By Daniel J. Smith
In a step backward for personal liberty, Alabama will remain one of just two U.S. states that do not allow its residents to partake in the craft of homebrewing, a practice that many of the country's Founding Fathers appreciated and practiced, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
The Alabama Legislature's inaction on the issue on the last day of the session Wednesday is not only disappointing for repressed homebrewers like me, but upholding the ban on homebrewing continues the dangerous trend of increasing local, state and federal encroachment on personal and economic freedoms in Alabama.
Homebrewing is punishable as a misdemeanor with significant fines and even jail time under Alabama law. If Alabama believes that "the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property," as stated in Article 1, Section 35 of the Alabama Constitution, homebrewing ought to be legal. It's hard to see how banning adults from enjoying homebrewed beer and wine protects citizens from the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. In fact, it is a clear violation of all three.
Individuals should be given the right to choose to purchase beer, wine or cider at a restaurant or store, or brew it themselves if they desire. Allowing homebrewers to tinker with beer recipes fosters innovation and diversity in the beer market, offering more choice and better beer. In fact, since President Jimmy Carter legalized homebrewing at the national level in 1978, there has been a craft beer revolution with microbreweries and brewpubs popping up around the nation. This renaissance has not reached Alabama due to archaic remnants of the Prohibition era, including the ban on homebrewing.
In 2010, the Brewers Association reported that Alabama had just four breweries. That is just one brewery for every 1.2 million Alabama residents. Only one other state, Mississippi (which also bans homebrewing), ranked lower with one brewery for every 1.4 million residents. The national average is one brewery for every 271,000 residents; nearby Georgia has one brewery for every 461,000 residents.
Opponents of homebrewing argue that it will make beer and wine cheaper and thus more widely available for those looking for cheap drunkenness. Homebrewing isn't an easy, quick or even cheap craft to get into. From my own experience as a homebrewer of beer -- prior to moving to Alabama -- the ingredients and equipment required to make a palatable beer certainly exceeded the cost of a standard noncraft beer, like Coors or Miller. Not to mention, a homebrewed batch of beer often takes several weeks to make.
Homebrewing is an art, oftentimes taking new brewers several tries and a lot of money to get it right. Homebrewing, craft breweries and vineyards only help foster a deeper respect for the craft that goes into creating these beverages. They help dispel the notion ingrained in popular culture that alcohol is simply a cheap expedient to drunkenness. Instead, they stress a deep appreciation for the history and form of alcoholic beverages.
The deeper issue at stake is the tendency of politicians -- whether at the local, state or national level -- to manage every aspect of their constituents' economic and personal lives. This trend threatens the development of personal responsibility and undermines the foundations of a free society. French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville long ago warned this type of bureaucratic power turns people into "nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
In fact, the Alabama Constitution clearly states that when government oversteps its responsibility to protect life, liberty and property, it usurps and oppresses the people. Growing paternalism, such as bans on homebrewing, threatens the development of responsibility, and thus a free society.
Daniel J. Smith is an assistant professor of economics at the Manual H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. Email: djsmith@troy.edu.
