule is a bit dodgy (see below), and the dissent rightly pointed out that the R licensees have to purchase their beer from D licensees, so what’s the big deal? But the majority opinion noted (and this is hugely important to any discussion about state liquor laws) that “the purpose of the Code is to restrain the sale of alcohol and to protect the public welfare, health, peace, and morals of the citizens of Pennsylvania.” So, on any close calls, beer lovers are going to be on the losing side.
Outdated concept of beer? Hell, yeah. But the court stated that “…it is not our role to sanction such a momentous transformation.” In other words, if you supported sixpacks in this case, you need an activist bench.
Here’s the majority opinion.
And here’s the sole dissenting opinion (Eakin).
*Here’s the exact language, my emphasis:
“Retail dispenser” shall mean any person licensed to engage in the retail sale of malt or brewed beverages for consumption on the premises of such licensee, with the privilege of selling malt or brewed beverages in quantities not in excess of one hundred ninety-two fluid ounces in a single sale to one person, to be carried from the premises by the purchaser thereof.
Posted in Regs | No Comments »
February 11th, 2009 Joe Sixpack
Bring your own water.
That is, if you plan on stopping in at the VIP Tap Room in downtown Bethlehem. Here’s the text of a legal opinion from the Pa. Liquor Control Board, following an inquiry from a representative of the bar:
ISSUE: This is in response to your e-mail dated February 5, 2009, in which you inquire as to whether or not you may charge for the service of water provided to patrons of your establishment.
OPINION: There is nothing in the Liquor Code or the Board’s Regulations prohibiting a licensed establishment from charging a fee to serve water. Therefore, it would not violate liquor laws to charge a fee for water at your licensed establishment.
It would, however, violate every tenet of common decency.
Posted in Regs, Tavern | Comments Off
January 2nd, 2009 Joe Sixpack
If you ever wonder whether something is legal under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, you can easily fire off an email to the staff attorney, and she’ll get back to you in a couple of weeks with an advisory opinion. For educational purposes, the opinions are posted here.
Most of the opinions have something to do with the distribution of alcohol - fairly dry stuff. And then there’s this one posted last spring, spurred by a question sent in by someone identified only as “Nicole”:
RE: “Coyote Ugly” Practices
ISSUE: This correspondence is in response to your e-mail, dated April 1, 2008, in which you state that the bar at which you are employed would like to have “a coyote ugly thing” on Friday nights. You ask what you can and cannot do in this regard. More specifically, you ask if you can dance on top of the bar and pour shots into patrons’ mouths.
OPINION: Since you do not explain the meaning of “a coyote ugly thing,” this office cannot provide you with information pertaining to that type of activity. However, with regard to dancing on the bar, please be advised that section 493(10) of the Liquor Code [47 P.S. § 4-493(10)] prohibits liquor licensees from permitting any lewd, immoral, or improper entertainment in a licensed premises or in any place operated in connection therewith. [See also 40 Pa. Code § 5.32(b)]…
With regard to pouring shots into patrons’ mouths, please be advised that the Liquor Code prohibits any person from providing any alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. [47 P.S. § 4-493(1)]. Please also be advised that the Board’s Regulations prohibit allowing for an unlimited amount of alcohol for a set price and restrict discount pricing practices of alcoholic beverages. [40 Pa. Code § 13.102]. A retail liquor licensee is permitted to give one (1) free alcoholic beverage to adult patrons on its premises, provided the giving of the alcoholic beverage is not contingent upon the purchase of any other alcoholic beverage and is limited to one (1) standard-sized alcoholic beverage per patron in any offering. [40 Pa. Code § 13.53]. A standard-sized alcoholic beverage is twelve (12) fluid ounces of a malt or brewed beverage, four (4) fluid ounces of wine (including fortified wine), and one-and-one-half (1½) fluid ounces of liquor. [Id.].
So, if I’m reading this right, the behavior illustrated below is basically legal in Pennsylvania, assuming:
- That’s exactly 1.5 fluid oz. of Jack going down the dude’s gullet.
- The babe’s tramp stamp doesn’t say, “Lick Here.”
Posted in Regs | Comments Off