House Committees considered four bills Wednesday relating to alcohol with vastly different outcomes. With committees beginning to wrap up their meetings for session that could means some measures could be left stranded.
In recent years, Florida lawmakers have had their eye on the state’s alcohol distribution regime. Proponents of change say it’s time to modernize the state’s laws, and do away with what they see as absurd restrictions. In particular, the state’s bottle size restrictions have come under fire.
“The bill allows for a malt beverage to be packaged in a 64 ounce container, or a ‘growler’, along with the already legal sizes of 32 ounces and 128 ounces,” Rep. Chris Sprowls (R-Palm Harbor) says. “It also provides for imprinting and labeling on the container.”
Sprowls’ growler bill continues to sail through its House committees, and it seems likely to pass the full House when it makes it to the floor. What this means for a Senate measure that started out identical, but has since added provisions related to licensing and tastings, remains unclear.
While Sprowls’ job so far has been a walk in the park, Rep. Greg Steube’s (R-Sarasota) certainly has not. His omnibus measure has been criticized from a number of different angles. The theme at Tuesday’s hearing was the wall.
“Amendment One simply removes line 1424 from the bill which is the wall,” Rep. Charles Van Zant (R-Palatka) says. “I’d like to keep the wall in Walmart.”
The wall refers to current law that keeps big-box stores like Publix, Target or Wal-Mart from selling liquor under the same roof as groceries. Steube’s bill originally got rid of this restriction, but instead he’s amended it to match language in the Senate that retains the wall but allows a door.
“So you would go from the big box through a door to the little box and you would be able to purchase your distilled spirits in the little box and then leave the store,” Steube says.
“You cannot go into the liquor store and then take your liquor that you have purchased and then go into the big store,” Steube continues. “You wouldn’t be able to go that way but you could go the other way.”
The measure passed over the objection of a handful of committee members. Among the parade of horribles was a bit of hand wringing over the possibility of customers buying guns and liquor at the same register.
Critics have also taken shots at Steube over his plan to strip out restrictions on purchases at craft distilleries. Currently you can only purchase two bottles per year at a Florida distillery. And if that sounds like some restriction put in place just after Prohibition ended, it’s not—it’s actually a liberalization. Up until a few years ago, you could buy exactly zero bottles per person per year at craft distilleries.
Across the hall from Sprowls and Steube, Rep. Doc Renuart (R-Ponte Vedra) introduced a compromise. Rather than two bottles total, he suggests two bottles per branded product.
“A distillery, such as in St. Augustine, they’re making not just vodka, they’re making now gin, rum, and they’re actually making whiskey,” Renuart explains. “They’d be able to buy two of each of these brands instead of just two bottles period per year.”
His measure passed. But most interesting was a powdered alcohol bill sponsored by Rep. Bryan Avila (R-Hialeah). At the outset, Avila wanted to prohibit the substance in Florida.
“But after careful thought, consideration and conversations with my colleagues, residents, stakeholders, we came up with a solution that both met free market ideals and public safety concerns,” Avila says.
Translation: we’ll allow it, but we’ll heavily regulate it.
There’s just one problem. The change came as an amendment, and many committee members are still set on prohibiting powdered alcohol.
“Bad stuff, bad amendment, down on the amendment,” Joe Geller (D-Aventura) says.
And the committee agreed. Avila’s amendment regulating powdered alcohol failed, while his underlying bill prohibiting the substance passed.
All four have at least one stop left, but with time winding down, stall tactics like temporary postponement are pretty much off the table. Just like in that big copyrighted college basketball tournament, for these bills, it’s win or go home.
