Good News on the Beer Front

Pop the Cap has been lobbying since at least last summer's World Beer Festival in Durham (which I highly recommend) to remove the 6% alcohol cap on all malt beverages produced in or imported to the state of North Carolina.

Currently only 5 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) have this limitation, and removing it, as the argument goes, shouldn't contribute to underage or binge drinking due to the expense and rarified taste of these beers. Several establishments in Orange County stand to benefit, including Tyler's Taproom, Carolina Brewery, and Top of the Hill as well other "progressive" bars, breweries and restaurants with a hankering for Scottish Ales, German Bocks, Russian Imperial Stouts, and Barleywines.

The good news is that as of February 24, 2005, House Bill 392 was filed to strike the 6% cap on malt beverages from North Carolina's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws. The bill has 4 primary sponsors (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats) and 9 co-sponsors. You can stay up to date on the latest developments via the Pop the Cap Blog.

What I initially found so compelling about Pop the Cap was based on this language from their website:

Here's the thing about this movement. We don't really want you to make much noise about this issue right now - not until we solidify our alliances and create a critical mass of support. No letters to the editor. No calls to elected officials. We've learned that the worst thing for this particular movement is to catch someone off guard - especially an important stakeholder or a key legislator. Our lobbyist is helping us navigating the tricky waters of this political landscape so we can inform, educate, and build alliances.

This flies somewhat in the face of the stereotypical social/political change tactics pursued by liberals, progressives, activists, etc. It reminds me of the surprising position of Barney Frank, the openly gay Congressman from Massachusetts who opposed the efforts in San Francisco to disobey the existing marriage statutes. Eight months later 13 states (including Oregon!) put anti-same-sex marriage initiatives on their ballots and ALL pass. Oh, and Bush gets re-elected.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. I don't disagree that there can be a need for dramatic, climactic change, but it seems like Pop the Cap's approach is working. And maybe there's something to be learned from that.



including Tyler's Taproom, Carolina Brewery, and Top of the Hill as well other "progressive" bars, breweries and restaurants

I have been to all of those places. I am curious as to what characteristics, exactly, makes a bar, brewery, or restaurant "progressive"?

Do they brew beer from Humus or something?

I would think, having been to these bars as well, that being a "progressive bar" would mean one that does not dish out the "norm" (like Coors Light, Budweiser, Natty Bo or any of the other run of the mill beers you can buy at the gas station). And I don't mean to offend anyone who drinks them either, but I love a tasty microbrew, especially Carolina Brewery!


(Wake up Homer)

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities.

So that would rule out: He's Not Here, Linda's, Lucy's, etc...

And that also rules out pretty much any bar where you see a kid in cargo shorts wearing a purposely worn out baseball hat drinking a Corona and constantly playing Jimmy Buffet songs on the J-Box.

I am getting tired of doing beer runs from Florida for over 6% beers. Which is quite strange for me because Florida is kind of a beer wasteland, strictly corporate beer. It's strange to see on one hand that decent beer is very popular here, but that you can't get any of the real snobby stuff. I do have a theory that NC's backwards liquor laws do contribute to beer's popularity. I didn't even know ABC meant Alcohol Beverage Control till recently. In Florida, it's just a chain. But since liquor is everywhere there and cheaper than here, most people never get a taste for Real Beer.

As for Pop The Cap's political approach, I hope it works.

The approach seems to be working very well. Alcohol is always a touchy issue with many people, but if presented well it may well pass. This is really a very simple issue, and as long as it's presented as it truly is ("sophisticated taste") and not spun out of control ("people want to get drunker") we should have no problems with it.

Hopefully relatively soon we can get these fine beers out of people's homebrew closets and onto our shelves.

If you're interested in this issue, now is the time to start writing letters. The bill is in committee, and your state Representative needs to hear from you. For more info, including letter writing tips and how to find your Rep, see Pop the Cap's monthly newsletter here.

Jeff, is there any concern in the homebrew community about the new ill-conceived keg registration proposal? In some states, both homebrewers and beer aficionadoes (with kegs at home) have had difficulty due to the broad language of those state's statutes. I wondered if anyone in your brewing community is concerned, thanks for any insight.

And they call Bill Faison names for rolling up his shirt sleeves and doing his job....Well wake up! Verla Insko " Hi Verla ;0)" and Joe Hackney are way off base on this keg registration bill. I like the input from Klienshmit and Hill to just drop all the run around for a permit and just tag the kegs.
In college, most keggers are impromtu. If you've got to go to the ABC and then a notary, and then back to the ABC and so on and so forth, then you will most likely just drive to Durham, Chatham, or Alamance counties to get what you want and circumvent the "keg police". This also endangers the community by having these "driving keg parties" going to and from the county lines.
Just put a tracking number on the kegs and let it go. The more legislation you try to put on human nature, the more human nature and personal freedom will adapt.

Thanks for the report Will. But if we step back and look at the problem keg registration is proposed to address--teenage drinking--I can't tell from reading through this thread whether 1) you don't think it's a problem, 2) your OK with the concept but don't like the proposed implementation, or 3) you don't like the process this proposal has taken with the Council. (4--all the above?).

Since the problem, teenage drinking, is a serious problem, how about if instead of following the national debate format (someone makes a proposal and everyone attacks it), we focus on the problem and brainstorm constructive solutions?

The question, boiled down, amounts to "should the majority bend over backwards becouse a minority is irresponsable?" I think not. Teen drinking won't stop becouse they don't have kegs. Killers won't be much effected by gun controll laws. Bad parents will raise up knuckelheads even if they are forced to buy V-chips.

I question the goverments ability to deal with social problems; Be it teen drinking or leaf blowers. Parents seem to be a bit slack. They brought kids into the world and want the govermnent to raise them. Step up. If your kid is a booze hound you are the parent. Don't count on Jim Ward.

Tomorrow's HeraldSun reports "Town reaffirms keg bill support" which I think is unintentionally misleading. While the council did reaffirm their support, in general, for some reasonable form of keg registration, they also passed a resolution communicating five major concerns with the Insko bill, a bill which extends the regulations covering transportation of large quantities of serious alcohol to single kegs. Their concerns, roughly, involved the creation of a public record of the purchase and purchaser, the type of information collected, the requirement of a criminal background check and the ease of violating the law by not consuming the keg where/when originally specified. I was surprised that not one mentioned the stiff penalties (class 1 misdemeanor/1 year revocation of drivers license) or problems associating an incidence of teen-drinking to a particular keg (imagine catching a teen stumbling away from Fraternity row).

Mark Kleinschmidt made sure everyone understood he was against teen drinking ("I wouldn't want my 14 year old niece to drink or be with boys [??]....") and continued to explain that his concern was with the specifics of the Insko proposal.

Hey, I think it's a pointless, ill-conceived idea that owes most of its impetus to good intentions and bad analysis and should've been rejected out of hand, but, then again, I'm not going to get dumped on by a horde of constituents.

Cam Hill said, "just label the keg and let it go". He questioned why any additional record keeping was necessary since you could always "trace the keg if there was a problem." Good point and a clever inversion. The existing Insko proposal, which is incredible overkill, creates an extremely heavy-handed procedure for purchasing a keg, a procedure with all sorts of questionable invasions of privacy and with a clear enticement to law enforcement to "crash the party". As Cam pointed out, you should start with a violation of the drinking laws and work backwards to find out who purchased the keg.

Simplest solution, cleanest implementation.

Bill Patterson of PIRE (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation), a proponent of keg registration stood before the council and tried to downplay the more controversial aspects of Ms. Insko's bill. Rob Shapard's article unfortunately omits the pointed exchange between Mr. Patterson and several members of the council. After starting with some standard boilerplate, that teen drinking cost us $69.1 billion a year and $1.3 billion in NC alone (???), he quickly moved on to keg registration. He mentioned some research the NIH did on keg registration but didn't go into any detail (I've found some research that is nowhere conclusive that posits keg registration heightens the general sense of enforcement and that "sense" might have some spillover effect in reducing teen drinking - pretty tepid stuff). After that, the council asked him to expand on his presentation which seemed to take Mr. Patterson by surprise and eventually appeared to make him somewhat irate.

For instance, Mr. Patterson seemed to get testy when Mark pointed out that getting a criminal background check to purchase a keg was a qualitative difference from the existing statute. After a little bit of handwaving and smoke emission, Mr. Patterson, somewhat red faced, conceded the point. Later, he sputtered a little when asked about the incommensurate treatment of a keg purchase, which requires all this invasive apparatus, to the purchase of 18 litres of wine, which apparently doesn't. I'm sure his intentions are the finest, but Mr. Patterson didn't help his argument when he answered Sally Greene's hypothetical concerning a violation the Insko statute by simply moving a pre-wedding party from her house to Mark's (or vice-a-versa, I was distracted by the inconsistency of Mr. Patterson's statement that he worked from Chapel Hill on alcohol-related issues but was confused about Spanky's and He's Not Here) with a vague assurance that she shouldn't worry. When Sally pointed out that moving her party would constitute a violation, Mr. Patterson further responded, somewhat awkwardly, that law enforcement would have to show sensitivity, and, I assume, not bust Sally for her transgression. I believe it was Mark that pointed out that it would be better to craft the law to eliminate any such confusion.

Cam got straight to the point on the reasonableness of the statute by asking "then you couldn't buy a keg on Saturday". When Patterson responded that you would have to have the foresight to plan ahead two days I really questioned his familiarity with Chapel Hill. How many people bought kegs Saturday after the 'heels won? I'd bet a ton. We Chapel Hillians know there'd be no happiness in Mudville if 'heels fans had to wait until Tuesday after the big game to celebrate because they needed to plan days ahead to accommodate the criminal background checks and ABC permitting.

Anyway, the council raised a series of excellent questions which, hopefully, the legislature will address before moving forward. And while Jim Ward seemed to get rather flustered at one point in the discussion, maybe because he realized he his call for an uninspected endorsement of this proposal was premature in light of Mr. Patterson's vague, inconsistent and illogical responses, it was hopeful that he eventually joined the unaminous request of the Council to voice their enumerated concerns, as a resolution, to the legislature.

As someone (Ed Harrison?) on the Council pointed out, if you're getting questions here, you can imagine the questions coming from the rest of the state. Good point. With so many obvious questions surrounding this "feel-good" proposal, one wonders why a councilmember would ask for a blanket endorsement.

Ed Harrison, in his usual low key way, probably has the best strategy. He pointed out that no one here would be "put[ting] any money into debating" keg registration, but we could be assured that others would. I guess it's his way of saying the fight will be carried on without any further effort on his part - so I'll take a note from Ed and quit making any further comments on keg registration. But, unfortunately, I can't say I'll quit commenting on any future Council inanities.

FYI, on April 11th staff will issue a report on Councilman Ward's feel-good, do nothing proposal to reduce teen drinking - the vaunted keg tattoo program.

Hey, I haven't bought a keg in years, but I also didn't make a habit of running redlights. This is another really stinky idea that, at best, was presented for the Council's endorsement without the requisite "sniff test" and, at worst, is sheer pandering. What's so bad? Well, for instance, in House Bill 892/Senate Bill 476 your purchase history becomes a matter of public record - a record that contains your name, address, birth date and driver license number (great - another avenue for identity theft and an excellent way for employers/insurance companies/snoops to monitor your drinking habits!).

The nanny-state also wants to know when and where you plan to consume the beverage. The last requirement, I assume, so ALE or other law enforcement agents know where and when to crash your party. And if they find you not consuming your registered beverage? Bang! - you face a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Bill 892 is crazy and heavy-handed, but, not to be outdone, House Bill 855, which covers transportation of alcoholic beverages, is even more draconian, requiring additional identity information, a one year revocation of your drivers license and a criminal background check to purchase your keg. Oh, and you pay for the background check.

I wonder if they'll add a five day waiting period when they find this law doesn't reduce teen drinking?

Ward's call is another ridiculous violation of "Chapel Hill values" especially for an over-reaching effort which hasn't been proven to reduce teen-drinking, anecdotally seems to both move teen-drinkers to more easily concealed containers and higher alcohol content beverages and creates a potential for additional civil rights abuse.

I hope hope Councilman Ward will back away from yet another ill-conceived proposal and let it quietly die. Better yet, he should show some political courage and call on Chapel Hill's parents to personally intervene to reduce teen drinking - maybe not as popular as ceding that responsibility to the state but a hell of a lot more effective (right Melanie?).

House Bill 892/Senate Bill 476 would establish a new Section 18B-1010 in Article 10 of Chapter 18B. (Article 10 of Chapter 18B deals with retail activity related to alcoholic beverages.) The bill:

1. Defines a keg as a container capable of holding at least 7 ¾ gallons.

2. Requires kegs of malt beverages to have permanent numbering and single sale tags.

3. Requires the seller of a keg to have the purchaser fill out and sign a form developed by the State Alcohol Law Enforcement Division which includes:

a. the purchaser's name, address and date of birth, confirmed by a driver's license;

b. the keg's permanent identification number and single sale tag;

c. the place where the malt beverage in the keg will be consumed and the dates of consumption.

4. Requires the purchaser to return the coded tag along with the keg to the seller.

5. States that the form filled out by the purchaser is a public record.

6. Establishes that noncompliance with the statute constitutes a Class 1 misdemeanor.

House Bill 855 would revise Section 18B-403 in Article 4 of Chapter 18B. (Article 4 of Chapter 18B deals with the transportation of alcoholic beverages.) The bill:

1. Requires a purchase-transportation permit to purchase and transport draft beer in kegs. (Under current law, a person may purchase and transport without a purchase-transportation permit any amount of draft malt beverages in kegs.)[1]

2. Requires that a permit issued for a keg be kept with the keg and that a label be placed on the keg. The label must identify the permit number, the purchaser by name, address and telephone number and the location where the keg is to be consumed.

3. Requires that the label remain on the keg until it is returned to the store from which it was purchased.

4. Adds as a basis for disqualification for a purchase-transportation permit a conviction under G.S. Sec. 18B-302. (This is the statute regulating the sale to and purchase by underage persons of alcoholic beverages.)

5. Authorizes a local ABC board to request a criminal history check at the applicant's expense, to ensure that the applicant is not disqualified from receiving a permit.

6. Establishes that a violation of the registration and labeling requirements constitutes a Class 1 misdemeanor and provides for the revocation, for one year, of the driver's license of a person committing a violation.

It seems to me that one of the primary roles of public policy is to protect the safety of the citizenry. When I was young, we drank (smoked more but that's besides the point). But we did it in the context of partying on the weekend for the most part. Today there is evidence that teenage drinking has become a public health problem (drinking more, not just on weekends, etc.) rather than rebellious experimentation.

In a college town its hard to tell high school teenagers from college-aged teenagers/young adults. If college students have keg parties, that's fine with me. They are old enough to learn to manage their own vices. Although I don't have kids, I certainly understand the concerns parents with high schoolers have over the easy accessibility. If you look back through other threads on the issue of alcohol, you'll see there are some very responsible parents in this community who are hard pressed to keep their kids from straying along with those who have lenient/absent parents. I don't know if keg registration is the best solution for counteracting those parents who are irresponsible, but based on what I've read about the local situation, I think we need a 'village' to take care of our high schoolers.

, but I think as a community we should focus on the problem and .

My older teen--now a freshman away at college--has been a great resource to me in understanding some of the dynamics of the teen drinking culture in town. After she was "caught in the act," it opened up a great ongoing dialogue for each of us to learn from the other about this serious issue. I've appreciated her honesty and it has really opened my eyes to what she sees in her social circle.

When I told my daughter about the proposed keg registration, her response was, "well why do they think that will do anything?" She said that almost all the alcohol drunk by teens she knew was taken from parents' liquor cabinets (without parental consent), or purchased a six pack or bottle at a time for teens by older friends and sibs. A very few kids had fake ID's. In some cases, especially with seniors after graduation, they drank with parental knowledge and restrictions around the circumstances (no driving, etc) which she said most teens obeyed. She said that it was very difficult to attend keg parties on campus because they did a good job of carding people. She said there were a few (i.e less than 4) keg parties she knew about during her four years of high school, and in one case, she was pretty sure a parent bought the keg.

I realize her comments only reflect what she saw, but she was pretty plugged in to a number of different social groups at both high schools.

My question is, is there any substantive information that keg registration will actually reduce underage access to alcohol in any meaningful way? Are there better ways to police this problem than this proposal?

Terri, I guess late nights bring sloppy writing. One, I think teen drinking is a problem best addressed by direct parental intervention as opposed to ceding the responsibility to the government. Two, I'm not OK with the proposal because, for instance, there's no evidence that keg registration, in isolation, works while there is evidence that it drives teens to more potent, more concealable sources of alcohol (of course I also think that the background checks, the penalties, the public records, the requirement to publish the where/when of consumption are just a few additional reasons to dismiss this proposal). Three, when Jim Ward brought this up for Council endorsement, Sally Greene and Mark Kleinschmidt both suggested waiting until for the actual legislative Bills so that the Council would know, specifically, what they were being asked to support. I was there and Jim was not happy and, strangely, fought this reasonable suggestion - I believe I commented elsewhere on that exchange. When one of the members pointed out that due to the nature of this law, the mistakes other States made crafting keg registration legislation - wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see if the legislature would end up with something better than this awful Insko Bill - a Bill the Council could whole-heartedly endorse. Jim wasn't buying any of that - seemed to want to stomp out any dissension - and it struck me that he would so strongly fight for a phantom but not call as strongly for the one thing we know works - direct parental involvement.

Fourth, and finally, I'm not following any particular format in attacking this silly proposal. I'm concerned about teen drinking and have been thinking about how I'll handle it when I become a teen's parent. I heap disdain on Jim's proposal because he wants a free pass - “please ignore the man behind the curtain” - "don't worry, Daddy knows best." Further, it appears to me he seized upon this as an idea that would increase his political capital with very little downside and is avoiding the more courageous action of calling for increased parental responsibility. Maybe I'm being unfair to Jim but it seems that the “stop teen drinking” issue has been circulating, of late, more for political reasons than deep concern. I'm sure that at the core of every endorsement there's an honest attempt to improve our town (I'm not that cynical) but why this fatally flawed proposal over others? Why not support Chapel Hill's teen intervention program more fully over calling for a shotgun approach that, Terri you must know, will have the opposite effect on teen drinking?

Last, a quick note on something Clark touched upon. Cam proposed a modest (no criminal background checks, no two day wait, no invitation for ALE to crash the party) noise containment policy for leaf-blowers and caught loads of cr*p (can I say that here Ruby?). There were letter writers and editorials and public statements and media analysis to the nth degree - all about a restriction that, maybe, was not well thought out but was proposed with the best intentions.

Then we have Jim's insistence on a blank check endorsement of a proposal - one that's turned out to be bad for so many reasons - and there's nary a response. I guess maybe teen-drinking is the third-rail of local politics and challenging any attempt, no matter how well-intentioned but poorly or dangerously constructed, is political suicide. That would explain Mark's long caveat about being against teen drinking (as if any Council member would be for teen-drinking) - a shame, if so, since this attitude more than anything would stifle open and honest debate on what, if any, approach our state and local governments should take to control teen-drinking.

Having been offline for a week, it's interesting to return and find this topic still alive. I guess the discussion at the last CH Town Council meeting helped.

This week's TIME Magazine has a related article on what some communities in CT have done and others are trying to do to fight teen drinking. So, if you thinks that there are compelling privacy issues in keg registration, you ain't seen nothing. Read:,9171,1047499,00.html

After reading the article, it might be good to ask why people are willing to go to such extremes to deal with this problem. Also, we might wonder why we don't like the laws that we have to apply to us and our family members when it comes to drinking.

Terri, I've never debated that there's some kind of problem - the scope which, as Paul points out, is not directly known. What I've debated is whether the use of keg beer is a significant component of teen drinking and does its improper usage rise to the level which requires procedures like criminal background checks, public records and unfettered searches.

As far as kegs being a significant portion of teen-drinking, the research I've seen is either anecdotal or associative. For instance, most of the proponents of keg registration like to quote studies showing that price pressure has an effect on teen purchases of alcohol. The proponents then extrapolate that since keg beer is the cheapest alcohol per unit quantity, discouraging its private use (I think in general if you read between the lines) must reduce teen drinking. I believe this to be a stretch. And, as Melanie's daughter pointed out, seems not to jibe with local conditions.

As far as this supposed keg problem rising to a high enough level to require draconian procedures and potential abuses of 4th Amendment rights, well, you know what I think.

I'm troubled that someone on our Council continues to make proposals that have such intrinsic encroachments on our rights without seeming to have evaluated these costs.

Keg registration has been adopted in many states as a solution to the problem of teenage drinking. As I said in a previous post, I don't know if it's the best solution, and I understand Will's desire to protect personal rights and privacy. In other instances (such as Internet filtering at the library and red light cameras) I have felt strongly that privacy rights should trump all other concerns. But in this instance, I still think the public health nature of this problem is significant enough that we need to investigate a full range of solutions, even possibly foregoing 'some' privacy.

Here's some references on the extent of the problem with teenage drinking:

The two most important factoids for me are:

1. "Research indicates that the human brain continues to develop into a person's early twenties and that exposure of the developing brain to alcohol may have long-lasting effects on intellectual capabilities and may increase the likelihood of alcohol addiction."

2. Of the approximately 2,200 persons who die annually in traffic crashes involving drinking drivers under age 21, almost half are persons other than the drinking driver.

The Kids Are Alright says Larry Grossberg echoing the Who in his new book, Caught in the Crossfire: Kids, Politics and America's Future.
Grossberg contends (in two talks I've attended and in the book) that kids today are better behaved than they have been in years based on actual data available.
Fewer kids are on illegal drugs, fewer are pregnant, fewer are convicted of violent crimes, etc.
Grossberg dissects the moral panic and the effect on kids, which he might say although he does not directly, is a worse effect that a keg of beer at a college party.
We drug the kids with prescription drugs and criminalize their behavors, etc as a result of this panic.
Is Keg-Reg more moral panic? Or is the panic justified?

From Fred's article:

Spurred in part by that information, the Stratford town council is considering an ordinance that would allow police to enter a private residence if they suspect someone under 21 is consuming liquor, even if adults are present. Dubbed the house-party ordinance, it has been adopted in 43 of the state's 169 municipalities, but in Stratford it has split neighbors between those who see the measure as a way to curb underage drinking and those who argue that it undermines parental authority and violates privacy rights.


“If police go to a home and look through a window and see a kid drinking beer, there's nothing they can do unless they're invited in,” says Craig Turner, vice chair of the Connecticut Coalition to Stop Underage Drinking (CCSUD), which has been a major force in pushing for the ordinances. “And even if they manage to get invited in, the only thing they can do is ask the kids to pour the liquor out or nab a kid if he creates a disturbance when he leaves the house.” Under the house-party law, drinking by anyone under 21 on private property is a crime. Police can enter a home and issue citations and fines to both minors and any adults present whether or not they provided the alcohol.

I guess it's now OK in Conneticut to have the police “peek” through your window if they “think” drinking is going on.

Unbelievable, except its actually law in %25 of their communities. Maybe Conneticut should require that elected officials take a quick refresher civics course before ascending to office.

The proponents do concede there might be a few, little issues:

Concedes Turner of the CCSUD: “The core issue of the debate for people who oppose it is, What gives police the right to come onto their property? How do they know that if they're coming in for one thing, they won't try to find something else?” Turner maintains that police will merely respond to concerns brought to their attention by “responsible citizens,” not snoop around in people's backyards.

So, if a “responsible citizen” wants to wander into my backyard, peek through my windows and then report what appears to be underage drinking, the police will have all the probable cause required for due process? It's OK to act as long as an agent for the police does the dirty work?

Chip, chip, chip away on the margins of our Consitutional rights - always for the “best” of causes. Keep that up and we end up living in a country where law enforcement can sneak into your house without probable cause and a warrant, whoops, guess we're there...

Wonder how long it'll take for this proposal to be made in Chapel Hill?

Fred, what's happened to our country?

Actually--it was my son. I don't have any daughters.

Hey--my son's statement on this (VIA a quote by me, here on OP, in ANOTHER thread) made Dan Coleman's column today. Don't know what the "netiquette" on that would be--but a "heads up--I'm using your quote in the paper" would have been nice. PARTICULARLY since the quote MENTIONED my son's reaction to the proposed keg law.

Now I realize that this board is public domain--but there is a difference between and the CHH. SO--if you don't want to be quoted in the paper--post anonymously!

Still posting under my own name (and listed in the phone book--I'm not hard to find...)

Melanie See

The original "pop the cap" bill is moving forward. The House approved it in May, and yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee sent it on to the full chamber with only one dissenting vote.

Good news, as was stated way back at the start of this thread, for a lot of local businesses -- and for the state's small but growing microbreweries, which make some pretty great stuff.

From the Pop the Cap email newsletter, a request to call before 11 AM today:

As you may have heard, HB 392, the "Pop The Cap" bill, passed the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday. Under normal circumstances, the bill would go to the whole Senate today: however, our opponents have managed to delay that by a day, which they are using to try to change votes.

Then we need your help immediately.

As in, right now.

At the end of this email there is a list of Senators who need to hear from PTC supporters ASAP. Please take the time to call all the senators on this list, as well as your own senator. Ask them to vote in favor of the "Pop The Cap" bill, HB 392, which will come to a vote tomorrow at 11 AM. If you get this message after 11 AM on July 7, do not call. But if you've received this email before July 7 at 11 AM, we need your action one last time. As always, please be positive and courteous; we've won over supporters with our positive message.

We need you one last time. Pop the Cap has worked on this campaign for 800 straight days- we're not about to lose on day 801.

Thank you,

Sean Wilson
President, Pop the Cap

Senate Members who need your calls today:
Member, Contact, Room, Telephone, Counties Represented, Party
Sen. Albertson, 525, 733-5705, Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson , D
Sen. Allran, 516, 733-5876, Catawba, Iredell , R
Sen. Apodaca, 1127, 733-5745, Buncombe, Henderson, Polk , R
Sen. Atwater, 522, 715-3036, Chatham, Durham, Lee , D
Sen. Brown, 515, 715-3034, Jones, Onslow , R
Sen. Dannelly, 2010, 733-5955, Mecklenburg, D
Sen. East, 1120, 733-5743, Alleghany, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin , R
Sen. Forrester, 1129, 715-3050, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln , R
Sen. Kerr, 526, 733-5621, Greene, Pitt, Wayne , D
Sen. Graham, 1113, 733-5650, Mecklenburg, D
Sen. Hunt, 1102, 733-5850, Wake, R
Sen. Nesbitt, 300B, 715-3001, Buncombe , D
Sen. Shaw, 621, 733-9349, Cumberland, D
Sen. Smith, 520, 733-5748, Johnston, Wayne , R
Sen. Thomas, 313, 733-6275, Carteret, Craven, Pamlico , D

Please call tonight or before 11 am tomorrow...

* Pop the Cap

With your help, we can brew many styles of beer that we can not do because of the Cap!

For anyone who cares, the bill got stalled on the Senate floor. Sen. Kerr compared drinking these beers to "drinking straight vodka" and had it rerouted to the Finance Committee.

The Pop the Cap organization is trying to get people to call their state senator and ask for their support. All sorts of crazy accusations have been made against this bill, mostly from religious extremists.


Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.