News Release Contact:Virginia ABC Communications - (804) 213-4413
Email: [email protected] Beginning Monday, July 1, laws impacting the operation of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (ABC), its licensees and applicants for ABC licenses will take effect. The Virginia General Assembly passed the following Virginia ABC-related legislation during the 2024 session, and Gov. Glenn Youngkin has since signed them into law. Virginia ABC considered Independent Authority (HB 30, SB 30) – Notwithstanding subsection A of § 2.2-221, Code of Virginia, the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority is considered an independent agency of the Commonwealth. Online and Electronic Marketing of Spirits (HB 522, SB 182) – Directs Virginia ABC to promulgate regulations that prescribe the terms and conditions under which manufacturers, brokers, importers and wholesalers may advertise and promote alcoholic beverages via the Internet, social media, direct-to-consumer electronic communication, or other electronic means. Cocktails To-Go Permanent, Third-Party Delivery License Ends in 2026 (HB 688, SB 635) – Repeals the July 1, 2024, sunset on provisions that allow distillers that have been appointed as agents of Virginia ABC, mixed beverage restaurant licensees, and limited mixed beverage restaurant licensees to sell mixed beverages for off-premises consumption and farm winery licensees to sell pre-mixed wine for off-premises consumption. The bill also repeals, effective July 1, 2026, third-party delivery licenses. The bill requires the Authority to convene a work group to review third-party delivery licenses and report its findings and recommendations to the Chairmen of the House Committee on General Laws and the Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services. Offering Alcoholic Beverages on Private Campground (SB 26) – Provides that the prohibition on drinking or offering to another an alcoholic beverage in public shall not apply when such acts are conducted on the premises of a campground located on private property at which a majority of the campers use travel or tent trailers, pickup campers or motor homes or similar recreational vehicles. Performing Arts and Sports Facility Licenses (HB 1349, SB 180, SB 400, SB 657) – Defines performing arts facility and sports facility and standardizes the eligibility criteria for annual mixed beverage performing arts facility licenses and on-and-off-premises wine and beer licenses for performing arts food concessionaires. The bill also removes provisions that allow Virginia ABC to grant annual mixed beverage motor sports facility licenses and motor car sporting event facility licenses and creates an annual mixed beverage sports facility license, which may be granted to persons operating a sports facility or food concessions at a sports facility and would authorize the licensee to sell mixed beverages during any event and immediately subsequent thereto to patrons within all seating areas, concourses, walkways, concession areas, and additional designated locations in closed containers for off-premises consumption or in paper, plastic, or similar disposable containers or in single original metal cans for on-premises consumption. Initial Summary Suspension Investigation Start Time (SB 658) – Extends the timeline for completing initial summary suspension investigations if the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. ### The Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (ABC) is a major source of revenue for the commonwealth, contributing more than $2.9 billion to the general fund in the last five years. Virginia ABC currently operates more than 400 stores and provides alcohol education and prevention programs for people of all ages. Its Bureau of Law Enforcement oversees approximately 19,000 ABC licensed establishments. Now marking its 90th year, ABC remains committed to progress and innovation in carrying out its vision of bringing good spirits and excellent service to Virginia. Web: www.abc.virginia.gov Facebook: @VirginiaABC and @SpiritedVirginia Instagram: @spiritedvirginia X: @VirginiaABC LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/virginiaabc Published: The Roanoke Times
April 7, 2024 The 1980s called. They want their alcohol policy back. Dan Casey’s opinion piece [“Legal cocktails-to-go: Freedom or just dumb?” March 26] ignores the most recent research on alcohol laws and regulations completely. This is especially true when it comes to Virginia alcohol law, and more importantly, the recently adopted cocktails to-go law. The R Street Institute, where I work, is one of the only nonpartisan think tanks in the country that analyzes alcohol laws and regulations. I am confident that our work is more current and relevant than the sources Dan Casey cites. The piece points out the many states — 26 states and the District of Columbia — that have made cocktails to-go permanent. That is where most of the facts related to this issue ends, and the conjecture begins. Mr. Casey points out that Maryland is notably absent from the list of states that have made cocktails to-go permanent because the state allowed its pandemic era law to expire because of “drive-thru bars” in a 1980s rural county. The only facts he references are from a 1984 Washington Post article related to drinking and driving rates. A lot has changed in 40 years, including the passage of the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which pushed states to raise the legal drinking age to 21. He conveniently overlooks the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (VABC) report last year to the General Assembly which found compliance related underage drinking laws for restaurants was similar to that of VABC brick-and-mortar stores. In fact, the R Street Institute has found that almost every state that permitted delivery and to-go alcohol during COVID-19 witnessed a decrease in underage drinking. Likewise, states that allowed alcohol delivery saw their overall drinking rates rise less than those that prohibited delivery. In terms of drunk driving, states that allowed alcohol delivery experienced lower increases in drunk driving deaths during the pandemic — which intuitively makes sense, given that home-delivery of alcohol allows consumers to avoid driving back from the bar after numerous drinks. In the future, Mr. Casey may want to use more precise data than a Reagan-era Washington Post article on Maryland when discussing 21st century alcohol laws in Virginia. Robert Melvin, Richmond RADIO IQ | By Michael Pope
Published April 1, 2024 at 5:00 AM EDT Governor Glenn Youngkin is putting his signature on a bill legalizing cocktails to go. The idea emerged during the pandemic – customers could help their favorite restaurants stay in business by ordering a margarita or an old fashioned as a takeout item. Now, the governor is agreeing with lawmakers, allowing the temporary fix to become a permanent solution for restaurants. "In Virginia's restaurants, we really have fostered a culture of mixology and experimentation and sort of high-level bartending," says Tommy Herbert at the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging and Travel Association. "And I would recommend for all of the listeners to try something new from one of our great restaurants here in the Commonwealth. You might be very impressed with the mixology skills that you encounter." The bill, which will become a new law this summer, allows restaurants to sell cocktails to go, although the jury is still out on third-party vendors like DoorDash and Uber Eats. Here's Delegate Holly Seibold, a Democrat from Vienna. "So, I keep hearing that we’re working to become compliant, but what is the plan? Because I just have a hard time visualizing that we can regulate a delivery service of alcohol," Seibold says. The new law will allow DoorDash and Uber Eats to deliver cocktails for two years, although lawmakers say if there are problems, they're willing to pull the plug for third-party vendors. This report, provided by Virginia Public Radio, WVEC-13
Author: Kathleen Lundy Published: 2:32 PM EDT March 22, 2024 Updated: 2:32 PM EDT March 22, 2024 Many states also had similar laws allowing to-go cocktails during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when drinking inside crowded areas was a health risk. RICHMOND, Va. — A bill permanently legalizing to-go cocktails and mixed wine was passed by the Virginia General Assembly and was approved by Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Wednesday. Youngkin signed 36 bills into law and offered amendments to two bills. One of the pieces of legislation signed was House Bill 688, which permanently allows businesses to offer cocktails to-go, just in time for National Cocktail Day taking place this Sunday. Many states also approved similar laws allowing to-go cocktails during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when drinking inside crowded areas like bars was discouraged and sometimes banned. In Virginia, this was due to expire on July 1, 2024, but this bill makes the change a permanent fixture. Senior Vice President and Head of State Public Policy at the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Andy Deloney, praised Youngkin's decision on Thursday and explained that "During the pandemic, cocktails to-go were a critical source of revenue for many businesses, and now, the increased convenience and stability they offer is permanent. We applaud the Legislature and Governor Youngkin for supporting Virginia businesses and consumers by making cocktails to-go permanent.” “Permanence for cocktails-to-go is a great win for Virginia’s ABC-licensed restaurants,” said Eric Terry, president and CEO of Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association. The Tidewater News - August 14, 2023
Up to about 1891, Franklin was a typical “wet” town. Going back in time to the mid 1830s, when Franklin was first established as a village, liquor manufacture, distribution and consumption was not controlled. However, starting in the latter part of the 1800s, it was controlled to some extent through Southampton County licensing of establishments. In 1891, though, the citizens of Franklin, led by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the churches, petitioned Judge Barrett of the Southampton County Court to refuse liquor licenses for Franklin, which petition was granted. As a “no-liquor” town, Franklin was a failure and it returned to its previous ways — blatant production, distribution, and consumption. Liquor was being brought in weekly by the buckboard-load and every known “wet person” knew where in town he could get all the liquor he wanted. In 1892, after the no-license system had been in effect for a year, a local option election was held — whether to re-establish licensing of alcohol. The “wets” won by one vote. A prominent worker for the “dry” cause was Rev. C. C. Werenbaker, pastor of the Methodist Church; but he, having failed to register, could not vote. Had he been in a position to vote, there would have been a tie; and it was generally thought that Judge Barrett would have decided in favor of the “dry” element. Illogically, though, had the “drys” won, alcohol production and use, would have still existed – but illegally! So, local licensing of establishments to legally dispense alcohol was reinstituted and this system was in place right up to the early 1900s. Around about that time, the Commonwealth of Virginia, following the lead of other states, especially South Carolina, decided to consider STATE-controlled liquor STORES. So, for the first time the Commonwealth of Virginia got involved with the liquor business. And, for whatever reason, Franklin was chosen as the first Virginia location, in 1902, of what was called a dispensary. It was located in a building on First Avenue, right next to the alley that ran behind the stores that faced Main Street. Later, the dispensary building was used for other purposes – including William Branch’s first shoe repair store. The Franklin Dispensary was managed by three commissioners, some of Franklin’s most prominent and best citizens: Cecil C. Vaughan Sr., R. S. Fagan, and John C. Parker Sr. Mr. Fagan was designated as the purchasing agent for the dispensary. The profits from liquor sales were divided as follows: three-eighths to the Town of Franklin, three-eighths to the District, and two-eighths to the State. From the profits received by the town were built concrete sidewalks on Main, High and Clay streets and First, Second and Fourth avenues. Some of the residents were at first loath to use the sidewalks, claiming they had been built with “blood money”. And, the fine and grand Franklin Elementary School, built in 1905 and located at 516 West Second Avenue, was made possible through funds derived from the dispensary. Many people were especially upset by the fact that the education of the town’s children was being accomplished through the sale of evil spirits. All along, the Southampton County WCTU was vehemently opposed to and disdained alcohol in general; and, in particular, the presence of the liquor dispensary in the community. The public outcry against any official town connection with alcohol became so great that, in 1907, the Franklin Dispensary authorization was abolished. Franklin was the first town in the state to have a state-controlled liquor store and was the first town to abolish it. After the abolishment, there was very little control of alcohol, at any level, for many years. All the foregoing, of course, was much before the national institution of prohibition. The 18th Amendment of the United States Constitution (to establish prohibition), as of Jan. 16, 1919, was ratified by two-thirds of the states and was effective Jan. 17, 1920. However, actual enforcement of the legislation was slow in coming about. In some cases, for an extended period of time, enforcement was non-existent in some areas of the country. Although prohibition was established and was supported by many people, in actuality, millions of Americans were STILL drinking alcoholic beverages. Because the law did not specifically outlaw consumption, many people stockpiled alcohol and figured out ways to obtain it. This gave rise to bootlegging (illegal production, sale, and distribution) and “speakeasies” (illegal and secret drinking establishments) which were capitalized upon by organized crime. Gangsterism and turf battles between criminal gangs were prevalent. In the long run, it became obvious that prohibition had caused far more problems than it had solved. Of much concern, was the increase in criminal activity, public corruption, and, in general, a prevalent casual disregard of law. An organization called “Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform” was at the forefront of the movement to REPEAL the prohibition law. As of Dec. 5, 1933, the 21st amendment (to repeal prohibition) of the United States Constitution was ratified by two-thirds of the states — which automatically and officially repealed the 18th amendment of the United States Constitution (the establishment of prohibition). Virginia Governor John Pollard called the General Assembly into special session — to legalize 3.2 % alcoholic beverages. On March 22, 1934, the Virginia General Assembly voted to adopt a liquor control plan – and created the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. And, even though the Virginia ABC system was establishing stores in communities across the state, Franklin did not have an ABC store until 1950; before that, people from this area had to go to Suffolk to purchase legal liquor. CLYDE PARKER is a retired human resources manager for the former Franklin Equipment Co. and a member of the Southampton County Historical Society. His email address is [email protected]. |
Details
Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|