Re: [new_distillers] Re: Changes to 26 USC for Legalization
- Jsducote,I agree completely about your concern for the blind-religious types and those who will see this as a potential decrease in revenue for the Budweisers and Coors or the world, it worries me as well. However, I hope folks like you will not let that stop you from trying to get the word and the proposed legislation out there.I read on Wikipedia the other day that Missouri never enacted state prohibition laws during the 20s and it is still legal in Missouri to distill alcohol. The refusal to go along with prohibition was sponsored by Anheuser-Busch. If anything would take revenue away from the beer companies it would be the laws passed in the 70s that allow you to brew up to 200 gallons of beer a year.I sent a copy of our proposal to a senator that I have been told is a teetotaller. Obviously he may have a religious issue with drinking alcohol in general, but I just wanted him to be aware of what is going on in this great country. This is why I have been pushing to get someone from every state to contact their legislators. We know we don't have the gold, but we do have a voice.The myths about going blind, etc. will be hard to disprove for some, however I think we present a very good argument in the proposal. It's all about aducation, education, education. Thanks for your comments. AlliFrom: jsducote <jsducote@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: [new_distillers] Re: Changes to 26 USC for LegalizationAgreed. I'm not sure how this hurts the cause. If anything, it should allow hobbyists to ensure there is an established hobbyist threshold, making clear the distinction between the professionals.
So far, like a lot of people, I've been watching the discussion from the sidelines without much to contribute. I live in Texas, which is a curious blend of gun-totin' libertarian & blind-religious fervor. It's hard to know how our congresspersons would react. On the one hand, we appeal to their "keep your laws out of my house" side. On the other, they tend to believe a lot of nonsense that, once believed cannot be disproved, including that the hobby is dangerous, can make you go blind, etc. Texas is also a golden rule state: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. That does not bode well for anyone who might remotely be characterized as taking revenue away from Budweiser. Even if we don't actually threaten them, they only have to _think_ we do to shut us down.
--- In mailto:new_distillers%40yahoogroups.com, "Brewhaus / Hot Sauce Depot" <rick.morris@...> wrote:
> In trying to legalize hobby distilling we are not trying to gain approval as DSPs. That is licensing for commercial operations.
>> I found this listed under Cornell University Law (dated June 2013), and this might hurt our cause to make hobby distilling legal.
>> (3) Secretary may establish minimum capacity and level of activity requirements
>> The Secretary may by regulations prescribe for each type of operation minimum capacity and level of activity requirements for qualifying premises as a distilled spirits plant.
- John et al.,
Sorry guys but I never got permission from the moderator to post this spreadsheet. You will have to get it the from the Brewhaus forum, Legalization, Tracking File for Legislators.
The latest update is today. Since this post we have added Texas, Kentucky and Illinois. We need someone to contact Senator Robert C. Casey, Senator of Pennsylvania. He just said he was pushing to lower the tax rate on small breweries in Pittsburgh and across the country. See my post on the Brewhaus forum; Legalization, Goal #2.
I may be contacted personnaly at allibugger@.... We are starting to roll - let's keep the ball moving. Thanks. Alli
--- In email@example.com, "tgfoitwoods" <zymurgybob@...> wrote:
> I sure wouldn't object.
> Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller Making Fine Spirits
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jsducote" wrote:
> > Alli,
> > Would you object to posting (or uploading to the files area) your
> spreadsheet of who has been contacted and what their response has been
> (favorable/unfavorable/unresponsive)? I think it might be helpful in
> establishing a sort of domino effect if the supportive congresspersons
> are used to help influence others.
> > Would anyone object if it were posted/updated monthly? Or are
> quarterly updates more appropriate?
> > -john
> > --- In email@example.com, "allibugger" allibugger@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Well folks we are making progress. Congressional representatives
> have been contacted in California, Florida, Massachusetts, North
> Carolina Texas and Virginia. Now is a great time to check your
> congressmans/womens websites - they may be doing townhalls in your
> neighborhood while they are out for the August break. Go to the
> attached link for copies of the proposed legislation, a great power
> point presentation and information on how to contact your congressional
> folks. Thanks for your help. Email or post questions.
> > > Alli
> > > http://www.brewhaus.com/Legalize-Hobby-Distilling.aspx
> > >