Untimely response

It has been awhile since Scott Metzger responded to some points I had raised about HB 660.  I would like to take a second to respond.  First though, Scott had pointed out that I work for Independence Brewing Co. and I even list it on my profile for purposes of full disclosure.  But I would like to point out that these thoughts (and this blog) are my thoughts and for no end other than mine.  

The first item I would like to tackle is the effective date.  Scott mentions that all bills contain the provision outlined in Section 39 Article III so that this bill must become effective in September of this year or wait until September of 2013.  That is simply not true.  An effective date can be specified, the bill could be triggered into law by an event it could be contingent on a proposed constitutional amendment etc.  This is not a now or 2013 scenario. 

I had also raised alarm on the exclusiveness of the bill, particularly to Shiner, Miller, AB and hopefully in the near future Real Ale and Saint Arnold’s.  Scott’s reply essentially stated that his bill pertained to Brewpubs and that it included more breweries as opposed to excluding.  His argument is misguiding for two reasons.  The first is a definitional dilemma and the second pertains to duty.

Scott claims his bill is for Brew pubs and that it just happens to help more than the intended scope.  The problem is that Scott is talking about two different types of brew pubs.  HB660 essentially is changing the definitional parameters of a brew pub entity.  So to say “I wouldn’t work to initiate bills that affect business types that I’m not involved in.” is a bit of a misnomer as by changing the definition and controlling the parameters you do exactly that.  Now it may be the case that Mr. Metzger doesn’t believe he has a since of duty to the other industries and I will grant him that—but that doesn’t matter either.

The only duty any law maker has is to the public.  Business is a very important part of this state and it is also important to maintain and improve the laws in such ways that commerce has greater avenues afforded.  In the case of beer legislation, the best way to do that is to ensure that those whom wish to consume beer responsibly can do so easily and through many channels.   Exclusion of pertinent parties should be for good cause, for the good of the beer consuming public.