By Dick Cantwell

.08% Intelligent

During the most recent legislative session, Washington State followed its own precedent of having been, back in 1918, the first state to adopt prohibition, by jumping on a bandwagon-in-the-making involving the determination of legal drunkenness behind the wheel at .08 percent blood alcohol. At the time it seemed all but inevitable that the change would sweep the nation, but because of various considerations -- not least among them expert testimony involving the facts of alcohol absorption in the systems of actual human beings rather than the demons invoked by well-meaning but emotionally clouded neo-prohibitionistic groups -- the highly controversial bill faltered somewhat short of law in the US Congress. The rest of the country was thereafter free to attack the very real problem of alcohol-related traffic fatalities through education, sterner punishments and whatever other measures made sense in keeping dangerously intoxicated people from driving.

Here in Washington, however, we're now stuck with a law that potentially criminalizes moderate drinking and promises to clutter jails and courts with suspects and cases which, however warranted they may individually be, don't get at the root of the problem. And in fact, in a bit of grisly irony, one of the first (and certainly the most publicized) alcohol-related fatalities of 1999 in Washington involved off-duty law officers who by all reports were beyond any legal limit.

My point in all this is not specifically to debate the above very touchy issue, but to take a look at the fact that the production and consumption of alcohol has over the years brought about a number of righteously enacted but at best only cumbersomely enforceable laws, in many cases living long past their epoch of relevance. For in fact, some of these laws have been on the books for hundreds of years. One of my favorites is the Massachusetts Farmer-Brewer Act, specifying that in order for a commercial brewery to exist it must in some way be connected to a farm producing barley. Initially penned on seventeenth century parchment, this law was intended to prevent the wholesale importation of barley and hops (from England, one must presume) for the production of beer to be sold in the Commonwealth (presuming once again, to enrich the coffers of perfidious Albion). Well, in case the folks under the gold dome haven't heard, we've since made it up with England. Most of the raw materials of brewing today are liable to come from this side of the water, and forcing the brewers of that state to contract with farmers in its western part to grow, and then plow under, an unspecified amount of barley can only be termed cynicism by omission. Or perhaps it's based in tradition. There are a lot of things I didn't understand about Massachusetts when I lived there.

Another of my former states of residence, Minnesota, has an interesting skein of legality tying off into mutually exclusive worlds its pub and production brewers. Not unusual, I'm sure, to readers in many states, the bulk of this legislation has to do with prohibiting distribution from brewpubs and serving on the premises of production facilities (though what's wrong with either of these things I certainly can't say). Strictly forbidden as well is the sale of beer to go in any amount -- growler, gallon, or keg -- from a brewpub, thereby shutting the door on what can be a decidedly meaningful amount of revenue. Where it really gets screwy is that because of the no-outside- distribution thing, pubs are also prohibited from sending their beer to festivals anywhere -- in-state or out -- unless they are held in connection with a competition. This has resulted, in Wisconsin, for instance, in competitions of the nudge-nudge-wink-wink variety for the pub beers sent from Minnesota in order that the neighbors can be accommodated at the fest. Needless to say, there aren't a lot of meaningful beer festivals in Minnesota, unless you count assemblages of the estimable beers of Summit, James Page and Minnesota Brewing poured alongside entries from out of state. And since in the case of the North Star State the production breweries have been around a lot longer than most of the pubs, they aren't willing to lend the force of their names to any change in the laws. I mean, really. We all know that the festivals that are the most fun are the ones that aren't necessarily competitive, where besotted kudos, or perhaps a kind sentence or two in the local press, is the most material gain to be garnered. To send Minnesota brewers home with a three-inch loving cup in order to limbo beneath a restrictive law can only engender further -- what else? -- cynicism.

Of course where alcohol is concerned it's very difficult to change in the direction of less restriction, especially when the sad-faced and the righteous are displayed to primarily public-opinion-conscious legislators on front pages and in TV sound-bites. And to all of us, ad nauseum, making those of us who produce (and God forbid, drink) alcoholic beverages in whatever modest measure out to be the exclusive same group doing the damage out on the roads. Let's be sensible. Let's not over-steer. And let's get rid of some of these ridiculous laws.