Taking Beer Seriously. An Honest Pint Update.
Kari Chisholm
It started with an irritation. Just a little mention that bars in town were pouring beers they called a "pint" but weren't actually 16 fluid ounces.
That little irritation of Jeff Alworth's that started with a blog post, led to a petition, and then to a website has now become actual bona fide legislation. And on Friday, the Honest Pint Act got its first legislative hearing in the Business & Labor Committee.
"If someone advertises a pint, don't you think you should get a pint?" said Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, the business and labor committee chairman who is co-sponsoring the bill.Beer connoisseur Jeff Alworth realizes the state budget is hurting but says this cause is worthy of legislators' time.
"Oregon takes its beer seriously, and it bolsters our credentials about taking our beer seriously."
Along with Rep. Schaufler, the bill is sponsored by Rep. Jules Bailey (D-Portland), who explained the voluntary program to the Register-Guard:
[Bailey] said the intent of his bill isn’t to punish those who market their beer as a pint yet deliver it in glasses incapable of holding 16 ounces.Rather, it’s all about rewarding the blokes in the beer business who deliver a true pint.
“We’re just saying, if you are doing a good job, you should be able to brag about it and let folks know you do serve an honest pint,” he said.
[Random sidenote - I'm just loving the description of Alworth in the R-G as an "online beer and politics enthusiast." I can attest: Jeff likes his beer in real life, not just online. Even if he's becoming somewhat ambivalent about being the public face of the cause.]
Here's the KATU story about the bill, which is the best two-minute explanation of why it matters and what the bill will do:
Over at the Oregon Economics Blog, OSU economic prof Patrick Emerson points out that this is yet another case where regulation may actually serve the free market (contrary to right-wing dogma):
I have blogged about the economics of the problem before: it is an asymmetric information problem - punters can't tell how much they are getting but bars know how much they are serving. The incentive then is for businesses to cheat and the market outcome will be inefficient.
Best comment comes from Ted Sobel - blogger and barkeep at the Brewers Union Local 180, a pub in Oakridge, Oregon - wherein he expresses skepticism, then support:
At first I was afraid that the State Gummint busybodies were going to attempt to turn this kind of behavior into a crime, much like the OLCC prohibiting me from enjoying a pint (proper, in a lined glass) of my own ale produced in my own brewery after closing time while I do the till, or allowing a youngster to come up to the bar and ask for another creme soda. If they were to take that approach, then the liberation of the proverbial worm-laden can suggests a tsunami of honesty legislation. Or maybe manners mandates? Hmmm. Now we're talking. I would love to have a law requiring customers to be polite, read signs, and say "Please" instead of "I'll have...". Violators would be clapped in irons without bail and sent to the pokey for three years until they can learn to wait twenty minutes for their food. ...As I understand it, though, the proposed legislation takes the approach of certification. If your dispensed volume equals the stated volume, if you walk the talk, then you get a sticker or something. That might be alright, as long as I don't have to pay for it or otherwise waste taxpayers' money. I admit to really appreciating the Cask Marque designations at British pubs, but then I'm a snob for real ale and don't want to wander into a pub bereft of my favorite beverage. So, I'd put a sticker on my door, provided that it was free, large, and colorful.
[Note, Ted, that you will have to pay for this voluntary program - precisely so as to not "waste taxpayers' money".]
Bartender/barista/blogger Jacob Grier stays in the camp that's skeptical about the legislation (though supportive of Alworth's efforts to shame cheater-pint purveyors), on his blog Liquidity Preference:
I suspect that asking for a pint of beer is more like asking for a cup of coffee than a gallon of gasoline. When I say that I’m going to the pub for a pint of ale I don’t mean that I’m going to drink exactly 16 ounces of it. I mean that I’m going to drink some beer in the customarily acceptable range of volumes in which it’s generally served. ...I wish Jeff luck with the project, if for no other reason than that it will lead to more bars serving bigger glasses of beer. I’d be happy to be proven wrong and see demand for 16 oz pints proliferate. ... At the end of the day certification may be a solution in search of a problem. Voluntary approaches test whether this a legitimate concern among consumers.
Best one-liner reaction? That's from a blog called Foolocracy:
This is what happens when politicians gather in a bar and try to figure out new laws.
I've read that a half-dozen times, and I still can't figure out if that means he's against it or for it.
Pay for a pint, get a pint!
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 7, '09
I'm not much of a beer drinker, but when I do consume a brew, especially out with friends combined with a meal, I prefer an "honest pint". 16 full fl. oz. goes well with a meal for me ... I don't need two glasses. Too much less than 16 oz. and I wind up having to have a refill, of which I don't need to consume the entirety.
8:24 a.m.
Apr 7, '09
I just wish everyone pushing for an honest pint would be equally honest about what the impacts would be if the beer tax were raised from its current (and very out of date) $.008 (eight-tenths of one cent) per 12 oz. bottle.
Maybe if this bill keeps moving forward an "honest beer drinkers' caucus" of legislators, beer drinkers and tavern owners will emerge who will work to bring the beer tax into the 21st century.
8:38 a.m.
Apr 7, '09
Jacob Grier may be right -- customers may have become resigned to getting a "pint" rather than a pint, but that's the entire point: reversing the trend of corrupting the meaning of the word and the measure.
Besides, a real pint is 20 ounces, not 16. Bad enough we have to settle for a US "pint" in the first place.
9:44 a.m.
Apr 7, '09
As I noted in my testimony to the committee, the government ensures that when you buy a gallon of gas you get a gallon, and when you pay for fruits and vegetables that the scales are trued. When you buy a 12 oz beer in the store, you know you're getting 12 oz.
But when you buy a pint? No dice.
We can pretty much all tell the difference between an imperial pint and a 16 oz. pint, and usually those who serve imperial pints advertise them as such. But because of deceptive glassware, we can't easily tell between an honest pint and a cheater pint.
As Leviticus 19:36 says, "You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin."
Join the honest pint movement on Facebook. And contact your legislators in support of House Bill 3122.
Apr 7, '09
We'll talk about raising the out of date tax, Chuck. Maybe a good way to fund this. Jacking it through the roof, relative to anything you care to pick, and introducing the measure with language that talks about alcohol's effect on society, as if that were the same as beer, is what is a non-starter and gets people PO'd.
This shows the way, though. I can start my own movement or just get used to the fact that "Widmer is not a domestic". I mean, there's no standard pressure with this measure, is there? I can pour you an overcarbonated one I have here from last winter that will fill TWO pint glasses. Wait 10 minutes and you'll have about a tablespoon. Since you can carbonate ale and beer to a wide range, I find it impossible to believe that the variance in the glassware exceeds the variance from differential carbonation.
Anyway, I applaud the spirit and would support the bill. It's just asking to much for all the facets to be addressed in a proportional, rational way, isn't it? I know, "widmerisdomestic.com".
11:38 a.m.
Apr 7, '09
Jeff is my hero.
Had a brew in Vancouver, BC a few weeks ago and got an Imperial Pint. When will you start lobbying for that, jeff??
Apr 7, '09
So how serious is this problem?
I haven't seen any discussion of whether there actually are any bars shorting their customers. Which bars, if any, are doing it? If proponents tell us that, won't the bad publicity itself quickly cure the problem?
Proponents of this legislation should at least let us know how extensive or trivial this problem is before they waste too much time on it.
Is it asking too much to expect that legislation like this should address a quantifiable problem?
Apr 7, '09
Is it asking too much to expect that legislation like this should address a quantifiable problem?
Do we do nothing because it simply is a smarter way to work?
Apr 7, '09
Do we do nothing because it simply is a smarter way to work?
How about doing something because it is something worth doing, rather than a ridiculous waste of time and money?
Lessee, the Vermont legislature this week stood up for equal rights by taking not one, but two votes to recognize same-sex marriage (the second being an override of the Governor's veto). The Oregon legislature ... has hearings on whether a pint is really a pint.
Wow, no wonder people here are so down on our state government.
Apr 7, '09
How about we get a full-time legislature so they have time to debate and vote on "small things" without people getting all in a huff about it?
I for one am looking forward to checking for the honest pint decals.
Apr 7, '09
I'm a micro beer aficianado. Foolish such as this comes about from our legislature and state being unable to properly budget. They are twiddling their respective thumbs waiting for the next budget projections.
Want to REALLY do something about alcohol, beer and wine? Abolish the OLCC and put those funds towards alcohol abuse prevention and treatment.
6:25 p.m.
Apr 7, '09
Chuck, at some point we're going to have to have a cage fight on the beer tax. As some politician once said, "I'm skinny, but I'm tough." You're wrong on this one. (I regard it as modesty on your part--being right all the time would be so boring.)
As to the complaint (predictable as Oregon rain) that the leg should be doing more important things--they are. The number or bills under consideration this year is running about average. And besides, thinking that a beer-related issue is trivial goes to show what you know. In Oregon, nothing's more important than beer!
8:39 p.m.
Apr 7, '09
one of the reasons this is important is that beer is a major industry in Oregon, and growing. we lack a lot of means for economic growth in our state, but tourism is one we can expand hugely. being the Beer Capital of the World (why not? someone's gotta do it), along with the great food, the excellent wines, the biking, the mountains, rivers, oceans, high deserts.... well, we have built it and they will come.
but if we cheat them? pints that are light? that'll work well. it's no different than advertising a king-sized bed in the hotel room & giving a queen. trust is critical in business, and right now it only exists by the grace of barkeeps who have integrity. that's not a great basis for building trust, not in this world. this law is simple, limited and direct.
as is the need to increase the beer tax, as Chuck said.
Apr 7, '09
I suspect that asking for a pint of beer is more like asking for a cup of coffee than a gallon of gasoline.
Rubbish. The container in which coffee is sold is called a "cup", regardless of its volume. There is no piece of glass ware or ceramic called a "pint". A pint is a measure of volume, plain and simple. A smaller volume of beer has traditionally been called a "glass" of beer.
Apr 8, '09
This may be a stupid question, but aren't there false advertising laws that already allow patrons to sue for this?
Apr 9, '09
Isn't a "pint" a legally defined measure? So what's the problem with forcing people selling beer to sell a legally defined pint?
Either that, or let them start selling six-packs with 5 cans, or 12 oz. cans with 10 ounces. Why not abandon all pretext of having any control over weights and measures, if we can't do something as simple and already legal as mandating honest weights and measures?
Apr 9, '09
Jeff and Anton:
As far as the pints thing, It seems pretty shitty to short people on an actual measure. But if I'm at a pub drinking-- I'm there for the people or the taste of the beer, and I get that whether there are 13 or 20 oz in my pint.
I'm with Chuck on the tax thing. It is totally lying with statistics to compare a percentage increase on an almost non-existent tax, with a percentage increase on a real tax. Yeah it is technically 1000% increase to go from a .0001 cent tax on something to a .01 cent tax on it, but it is still a reasonable change. By your logic a simple 50% increase in your income taxes would be fine.
As far the implied assertion by Anton that there is a difference in the public health and social costs of alcohol and beer- that is simple ignorance. Plenty of alcoholics self-medicate with beer, while many drinkers of whiskey are responsible.
Alcoholism is a huge burden on families and society in general. Why not tax the source to fund the treatment? The more we can nip problems in the bud, the fewer people end up in prison, kids in foster care and people on the street. Consider it a rehab deposit and if you need it you can collect some day.
Apr 9, '09
This may be a stupid question, but aren't there false advertising laws that already allow patrons to sue for this?
I suppose that, technically, one could sue because he or she was sold a "pint" that was less than advertised, but I can't think of too many things that would aggravate a judge more than a lawsuit over $0.30 worth of beer. Maybe a class-action suit, but still, if a gas station sold you a gallon of gas and pumped 120 ounces, should you have to sue to get justice? Regulating weights and measures is a very long-recognized and accepted function of government.
Apr 9, '09
So when you slide up to the bar, ask for a 'cheater', not a 'pint'. When they ask huh?, respond 'are you serving 16 ozs of beer in those glasses?'. If not they're 'cheaters', (as are the proprietors).
Perhaps shame rather than legislation would work. And don't even try to say it's what everyone else does. Cheating is cheating.
Apr 9, '09
This is America! No, a pint isn't a legally defined measure. When used as a measure it is, but on a menu, you could call it a "billy bojangles boot - the pirate's pint". The sacred loophole in all consumer fraud since the Normans said, "we are you", is that "pint" is what it connotes, used as a marketing term, period.
It's "pint like". As the immortal Georgy Carlin said, "whatever-like means 'no fucking whatever in it'". Using the word to say "it isn't" is an old saw of English language marketing. It's simple really. Go to a fast food restaurant, and order something, specifying that you Do NOT want something, that the item never has. 9 times out of 10, you will get that ingredient. The simple mind only knows that the word was present. De-evolving to the lowly spud, this is linguistic processing on the same level as my cat can do.
Apr 10, '09
Whine, cry, and lobby the nanny state to outlaw "cheater pints" but it won't eliminate the "short pour." The first dollar worth of beer is in the top inch of your pint glass.
Humor your bartender, shame your bartender, keep your bartender honest with this two dollar beer gauge.
Apr 10, '09