I came accross this article on Winespectator.
http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2337,00.html

New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
wines in restaurants.

I think it's a pretty good idea, less drunks on the road. More
flexibility to customers.

Anyone knows if Canada or more specifically Ontario has similar laws?
and:
What if you really like a bottle of wine and you know it's not
available anywhere else, can you purchase a bottle?

Zed


---
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups:
Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar & Fat"

Salut/Hi Zed,

le/on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:34 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>I came accross this article on Winespectator.
>http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2337,00.html
>
>New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
>wines in restaurants.
>
>I think it's a pretty good idea, less drunks on the road. More
>flexibility to customers.
>
>Anyone knows if Canada or more specifically Ontario has similar laws?
>and:
>What if you really like a bottle of wine and you know it's not
>available anywhere else, can you purchase a bottle?
>

For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I find
it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi Zed,
>
> le/on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:34 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >I came accross this article on Winespectator.
> >http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2337,00.html
> >
> >New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
> >wines in restaurants.
> >
> >I think it's a pretty good idea, less drunks on the road. More
> >flexibility to customers.
> >
> >Anyone knows if Canada or more specifically Ontario has similar laws?
> >and:
> >What if you really like a bottle of wine and you know it's not
> >available anywhere else, can you purchase a bottle?
> >

Here in NYC you can sometimes purchase a hard-to-find bottle below retail.
For example, I bought the 1994 Bryant Family for $200 at a downtown
restaurant. The price was well in excess of the mailing list, but below
retail/auction. Some restaurants are afraid to sell wine to you for
take-out (liquor laws), but I found that a $20 bill slipped to a bartender
or waiter works wonders.


>
> For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I
find
> it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

Agreed, but here in the U.S., our liquor laws are a draconian holdover of
prohibition and were influenced by the mob-turned-distributors (Joseph P.
Kennedy for one). We claim to be a "free country," but as you know we are
definitely not.

>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare wrote:

> For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I find
> it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

Though certainly no apologist, I shall attempt to illustrate the "logic," such
as it is. In every state I've lived in, liquor licenses are subdivided into
several different categories. Typically, there is one type for restaurants
and bars (with a further division based on the serving of hard alcohol) and
another type for liquor stores. The distinction lies in whether the customer
can consume the beverage on the premises and/or whether the customer can
remove the beverage from the place of purchase. In some states, you'll see
signs for "bar/package store" or the like, which indicates that the owners
have both types of license. Thus, it's in the economic interest of the
government to forbid the removal of alcohol from a restaurant unless the
restaurant invests in a second (and typically far more expensive) liquor
license. As in all matters alcoholic, it's a tangle of the puritanical blue
laws and the greed of those who've found profitable niches in the "three-tier"
system. We'll see how much opposition this proposed law encounters in the NY
legislature...

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton wrote:

>Though certainly no apologist, I shall attempt to illustrate the "logic," such
>as it is. In every state I've lived in, liquor licenses are subdivided into
>several different categories. Typically, there is one type for restaurants
>and bars (with a further division based on the serving of hard alcohol) and
>another type for liquor stores. The distinction lies in whether the customer
>can consume the beverage on the premises and/or whether the customer can
>remove the beverage from the place of purchase. In some states, you'll see
>signs for "bar/package store" or the like, which indicates that the owners
>have both types of license. Thus, it's in the economic interest of the
>government to forbid the removal of alcohol from a restaurant unless the
>restaurant invests in a second (and typically far more expensive) liquor
>license. As in all matters alcoholic, it's a tangle of the puritanical blue
>laws and the greed of those who've found profitable niches in the "three-tier"
>system. We'll see how much opposition this proposed law encounters in the NY
>legislature...
>

Mark, I am sure that most of us reading your detailed and excellent
explanation (some what like a chemistry
professor might do) were skipping ahead to think about places we have
been with both On and Off licenses.
And of course the idea that that would make it legal to take the bottle
home. But wait, most of the southern
states have a law that prohibits transporting alcohol unless the tax
stamp is intact and the bottle has not been
opened in any way. All this goes back to moonshine days and that was the
law they charged them with.



--

I have lived in Florida, Ga, Ms and currently North Carolina. There is
usually a max like 2 cases in NC that you can travel with.

I usually go to South Carolina and buy 2 cases of wine at least 2x per year.
I have seen officers watch people leave the wine/ liquor store just over the
border and confiscate wine/liquor.

So I buy 2 cases for me, 2 cases for wife and have her with me.

"Pantheras" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Lipton wrote:
>
> >Though certainly no apologist, I shall attempt to illustrate the "logic,"
such
> >as it is. In every state I've lived in, liquor licenses are subdivided
into
> >several different categories. Typically, there is one type for
restaurants
> >and bars (with a further division based on the serving of hard alcohol)
and
> >another type for liquor stores. The distinction lies in whether the
customer
> >can consume the beverage on the premises and/or whether the customer can
> >remove the beverage from the place of purchase. In some states, you'll
see
> >signs for "bar/package store" or the like, which indicates that the
owners
> >have both types of license. Thus, it's in the economic interest of the
> >government to forbid the removal of alcohol from a restaurant unless the
> >restaurant invests in a second (and typically far more expensive) liquor
> >license. As in all matters alcoholic, it's a tangle of the puritanical
blue
> >laws and the greed of those who've found profitable niches in the
"three-tier"
> >system. We'll see how much opposition this proposed law encounters in
the NY
> >legislature...
> >
>
> Mark, I am sure that most of us reading your detailed and excellent
> explanation (some what like a chemistry
> professor might do) were skipping ahead to think about places we have
> been with both On and Off licenses.
> And of course the idea that that would make it legal to take the bottle
> home. But wait, most of the southern
> states have a law that prohibits transporting alcohol unless the tax
> stamp is intact and the bottle has not been
> opened in any way. All this goes back to moonshine days and that was the
> law they charged them with.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>

Pantheras wrote:

> Mark, I am sure that most of us reading your detailed and excellent
> explanation (some what like a chemistry
> professor might do) were skipping ahead to think about places we have
> been with both On and Off licenses.
> And of course the idea that that would make it legal to take the bottle
> home. But wait, most of the southern
> states have a law that prohibits transporting alcohol unless the tax
> stamp is intact and the bottle has not been
> opened in any way. All this goes back to moonshine days and that was the
> law they charged them with.

Good point, Bill! BTW, wrong identity in Netscape or are you going incognito?
;-)

Mark Lipton

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:32:21 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

>Salut/Hi Zed,
>
> le/on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:34 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
>>I came accross this article on Winespectator.
>>http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2337,00.html
>>
>>New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
>>wines in restaurants.
>>
>>I think it's a pretty good idea, less drunks on the road. More
>>flexibility to customers.
>>
>>Anyone knows if Canada or more specifically Ontario has similar laws?
>>and:
>>What if you really like a bottle of wine and you know it's not
>>available anywhere else, can you purchase a bottle?
>>
>
>For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I find
>it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

Ian, i hear you!
the alcohol laws are arcane in this country.
If you go to a provincial park, put up a tent on teh beach, have beer
or wine with you, you have zny of it in your car, they can confiscate
your car, fine you thousands of dollars. You can even go to jail. And
all that without being drunk and disorderly.
I wish they woudl update our laws to reflect that we live in the 21th
century, freedom and all...
Zed

---
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups:
Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar & Fat"

Can't happen here in the USA....first you let people drink at a Public Beach
and then they want to behave European and go naked.

Damn...lets get the petition started here.


"Zed" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:32:21 +0100, Ian Hoare >
> wrote:
>
> >Salut/Hi Zed,
> >
> > le/on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:34 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
> >
> >>I came accross this article on Winespectator.
> >>http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2337,00.html
> >>
> >>New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
> >>wines in restaurants.
> >>
> >>I think it's a pretty good idea, less drunks on the road. More
> >>flexibility to customers.
> >>
> >>Anyone knows if Canada or more specifically Ontario has similar laws?
> >>and:
> >>What if you really like a bottle of wine and you know it's not
> >>available anywhere else, can you purchase a bottle?
> >>
> >
> >For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I
find
> >it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.
>
> Ian, i hear you!
> the alcohol laws are arcane in this country.
> If you go to a provincial park, put up a tent on teh beach, have beer
> or wine with you, you have zny of it in your car, they can confiscate
> your car, fine you thousands of dollars. You can even go to jail. And
> all that without being drunk and disorderly.
> I wish they woudl update our laws to reflect that we live in the 21th
> century, freedom and all...
> Zed
>
> ---
> "Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food
groups:
> Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar & Fat"

Ian,

you might be interested in an article (with a goof) from the NYTimes a few
weeks ago:

FOREIGN DESK | January 26, 2004, Monday
Paris Journal; Garçon! The Check, Please, and Wrap Up the Bordelais!

By ELAINE SCIOLINO (NYT) 1007 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 4 , Column 3
ABSTRACT - French government's crackdown on unsafe driving is having sobering
effect on wine consumption at restaurants and bars throughout country; one
enterprising bistro owner in Paris is offering doggie bags for wine; photos (M)


Correction: January 27, 2004, Tuesday

A headline yesterday about restaurants in France that are encouraging customers
to take home their leftover wine, to combat unsafe driving, referred
incorrectly to the wine of the region where the project began. It is Bordeaux.
(Bordelais is the term for the region or for its people.)


I don't feel like paying for the article (they're only free for a week or two).
But gist was while it might have been legal, it wasn't very common.

The opposition to the "doggie bag" law in NY mostly comes from the MADD
(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) side, which is concerned re weakening laws
against open containers of alcohol in cars. I'm actually planning on writing a
letter supporting the law, but suggesting that the state liquor commision
furnish tape-like stickers to "seal" wine. Personally, I'd love to be able to
carry home leftovers. I'm very conscious of watching the amount I drink when
dining out, but I confess it's hard to leave a glass of wine in a bottle you
paid $60 for.


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

I'm following up here, but with ref to comments generally. Firstly, please
don't take this as in any way anti anything sensitive (though I _can't_ find
it in my heart to approve of the USA's legal treatment of alcoholic
beverages in many states).

le/on 10 Feb 2004 23:08:20 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 4 , Column 3
>ABSTRACT - French government's crackdown on unsafe driving is having sobering
>effect on wine consumption at restaurants and bars throughout country; one
>enterprising bistro owner in Paris is offering doggie bags for wine; photos (M)

>I don't feel like paying for the article (they're only free for a week or two).
>But gist was while it might have been legal, it wasn't very common.

It may not be particularly common, but it's perfectly legal. If I have a
smidgen left in the bottom of a bottle, I usually leave it for the
restaurant to cook with (or the waiter to drink!!) However, if - as all too
often happens - I can't find any interesting wine in halves, and I'm out
just with Jacquie, I _really_ don't want to drink two whole bottles (a white
for the fish and a red for the main) between us. If I can persuade them to
offer a decent white by the glass, I'll often have one glass each as
aperitive and with the fish course, and then buy a bottle of red. Even then
there's often half a bottle left, and at restaurant prices, I _really_ don't
want to leave it. So I ask for a cork and out of politeness ask if I can
take it home. I don't know what others here do, Emery? Mike?

>The opposition to the "doggie bag" law in NY mostly comes from the MADD
>(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) side, which is concerned re weakening laws
>against open containers of alcohol in cars.

So recork it and put it in the boot, for the love of heaven. In any case I
find it hard to understand the logic that presumes that having an opened
bottle in the main body of the car is an automatic proof of being some kind
of alcohol fiend. Mark and Andrew will confirm that when we were in New
Zealand, we were able to drive around all day with various openened and
unopened bottles in the car, without instantly swigging the contents. _I'm_
against drunk driving, as is any sensible human being, but that doesn't make
me lose sight of common sense.

>letter supporting the law, but suggesting that the state liquor commision
>furnish tape-like stickers to "seal" wine. Personally, I'd love to be able to
>carry home leftovers. I'm very conscious of watching the amount I drink when
>dining out, but I confess it's hard to leave a glass of wine in a bottle you
>paid $60 for.

I feel that anyone living in the USA who reads this NG should do the same.
The logic is entirely clear, IMO. If you CAN'T take leftovers home, then the
temptation MUST be to "just finish it off" and thus go over the limit.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> >New legislation will permit people to take home unfinished bottles of
> >wines in restaurants.
>
> For what it's worth, in France this has never been an issue. In fact I
find
> it utterly bizarre that anyone should seek to prevent you doing so.

Agreed, Ian. France never had prohibition though, and there are some
misguided zealots here in the US who would like to bring it _back_! If I'm
not mistaken, the county that the Jack Daniels distillery resides in is
"dry", as is the entire State of Kansas.

I must admit that Europeans are much more enlightened in some respects - and
not just with regards to alcohol consumption. For example, the Superbowl
show where Janet Jackson's breast was bared for a couple of seconds would
hardly have raised an eyebrow in Europe - but it was considered absolutely
_scandalous_ here in the US.

Tom S

"Ian Hoare" wrote in message

> Firstly, please don't take this as in any way anti anything
> sensitive (though I _can't_ find it in my heart to approve
> of the USA's legal treatment of alcoholic beverages in
> many states).

I have been accused, in the past, of expressing "anti-Americanisms" whilst
in reality simply "taking-the-****" out of what I consider unbelievably
stupid and restrictive laws and restrictions in respect to the purchase and
interstate trans-shipment of our favourite beverage; and have read (and
actually understand) some of the reasons for this archaic legislation which
can turn ordinary law abiding citizens into criminals.

Lately, I note that most accept that I am laughing (crying) with and not
*at* my American friends - over what Mr. Hoare correctly describes as an
emotive lack of common sense.



>In any case I find it hard to understand the logic that presumes
> that having an opened bottle in the main body of the car is an
> automatic proof of being some kind of alcohol fiend.
> Mark and Andrew will confirm that when we were in New
> Zealand, we were able to drive around all day with various
> open-ended and unopened bottles in the car, without instantly
> swigging the contents.


This very small, but enlightened country, boasts few restrictions. Oh sure,
we are very anti drinking and driving, and blatant "drunken partying in the
streets" can be controlled by local legislators, but we are not going to be
arrested for enjoying a glass of wine with a picnic lunch in the park or
beach, or driving the length and breadth of the country with any number of
opened or unopened bottles inside the vehicle.



> I feel that anyone living in the USA who reads this NG should
> do the same. The logic is entirely clear, IMO. If you CAN'T take
> leftovers home, then the temptation MUST be to "just finish it off"
> and thus go over the limit.


I fully concur with my learned friend - surely there are more
"enlightened" wine drinkers than puritanical Madd mothers who can mount a
campaign in favour of sanity.

OK - maybe not - it is election year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--

st.helier
(who is off to the beach for "fish 'n chips" and a cool sauvignon blanc on a
balmy warm summers evening with no worries that the alcho-polici are waiting
around the corner to bust my ass!!!!!!!!!!)

In article >, Ian Hoare
> writes:

>Firstly, please
>don't take this as in any way anti anything sensitive (though I _can't_ find
>it in my heart to approve of the USA's legal treatment of alcoholic
>beverages in many states).

Ian, (and St. Helier)

I didn't take any of your comments as anti-US or anti-anything else

>So recork it and put it in the boot, for the love of heaven. In any case I
>find it hard to understand the logic that presumes that having an opened
>bottle in the main body of the car is an automatic proof of being some kind
>of alcohol fiend. Mark and Andrew will confirm that when we were in New
>Zealand, we were able to drive around all day with various openened and
>unopened bottles in the car, without instantly swigging the contents. _I'm_
>against drunk driving, as is any sensible human being, but that doesn't make
>me lose sight of common sense.
>
I actually do carry opened (but recorked) wines on many occasions. I take the
risk that I could get a summons if stopped for unrelated traffic offense (on
these occasions I'm never drinking, usually driving to train station with
double-decanted bottles to take train to city for offline). Can't put in
boot(trunk) in Betsy's SUV, there isn't one. Or this week I had a bottle of
Loire white in car as I returned it - corked! I don't worry much about it, more
judges are reasonable than one might think

While I am not a supporter of prohibitionists, I think the reason that drunk
driving is such a hot button topic in US is the fact that Americans spend so
much more time in their cars than Europeans. The open container laws came about
due to many occasions of people (usually young) involved in (often fatal)
accidents after spending the day or night driving around while drinking. That's
why to me the slight compromise of offering a seal seems like a reasonable way
to placate those fears.

So, Ian, when are you coming to US so we can talk about this over wine?

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

"Tom S" wrote in message ...
>
> Agreed, Ian. France never had prohibition though, and there are some
> misguided zealots here in the US who would like to bring it _back_!
> If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack Daniels distillery resides
> in is "dry", as is the entire State of Kansas.
>
> I must admit that Europeans are much more enlightened in some respects
> - and not just with regards to alcohol consumption.
> For example, the Superbowl show where Janet Jackson's breast was
> bared for a couple of seconds would hardly have raised an eyebrow in
> Europe - but it was considered absolutely _scandalous_ here in the US.


Perhaps I could throw this into the discussion as a possible explanation.

The US, Australia and the NZ share the fact that they were colonised from
England.

Australia was a prison colony, where mostly lower class English prisoners
were sent to a land where the indigenous peoples were few and far
between, and those that were around the major towns "ran before the beast".
Jailers were regarded as the upper class - and when lower class prisoners
had served their time, they were not allowed to return "home" but became
the traders, brewers, wheeler-dealers and general entrepreneurs in their
new world.

There is a spirit which exists in Australia to this day; of pride and
passion and a "to hell with authority" attitude (don't try any laws which
restricts this free will downunder.)

To New Zealand were sent "the remittance men" - second (or third) sons of
wealthy land owners who were gamblers, drunkards and trouble-makers of the
English upper-classes (remittance men because all they did was wait for the
next arriving ship which carried their cheque from "home").

The Law of the time was English Common Law - quite a few older NZers still
refer to the UK as "the home country" even though they have never ventured
out of NZ.

We are a little more conservative than Australians, we tried prohibition,
but, at heart are still a country of drinkers, without a strong Christian
(or other) influence and were able to throw off those shackles;
nowadays only very small pockets of the populace still cling to
"alcho-free" areas - in fact, I know that some tiny areas exist where one
cannot buy alcoholic drinks, but I cannot actually name one!!!

The US settler was a god fearing puritan, who was never able to see
hypocrisy even if it bit him on the bum.

Then came "the business man" who was able to corner the market (oh yes, with
the help of a friendly elected official or two) and secure, evidently
forever, the right to legally control the distribution and sale of these
products of sin.

Thus, it was quite OK to kill, and steal off the indigenous peoples - or
indeed inflict any rort upon the unsuspecting who was stupid enough to
expect that a Christian country should actually respect "truth";
notwithstanding biblical teachings to the contrary.

Strangely, it is OK for dozens of US citizens to go around clad in nothing
except a g-string on some Hawaiian or Western beach (Floridian too I
suspect!!) - and it is alright for modern singers to express themselves by
promoting mother raping and father raping; murder; racism and/or drug taking
etc. It is more than acceptable for a Hollywood hopeful to arrive at the
Oscars wearing the sheerest of tops, clearly showing *both* breasts - but,
do not corrupt our children by momentarily displaying a breast during a
football game - even though some of these "children" themselves are
bearing hand-guns to your schools.

In one of my trips to the US I entered thru LAX with a case of NZ wine -
duly declaring my booty, Chuck at customs didn't want to know me and waved
me thru. Days later flew through Colorado, Nebraska to Iowa - and return
(having consumed a couple of bottles in the intervening week) - returned
to LA - then picked up a rental car and drove through to Arizona and New
Mexico and back - sharing our kiwi vinosity along the way.

I now know that it is a felony to trans-ship wine from Ca to Az - and God
knows how may other statutes I broke along the way - escaping the
alcho-police along the way.

In conclusion my US friends, just ignore these musings - but I reserve the
right to continually being amazed that the worlds pre-eminent super-power
can be brought to it's knees by a half filled bottle of wine - or a
beautiful black breast.

Oh the horror - oh the hypocrisy.

--

st.helier

Tom S wrote in part: "If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack
Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of
Kansas."

I believe you are right in respect to the Jack Daniels distillery.
However the entire State of Kansas is far from dry. The last fully dry
state in the region including Kansas was Oklahoma which allowed package
stores in 1958. Actually Oklahoma was not absolutely dry before that as
they allowed sales of 3.2 beer. The one other completely dry state
located in the deep South - I forget which one - finaly allowed sales a
few years after that. Before 1958 package stores in Kansas just across
the border from Oklahoma sold a huge amount of wine and spirits to
people who drove up from Oklahoma. Close by in this area, Missouri has
always been quite liberal in most respects. Arkansas has allowed sales a
long time. However they have an extreme form of local option law. A
county may vote dry. However, in a wet county, a division as small as a
township can vote dry. Texas has some rather restrictive local laws
also. However Louisiana is much more liberal than most states near it.
What most of the mentioned states have in common is a 3-tier system.
Wholesale and importing companies are some of the strongest supporters
of restrictive laws concerning shipment across state lines, for obvious
reasons.

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

le/on 11 Feb 2004 07:35:20 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>In article >, Ian Hoare
> writes:
>
>>Firstly, please
>>don't take this as in any way anti anything sensitive (though I _can't_ find
>>it in my heart to approve of the USA's legal treatment of alcoholic
>>beverages in many states).
>
>Ian, (and St. Helier)
>
>I didn't take any of your comments as anti-US or anti-anything else

Thanks very much Dale.

>I actually do carry opened (but recorked) wines on many occasions. I take the
>risk that I could get a summons if stopped for unrelated traffic offense (on
>these occasions I'm never drinking, usually driving to train station with
>double-decanted bottles to take train to city for offline). Can't put in
>boot(trunk) in Betsy's SUV, there isn't one. Or this week I had a bottle of
>Loire white in car as I returned it - corked! I don't worry much about it, more
>judges are reasonable than one might think

I presume that it's an absolute offence (as is driving without _displaying_
a car tax sticker in the UK), rather than being drunkenness related. if not,
then it seems to me that a solution _might_ just be to insist on being
alcotested, to prove that one's under the limit.

>While I am not a supporter of prohibitionists,

chuckle! I hadn't imagined you were!

> I think the reason that drunk driving is such a hot button topic in US is the fact that Americans spend so
>much more time in their cars than Europeans.

Hmm. Yes, you do, that's true, but drunk driving is a pretty hot subject in
all the developed world nowadays. I've not noticed much tolerance anywhere
towards it. IMO (for what it's worth) this isn't so much about tolerance for
wandering about the countryside in charge of a lethal weapon and in a state
of inebriation, as it is to try to brand anyone who drinks as some kind of
antisocial halfwit, from whom all rightminded people need protection.

I DO understand the heartsearchings that followed the repeal of the Volstead
Act, and I DO understand that some fundamentalist churches still believe
that all consumption of anything alcoholic is sinful. But for me there's a
fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one
hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those who
may not share them - on the other.

>The open container laws came about due to many occasions of people (usually young) involved in (often fatal)
>accidents after spending the day or night driving around while drinking.

Again I can understand the "how", but like so much _reactive_ legislation,
it seems to me that it has lost sight of any common sense. The fault is not
in _having_ the open container, as being drunk while driving. If driving
with over so many gms blood alcohol/litre automatically carried a revocation
(for ever) of the driving license, and if this were an absolute offence,
with NO exceptions and NO possibility of plea bargaining, you'd see a
reduction in drink driving extremely fast (to take an extreme solution).

>So, Ian, when are you coming to US so we can talk about this over wine?

We're looking at leaving here in the week of the 10th to 17th October,
stopping off a day or so in the UK, flying out to one of the NY airports,
probably around the 12th or 13th. You would be our first port of call, and
we'd then go on up to Enfield for the fall colours for a couple of days,
before flying across to Seattle and thence up to Vancouver - probably
arriving the following week. We've got the first $7k on deposit, so that
will comfortably pay the air fares and the car hire.

(Well, you DID ask, Dale!)

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:02:19 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:


>Zealand, we were able to drive around all day with various openened and
>unopened bottles in the car, without instantly swigging the contents. _I'm_
>against drunk driving, as is any sensible human being, but that doesn't make
>me lose sight of common sense.
>

I have been known to decant a bottle of red in a grape juice bottle
and take it to a picnic in the park, happily drinking it from a
plastic glass. oh well , you gotta do what you gotta do.

have you guys ever open a bottle of wine in the parking lot of a
liqueur store?
I have done that a couple times. Sometimes, after reading a
particularly good review of some wine I'd like to taste it before I
make a final decision and sometimes ther is not much time left, if I
hesitate, all the wines will be sold. So I open the bottle in the car,
take a sip, recork it and make my decision. :-)
Once I though I'll buy 3 bottles of some red, ended up buying 2 cases.
I probably broke all the laws that exist here :-)
Zed


---
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups:
Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar & Fat"

"Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S wrote in part: "If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack
> Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of
> Kansas."
>
> I believe you are right in respect to the Jack Daniels distillery.
> However the entire State of Kansas is far from dry.

I sit corrected. :^)

> Close by in this area, Missouri has
> always been quite liberal in most respects.

I'll say! It's a little known fact that Missouri has quite a few wineries
(not to mention the main Budweiser brewery in St. Louis).

Tom S

However there is a county in Tennessee that is try and that is where Jack
Daniels is produced. They can make it there but can't buy it there.

Interesting.

"Tom S" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tom S wrote in part: "If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack
> > Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of
> > Kansas."
> >
> > I believe you are right in respect to the Jack Daniels distillery.
> > However the entire State of Kansas is far from dry.
>
> I sit corrected. :^)
>
> > Close by in this area, Missouri has
> > always been quite liberal in most respects.
>
> I'll say! It's a little known fact that Missouri has quite a few wineries
> (not to mention the main Budweiser brewery in St. Louis).
>
> Tom S
>
>

st.helier > wrote:



: Lately, I note that most accept that I am laughing (crying) with and not
: *at* my American friends - over what Mr. Hoare correctly describes as an
: emotive lack of common sense.

Who said common sense goes together with American laws?

:> I feel that anyone living in the USA who reads this NG should
:> do the same. The logic is entirely clear, IMO. If you CAN'T take
:> leftovers home, then the temptation MUST be to "just finish it off"
:> and thus go over the limit.

How true, and how this defeats the original intent of no driving
and drinking. Being small and enlightened definately has it's perks!

Mark S

>This very small, but enlightened country, boasts few restrictions. Oh sure,
>we are very anti drinking and driving, and blatant "drunken partying in the
>streets" can be controlled by local legislators, but we are not going to be
>arrested for enjoying a glass of wine with a picnic lunch in the park or
>beach, or driving the length and breadth of the country with any number of
>opened or unopened bottles inside the vehicle.

I tread very lightly on this subject. I respect most everybody who posts on
this NG and trust that virtually everybody here has the common sense, decency
and respect for others that is necessary to decide when enough is enough or
that a glass of wine or two or a couple of beers at the beach should be a
normal everyday event. America is a vast country with a huge diverse
population that given an inch will take a mile in many cases. Unfortuantly
there are far too many abusers to pass a law that can fairly cover those who
ignore or abuse the laws which means that we all suffer for the lowest common
denominator.
Bi!!

In article >, Ian Hoare
> writes:

>We're looking at leaving here in the week of the 10th to 17th October,
>stopping off a day or so in the UK, flying out to one of the NY airports,
>probably around the 12th or 13th. You would be our first port of call, and
>we'd then go on up to Enfield for the fall colours for a couple of days,
>before flying across to Seattle and thence up to Vancouver - probably
>arriving the following week.

Sounds like a grand plan!
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Tom S wrote:

>Agreed, Ian. France never had prohibition though, and there are some
>misguided zealots here in the US who would like to bring it _back_! If I'm
>not mistaken, the county that the Jack Daniels distillery resides in is
>"dry", as is the entire State of Kansas.
>
I think the Europeans did in fact have a problem. The Temperance
Movement started in 1808 and was just as
strong in Ireland, Denmark and Sweden as in the US. A movement called
the Women's Christian
Temperance Union (of which my grandmother was a pillar) was founded
around 1887 in the US
and that is what made the US different. All the previous temperance
groups had been directly
associated with churches but WCTU gave everyone a chance to participate
(even thought it was
almost all female members) One of the key events that helped trigger it
was a French vet returning
home in 1918 and killing his family while drunk on anisette (or however
the triply distilled liquor with worm
wood is spelled) and the community immediately settled on the booze as
causing his madness. So
it was outlawed and within weeks there was a nationwide prohibition
movement in France, England,
Denmark and Sweden. I believe that I remember from a book "The Origins
of Prohibition" by
Ashbury or Ashcroft that the French version lasted 21 days while Denmark
and Sweden got
up to at least a year. I don't remember England at all. There was a
challenge to the US prohibition
by either the French wine/liquor exporters or someone of the kind that
argued that the terms of
the Treaty gave France the right to export liquor to the territory that
they had sold to the US in
1803 (it was at that time that it was decided that the US Constitution
overrode all international
treaties)
The problem in the US is of course what the majority had to give up to get
the repeal amendment passed. States rights still exist here.
This is all from the "Way Way Way Back Machine".


Bill

st.helier wrote:

>I have been accused, in the past, of expressing "anti-Americanisms" whilst
>in reality simply "taking-the-****" out of what I consider unbelievably
>stupid and restrictive laws and restrictions in respect to the purchase and
>interstate trans-shipment of our favourite beverage; and have read (and
>actually understand) some of the reasons for this archaic legislation which
>can turn ordinary law abiding citizens into criminals.
>

To help someone so far away and upside down try to understand why we
have so many archaic laws
regarding alcohol. The bottom line of our Civil War that ended in 1865
was whether or not the United
States was going to be a nation or a collection of states. The Southern
States insisted on States Rights
and the right to secede was one of them. When the war was over, there
was almost a unanimous
opinion that we were a union. In 1933 when we tried to repeal the 18th
amendment or prohibition,
States Rights once again came to the forefront. Many concessions had to
be made to get various states
to pass the repeal act. There are many fundamentals in our Constitution
such as Interstate Commerce
where no state can make a law that interferes with it. But interstate
transportation of liquor is a state
right to manage. We took ten steps backward toward anarchy in 1933. The
states pass these archaic
laws because they can. I guess we are not currently a nation.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:37:30 -0600 (CST),
(Cwdjrx _) wrote:

>Tom S wrote in part: "If I'm not mistaken, the county that the Jack
>Daniels distillery resides in is "dry", as is the entire State of
>Kansas."
>
>I believe you are right in respect to the Jack Daniels distillery.
>However the entire State of Kansas is far from dry. The last fully dry
>state in the region including Kansas was Oklahoma which allowed package
>stores in 1958. Actually Oklahoma was not absolutely dry before that as
>they allowed sales of 3.2 beer. The one other completely dry state
>located in the deep South - I forget which one - finaly allowed sales a
>few years after that. Before 1958 package stores in Kansas just across
>the border from Oklahoma sold a huge amount of wine and spirits to
>people who drove up from Oklahoma. Close by in this area, Missouri has
>always been quite liberal in most respects. Arkansas has allowed sales a
>long time. However they have an extreme form of local option law. A
>county may vote dry. However, in a wet county, a division as small as a
>township can vote dry. Texas has some rather restrictive local laws
>also. However Louisiana is much more liberal than most states near it.
>What most of the mentioned states have in common is a 3-tier system.
>Wholesale and importing companies are some of the strongest supporters
>of restrictive laws concerning shipment across state lines, for obvious
>reasons.

The other state you couldn't remember was Mississippi. I know because
I grew up there when it was dry although beer was legal on a county
option basis. Hard liquor was illegal and I don't know that anybody
knew what wine was except for a few Episcopalians. But the state had a
tax on what hard liquor was sold there, albeit illegally. Don't ask me
how it was collected. The standing joke was that the thing that kept
the state dry was a coalition between the bootleggers and the Baptist
preachers, each of which had their own (very different) reasons for
keeping things as they were. If you had gone to the Gulf Coast of
Mississippi at that time, you would not have believed that hard liquor
was illegal. As you mentioned, the state went wet a few years after
Oklahoma, but I was long gone from there by then.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:30:57 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

>... for me there's a
>fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one
>hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those who
>may not share them - on the other.
>
Ah, if only everyone held to this philosophy. This would be a much
better world to live in.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:02:19 +0100, Ian Hoare > said:

][]
] there's often half a bottle left, and at restaurant prices, I _really_ don't
] want to leave it. So I ask for a cork and out of politeness ask if I can
] take it home. I don't know what others here do, Emery? Mike?
]
[]

Hi Ian,

My impression is that the "doggie bag" is embarassing to the French generally.
Just MHO of course.

I haven't seen wine taken from a restaurant often, but I have seen it.
Obviously in major cities (with mass transport) it is less of an issue...

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> ...
> My impression is that the "doggie bag" is embarassing to the French
generally.
> Just MHO of course.
> ...

Just imagine the consternation that "horsey bag" would cause.

pavane

Yes...I think Ian is quoting the "Bush Doctrine".


"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:30:57 +0100, Ian Hoare >
> wrote:
>
> >... for me there's a
> >fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one
> >hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those
who
> >may not share them - on the other.
> >
> Ah, if only everyone held to this philosophy. This would be a much
> better world to live in.
>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.

Salut/Hi Vino,

le/on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:40:07 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:30:57 +0100, Ian Hoare >
>wrote:
>
>>for me there's a
>>fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one
>>hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those who
>>may not share them - on the other.
>>
>Ah, if only everyone held to this philosophy. This would be a much
>better world to live in.

Thanks. If there's a subject (well, old readers will know that there are
quite a few) which makes me froth at the mouth, it is the vile combination
of ignorant bigotry and arrogance which characterises religious
fundamentalism. I've NO particular religion in my sights in saying this,
mainly because I've seen it in almost all major world religions. I allow
myself to mention it here, because it affects what _I_ will be able to do
when I come to visit my friends in the USA.

As you (and most here) know, we're planning to visit. What I'd LOVE to be
able to do is to bring over a few bottles, and share them with the friends
we'll be meeting along the way. I've written passionately about Tokaj for
example, or Monbazillac,etc. I _know_ these wines aren't available in the
States. What better way of sharing with the afw friends I've made, than by
tasting a friendly bottle together. And I can't. GRRRR.



--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Salut/Hi Emery Davis,

le/on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:22:39 +0100, tu disais/you said:-

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:02:19 +0100, Ian Hoare > said:

>Hi Ian,
>
>My impression is that the "doggie bag" is embarassing to the French generally.
>Just MHO of course.

I've never seen it on the food front, nor on carafe wines, and I'd not ask
for or expect it for either of these. But if I've bought the bottle ... But
it has to be said that most of the time I'm going to restaurants round here,
where I'm pretty well known, and where (due to running a B&B) I suppose I
can have some sort of effect on their turn over. So I doubt if any of these
people are going to go po-faced if I ask to bring a half bottle home! What
they think or say when I've gone, I don't know.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:07:13 GMT, "dick" > wrote:

>Yes...I think Ian is quoting the "Bush Doctrine".
>


Surely you jest.
Vino

>
>"Vino" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:30:57 +0100, Ian Hoare >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >... for me there's a
>> >fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the one
>> >hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those
>who
>> >may not share them - on the other.
>> >
>> Ah, if only everyone held to this philosophy. This would be a much
>> better world to live in.
>>
>> Vino
>> To reply, add "x" between
>> letters and numbers of
>> e-mail address.
>

To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Salut/Hi Bill,

le/on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:39:43 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>Tom S wrote:
>
>>Agreed, Ian. France never had prohibition though,
>>
>I think the Europeans did in fact have a problem.

There certainly was a very grave problem over public drunkenness in several
countries, which was dealt with differently in different places.

I don't _know_ of any European country which banned _all_ alcoholic drink.
Several churches in the UK _tried_ to ban alcohol, and some still are
teetotal -for their members.

Restrictions - some severe - have been in place in several Nordic countries,
and I expect Nils and Anders could tell us more, but I don't think any of
them had a global ban.


>almost all female members) One of the key events that helped trigger it
>was a French vet returning
>home in 1918 and killing his family while drunk on anisette (or however
>the triply distilled liquor with worm wood is spelled)

I think you're probably thinking of absinthe. While it's true that was
banned, and it is also true that France has taken increasingly drastic steps
to cut back on alcoholism, there's never been the faintest suggestion of a
total ban in recent years.

>Ashbury or Ashcroft that the French version lasted 21 days while Denmark
>and Sweden got up to at least a year.

Good heavens. 21 days. I imagine the government was brought down!!


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

yup!


"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:07:13 GMT, "dick" > wrote:
>
> >Yes...I think Ian is quoting the "Bush Doctrine".
> >
>
>
> Surely you jest.
> Vino
>
> >
> >"Vino" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:30:57 +0100, Ian Hoare >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >... for me there's a
> >> >fundamental difference between holding ones own beliefs dear - on the
one
> >> >hand, and seeking to impose the consequences of such a belief on those
> >who
> >> >may not share them - on the other.
> >> >
> >> Ah, if only everyone held to this philosophy. This would be a much
> >> better world to live in.
> >>
> >> Vino
> >> To reply, add "x" between
> >> letters and numbers of
> >> e-mail address.
> >
>
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.

"Vino" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:37:30 -0600 (CST),
> (Cwdjrx _) wrote:
Snip
> >Texas has some rather restrictive local laws also.

When I lived in far north Dallas (in the city, but not the county, of
Dallas) in 1980-1982 there was a local option law in effect with three
variants.

1) Totally dry.

2) On premise to club members only. Restaurants sold club memberships for a
few dollars and up.

3) On premise (7 days, I was never in a bar only setting, they all had
substantial menus) and off premise (6 days). The off premise stores were
similar to the ones in New York except that they carried some snacks and bar
accessories.

Another blue law was that no apparel could be sold on Sundays. It was really
strange to go into a Farmer Jack's supermarket on Sunday, and see the aisles
with underwear, flip flops, and the like roped off. (BTW, Farmer Jack's off
Lovers Lane--no kidding--was a hot pick up spot after 2AM.)

Snip

> Vino

Now back to 1964, I was in the Navy and was visiting Savannah, GA. We went
to a nice restaurant for Sunday evening dinner.

Waitress: Would you like a cocktail before dinner?

Me: No, thanks. (I was a lot younger then, but still old enough.)

Later I give my dinner order and ask for a beer. (I said I was a lot
younger.)

W: I'm sorry, but beer is illegal on Sunday.

Me: But you just offered me a cocktail.

W: But liquor is illegal all the time.

Go figger.

Ian Hoare > wrote:
: Salut/Hi Vino,


: As you (and most here) know, we're planning to visit. What I'd LOVE to be
: able to do is to bring over a few bottles, and share them with the friends
: we'll be meeting along the way. I've written passionately about Tokaj for
: example, or Monbazillac,etc. I _know_ these wines aren't available in the
: States. What better way of sharing with the afw friends I've made, than by
: tasting a friendly bottle together. And I can't. GRRRR.

Ian, who says you *can't*<ggg> I'm sure there's SOMEwhere you could plop
one of those small, sweet bottles and have it not be noticed!

Mark S

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
> Restrictions - some severe - have been in place in several Nordic
countries,
> and I expect Nils and Anders could tell us more, but I don't think any of
> them had a global ban.
>
Norway had prohibition of liquor and fortified wine from 1917 to 1927, a
bonanza to sailors and fishermen who smuggled hundreds of thousands of
litres and landed them in the dark of the night anywhere along the coast,
and also to doctors who wrote perfectly legal presciptions for alcohol as a
cure for any conceivable ill (flu, fevers, diabetes or menstruation...) a
total of 650.000 litres of hard liquor on "blue prescriptions" i.e.
partially paid for by the state(!!) in 1921 (in a country of 4 million
people!).
:-) Anders

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:55:57 +0100, Ian Hoare > said:

] Salut/Hi Emery Davis,
]
] le/on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:22:39 +0100, tu disais/you said:-
]
] >On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:02:19 +0100, Ian Hoare > said:
]
] >Hi Ian,
] >
] >My impression is that the "doggie bag" is embarassing to the French generally.
] >Just MHO of course.
]
] I've never seen it on the food front, nor on carafe wines, and I'd not ask

On the food front, I've seen a separate plate supplied for the doggie under
the table, more than once! (Shades of Pommes Frites in the latest Pamplemousse
saga... although even he turned up his nose at the Tripes a la mode de Caen!)

] for or expect it for either of these. But if I've bought the bottle ... But
] it has to be said that most of the time I'm going to restaurants round here,
] where I'm pretty well known, and where (due to running a B&B) I suppose I
] can have some sort of effect on their turn over. So I doubt if any of these
] people are going to go po-faced if I ask to bring a half bottle home! What
] they think or say when I've gone, I don't know.
]

I wouldn't worry about it personally. My observation is just the usual half hearted
attempt to understand my "compatriots," for what it's worth. In these parts,
where people I've known for 10 years still refer to me as "l'americain," I think
I'd disappoint if I didn't exhibit the occasional bit of eccentric behavior. I assume
you're in a similar barque, so to speak. Anyway I try to assume the positive until
contrary proof appears.

Back onT: just tried to find the wine to match rabbit with turnips and calvados;
attempted a '98 Rasteau (La Soumade Confiance) in the hope of standing up to
it, with weak results: it wilted in front of its adversary. Any ideas for what I might
have tried? "Really big" was a proverbial spam advertizement...

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
> > One of the key events that helped trigger it
> >was a French vet returning
> >home in 1918 and killing his family while drunk on anisette (or however
> >the triply distilled liquor with worm wood is spelled)
>
> I think you're probably thinking of absinthe.

And I was led to believe that absinthe makes the heart grow _fonder_! ;^D

(Sorry - couldn't pass that by.)

S moT