The new plan to keep kids from drinking alcohol: Ban kids (and some adults) from buying drinks containing zero alcohol.

No, it doesn't make much sense.

But that's the argument being made by Molly A. Bowdring, a clinical psychologist at Stanford, who wrote this week in STAT that nonalcoholic drinks meant to resemble beer or cocktails are "a potential public health crisis."

The zero-proof beverage market includes brands like Athletic Brewing, by far the largest nonalcoholic beer brand, as well as a growing number of wine and spirits varieties. While nonalcoholic drinks still account for a tiny sliver of the overall beverage market, the rate of growth in recent years has been impressive—driven by consumers who are looking to enjoy a drink without getting drunk.

But won't someone think of the children, frets Bowdring. "While it's great that more people are taking to heart public health messages that reducing alcohol consumption can improve well-being and extend life, an important lesson from vaping as a replacement for cigarettes is being overlooked: What may be good for adults may be harmful to kids."

After contacting alcohol regulators in every U.S. state, she writes that she was shocked to find drinks that contain no alcohol are generally not subjected to limitations placed on drinks that do contain alcohol. Imagine that.

"Children and teens are, by and large, legally permitted to purchase non-alcoholic beverages. This is a huge liability," warns Bowdring. "The path from non-alcoholic beverage consumption to alcohol use among youths appears to be fairly direct….Among minors, consuming non-alcoholic beverages can socialize them to the drinking culture, with the beverages being perceived as cool, adult, and modern."

Goodness gracious, not that.

The logic here is seriously flawed in several ways. Most importantly, banning the sale of nonalcoholic drinks to individuals under 21—which includes a lot of adults, by the way—isn't going to make "drinking culture" seem much different. And even if it did, it is absolutely not the government's job to police what subcultures seem cool or interesting.

If there's a compelling reason for the state to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some individuals, it's on the grounds that consuming alcohol can increase the risk that they harm themselves or others. But kids are already prevented from legally purchasing or consuming alcohol—and someone who is purchasing or consuming a nonalcoholic drink is, by definition, not consuming alcohol in the first place!

Finally, Bowdring isn't arguing that kids who buy nonalcoholic drinks go on to become raging alcoholics or drunk drivers or anything dangerous like that. She's panicked over the possibility that they'll have an increased interest in drinking, period. But learning to drink socially and responsibly—which might include the consumption of nonalcoholic drinks at times—is a key part of being an adult.

This isn't an argument for banning video games because some kids who play video games will someday commit a school shooting. This is arguing for banning video games because some kids who play video games might someday drive a few miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

The post Will Banning Nonalcoholic Beer Save the Children? appeared first on Reason.com.

As anyone who has traveled by plane in the last decade can attest, one of the few—perhaps only—things that make modern commercial flying tolerable is a strong onboard libation. For those lucky enough to travel internationally, the booze is sometimes even free. But could this last vestige of mile-high sanity be snatched from us like a water bottle at an airport security checkpoint? 

Newly released research argues that it should be. The study, published in Thorax by researchers from the Institute of Aerospace Medicine in Germany, concludes that in-flight alcohol can increase the risk of heart attack. While the topline conclusion sounds concerning and compelling, the research itself is less so. 

The researchers used a sampling of a mere 48 people between 18 and 40 years of age, half of whom slept in a sleep lab that mirrored normal on-ground conditions while the other half slept in a lab that simulated high-altitude cabin pressure. On the first night of the test, everyone was instructed to go to bed. On the second night, each group was given the assignment of drinking booze and then passing out. (How one qualifies to become a test subject for a study of this kind is unclear at the time of this writing). The researchers then monitored each group's heart rate and sleep patterns.

The results showed that those who consumed alcohol and slept in the high-altitude simulation experienced the most heightened heart rates and the lowest oxygen-blood levels while sleeping. The researchers conclude that those with existing cardiac and pulmonary conditions could be in danger—as well as those with sleep apnea and other respiratory ailments—but even healthy individuals were at risk.

"Even in young and healthy individuals, the combination of alcohol intake with sleeping under hypobaric conditions poses a considerable strain on the cardiac system and might lead to exacerbation of symptoms in patients with cardiac or pulmonary diseases," the researchers state. "Our findings strongly suggest that the inflight consumption of alcoholic beverages should be restricted."

One might be tempted to brush this off as merely the work of a few teetotalers from across the pond, but as students of the temperance movement know well, prohibitionary brush fires can start with the smallest of sparks. In fact, the in-flight booze ban movement has already begun to catch on in America. 

During the COVID pandemic, reports of unruly and intoxicated airplane passengers getting into physical altercations with flight attendants led several airlines to suspend their on-board alcohol service entirely. Despite this built-in market reaction—after all, no airline wants to be the arena for a drunken brawl in the clouds—numerous federal lawmakers inevitably joined the booze ban chorus.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D–Ore.) called for a ban on to-go alcohol from airport bars in 2021 after he allegedly watched a fellow passenger order three shots of alcohol in a to-go cup from an airport bar and then board the plane. Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), citing reports that anti-mask passengers were the ones creating the on-board ruckuses, went on record in support of banning the hard stuff at least temporarily.

The study claiming to show heart and other health risks will likely further embolden the no-alcohol-on-planes crowd. Lost in all of this is the reality that, as Rep. DeFazio's anecdote shows, many of the unruly passengers that caught media headlines involved those who were already intoxicated upon boarding the plane or brought their own alcohol on board.

Under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, it is already illegal for consumers to imbibe alcohol they bring onto a plane: "No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him." The rule goes on to state that airlines cannot permit already intoxicated passengers to board their planes or serve them more alcohol onboard. 

Therefore, a complete ban on in-flight alcohol would simply be another example of the government implementing more rules to address behavior that is largely already illegal. It also would clearly incentivize more passengers to sneak their own alcohol on board—something that already happened when airlines suspended alcohol service during the pandemic. It doesn't take a libertarian to understand that if you ban a legal product—like in-flight alcohol service—you will inevitably create a more robust black-market workaround. 

A better approach would be to allow airlines to continue selling and serving in-flight alcohol. Like servers at a bar, flight attendants can monitor how much alcohol each passenger has consumed, instead of supercharging an uncontrollable airborne BYOB free-for-all. As for potential health concerns, passengers should be empowered to make their own decisions based on knowing themselves best. Most people already do this in situations such as avoiding air travel after scuba diving or major surgery, and there is no reason they can't do the same in determining whether to drink before or during a flight.

Some clever travelers have pointed out that the above-mentioned FAA regulation merely says that a person cannot drink alcohol on an airplane unless it is served by airplane staff. This technically suggests that you can bring your own alcohol on board—as long as it's in a mini bottle—and simply ask your flight attendant to serve it. At least a few airlines appear to be open to this.  

Now might be the time to find one such airline, book a flight, and enjoy this Prohibition-era 12-Mile Limit cocktail in defiant—but technically still legal—protest:

Prohibition-Era 12-Mile Limit Cocktail

Ingredients:

• ½ oz rye whiskey
• ½ oz cognac
• ½ oz rum
• ½ oz grenadine (real grenadine, not red syrup)
• ½ oz lemon juice 
• Lemon wedges (for garnish)
• Ice

Instructions:

1. Obtain two mini bottles of liquor, each under the 3.4 oz TSA liquid carry-on limit.
2. Fill one mini bottle with ½ oz rye whiskey and ½ oz cognac, topped off with your favorite rum.
3. Fill the second mini bottle with ½ oz grenadine and ½ oz lemon juice. Store this bottle in the fridge until leaving for the airport.
4. Bring both mini bottles on board with you in your carry-on.
5. Ask your flight attendant to pour the contents of the liquor-filled bottle over a cup of ice.
6. Add the grenadine and lemon juice mixture to the cup.
7. Garnish with lemon wedges.
8. Stir with the provided plastic stirring stick.
9. Sit back, relax, and enjoy your cocktail (while you still can).

The post Oh God, What If Congress Bans Drinking on Airplanes? appeared first on Reason.com.

America's tax code is notoriously convoluted, but the complexity really sparkles when it comes to the federal government's approach to alcohol taxation. Wine, beer, and liquor are all subject to varying tax rates based on intricate calculations, but the so-called "bubble tax" for hard cider is the star of this regulatory circus.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the tax rate for alcoholic cider is based on, among other things, the amount of carbonation the drink contains. Yes, America technically already has a carbon tax and the feds have literally found a way to tax air. Craft cider makers are being flattened by an arbitrary system that is strangling the industry's long-term potential.

Under the federal code, alcoholic cider is taxed as either hard cider, still wine, or sparkling wine, and the implications of which category applies are not insignificant. Hard cider is taxed at a modest $0.226 per gallon, while sparkling wine is taxed at a whopping $3.40 per gallon—a staggering 1,400 percent increase. For every 100 gallons of cider produced, Uncle Sam either takes $22 in taxes or $340 in taxes. 

What determines how cider is categorized and taxed? A ridiculous three-part formula based on a) what type of fruit is used to make the cider, b) the alcohol content of the cider, and c) what carbonation level the cider contains. 

Imagine you're a cider maker aiming for the lower tax rate to apply to your product. You need to produce a cider that is made from apples or pears (with no other fruit additions), is less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume (ABV), and has less than or equal to 0.64 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per 100mL. However, if you decide to add some blackberries or grapes, it's considered a still wine and taxed at $1.07 per gallon—but only if it has less than 0.392 grams of CO2 per 100mL. If you go over that carbonation threshold, you've unlocked sparkling wine status and with that the $3.40 per gallon tax rate.

Confused? It gets worse. 

If your pear or apple cider is over 0.64 grams of CO2, it gets the sparkling wine rate. But it's knocked back down to the still wine rate if it's less than 0.392 grams of CO2 and the ABV level is 8.5 percent or higher. Whether the bubbles are added via "force carbonated" or "bottle conditioned" carbonation creates another tax delineation for the sparkling wine category. A flow chart is needed just to unpack all the potential permutations and combinations:

The implications of this tax labyrinth extend to consumers. A report from Wine Enthusiast notes that modern drinkers have grown to expect beer-like carbonation levels in their alcoholic beverages, thereby creating pressure for cider makers to add more carbonation to their products. 

One cider maker from Oregon reported that he receives frequent emails from consumers complaining about flat cider, which they incorrectly blame on him rather than the government. If adding more carbonation could financially cripple a small business, it's little wonder many cider makers feel that their hands are tied. 

The disparity is glaring when compared to beverages like beer, hard seltzer, and regular soda, which face no such carbonation-based tax penalties. It's a clear disconnect from market realities and consumer demands, which increasingly favor diverse flavors and more carbonation in ciders.

Craft cider makers are doing their best to diversify the carbonation levels and fruits in their ciders to respond to consumer demand, but it's clear the industry has a hard ceiling on its growth due to these tax rules. This is why many cider makers state that their ability to expand—and the ability of the industry as a whole to thrive—is being pointlessly inhibited.

The bubble tax is now getting more attention due to a recent bipartisan bill introduced in Congress, which aims to level the playing field between apple and pear ciders and those made with other fruits. While promising, the best reform would be to convert the entire system of alcohol taxation to one based simply on a drink's ABV level rather than arbitrary classifications.

Craft cider, a beverage steeped in American history, deserves better. Another Michigan cider maker made it even simpler: "It's not expressing the free market. The government needs to get out of the way."

The post The Federal Government is Literally Taxing Air appeared first on Reason.com.

During the height of the pandemic summer of 2020, the proprietors of the Burning Bridge Tavern worked with local officials in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, to host a series of outdoor gatherings for the community.

For their trouble, the bar's owners got slapped with a series of citations by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), the government agency that oversees and manages the sale of alcohol in the state. The citations were ticky-tack offenses, according to Burning Bridge's chief financial officer, Mike Butler. Twice, the bar was cited for noise violations because they'd allowed a band playing at the gathering to plug into the tavern's electricity supply. Another offense occurred when the owners and some family members were drinking inside the tavern, which was closed to the public, during a period when indoor dining was prohibited.

A frustrating situation, but not the end of the world. Burning Bridge's owners paid the fines associated with the citations and assumed that was that. But then the bar had to renew its liquor license.

"They denied it. They said, 'Oh, you're the guys that got all those citations,'" Butler says. "It was a real gut punch."

Turns out, over the past two years the PLCB has pushed dozens of Pennsylvania establishments that racked up pandemic-​related citations to sign "conditional licensing agreements" to renew their liquor permits. In some cases, those agreements have forced the sale of licenses—but in most cases, as with Burning Bridge, they've added additional conditions to the license that could prevent a future renewal from being approved.

While the PLCB cannot revoke existing licenses, the board is empowered to object to the renewal of a license or to demand the license can only be renewed conditionally. "In extreme cases," PLCB Press Secretary Shawn Kelly says, the PLCB can force the sale of a liquor license, though the board only pursues that option when "there is an operational and citation history that calls for such an agreement."

Even though Burning Bridge's owners weren't forced to sell their license, Butler says signing the conditional licensing agreement has come with real costs: The bar's insurance premium tripled as a result of being viewed as a greater risk.

Typically, those agreements have been used to curb nuisance bars or force establishments with a history of legal problems, like serving underage patrons, to clean up their acts. Recently, however, the PLCB has taken a hardline stance against establishments that violated pandemic-era rules.

"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences," argued Mary Isenhour, one of the PLCB's three board members, at a January 2022 meeting where the first several of the COVID-related conditional licensing agreements were approved.

Isenhour was responding to an objection raised by a fellow board member, Michael Negra, who argued that the PLCB should take the view that businesses had "paid their dues" during the pandemic and should not face additional sanction now. Negra left the PLCB in June 2022 and now works for a ​Pittsburgh-based lobbying firm. He did not return requests for comment.

After Negra's departure, the PLCB has unanimously approved dozens of conditional licensing agreements for COVID-​related violations, including at least 10 that have required the sale of a license, based on a review of PLCB meeting minutes.

Kelly, the PLCB spokesman, maintains that licensees are "under no obligation" to sign conditional licensing agreements.

But any licensee that refuses would face a set of unattractive alternatives: not having the license renewed, or being drawn into a legal battle against the PLCB in state court.

"Do you risk your entire business, your license, the loans, all of that to fight" in a real court, asks Butler. "Or do you just kind of hold your nose and take your medicine? Tactically, for us, we weren't in a position to say, 'Yeah, we'll run that risk.'"

Chuck Moran, executive director of the Pennsylvania Licensed Beverage and Tavern Association, acknowledges that pandemic-era public health orders left many establishments with a difficult choice between following the law and surviving financially. Fairly or unfairly, "those who broke the rules went the wrong way and now they're paying the price," he says.

The whole matter raises some complicated questions about how our political institutions ought to handle, with the benefit of hindsight, the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic and policy makers' response to it.

"The feeling was that our government really isn't working to try and help us," says Butler. "At this point, it feels like they're coming after us."

The post Liquor Regulators Are Seeking Revenge on Bars That Broke Pandemic Rules appeared first on Reason.com.