“Bum
wines” have always had a market, in the poorer parts of town. These low cost, fortified wines were
considered a problem, even back in the mid-1800’s. They gained popularity in the U.S. during the 1930’s, as a
result of Prohibition and the Great Depression.
Bum
wines are made from a low-end, heavily sweetened wine that is fortified with
spirits to increase the alcohol content from 14% to 20%. The wine is sweet, easy to get, cheap to buy, and
popular with those who have little money, are disadvantaged, or homeless. These wines and beers are drunk more for their effect
than their taste.
Now, a Scottish “bum wine,” Buckfast Tonic Wine, is in the news.
The
Benedictine monks have produced Buckfast Tonic Wine at Buckfast Abbey, since
the 1880's. It was originally sold
as a "medicine to be taken in small quantities, three times a day." A London wine merchant placed
Buckfast Tonic Wine into distribution in 1927.
The cheap, sweet wine remains popular today with students and the working class, but it’s being called an "irresponsible drink" by the Scottish Health Minister, and is blamed for violent and anti-social behaviors. The tonic wine has an alcohol content of 15% and includes 281mg of caffeine - as much as eight cans of cola, in one 750ml bottle.
Last week, J. Chandler & Company, distributors of Buckfast Tonic Wine, accused
the Strathclyde Police, Scotland’s largest police force, of “ethnic cleansing”
by attempting to disgrace the Buckfast brand.
The
Glasgow-based police force have requested that several convenience stores and
off-license stores (stores permitted to sell sealed bottles to be taken off premises by the buyer), place a sticker on the Buckfast bottles so that they
may be traced.
J.
Chandler & Company is requesting that a judge in the Court of Sessions find
that the wine is being discriminated against since police singled out this
brand and encouraged retailers to unlawfully label the bottles with the
stickers, or persuaded them to remove it from store shelves. (Buckfast was the
UK’s number one selling fortified wine in 2010.)
A
spokesperson for J. Chandler & Company equated the discrimination to a form
of “ethnic cleansing” of alcohol brands that the police and politicians in
Scotland don’t like.
The
Scottish Government, known as the Scottish Executive, has stated that the wine
contributes to public drunkenness and can lead to antisocial behaviors.
Officials say they want to find a way to lessen the impact that Buckfast has on
its drinkers.
Scottish
police say that neither the distributors of the product, nor the lawyers
representing the monks who make it, are willing to take responsibility for the
behaviors of those who drink the tonic wine.
The
distributors believe that the government is trying to blame the drinks
industry, in general, and Buckfast, in particular, for antisocial crimes that
occur in impoverished areas, and that the individuals who drink the wine and then participate in
a crime should be held responsible for their actions.
Meanwhile,
in the U.S., three cities located in Washington State have enacted
"Alcohol Impact Areas” (AIA) for similar reasons.
In 2006, the State Liquor Control Board prohibited the sale of low priced, high-alcohol-beverages in an impoverished neighborhood, designated as an “Alcohol Impact Area,” in Seattle. Over two-dozen beers and several wines were banned. The wines included were MD 20/20, Night Train, Thunderbird, Wild Irish Rose, Cisco, Boone’s Farm, and Gino’s Premium Blend.
In 2006, the State Liquor Control Board prohibited the sale of low priced, high-alcohol-beverages in an impoverished neighborhood, designated as an “Alcohol Impact Area,” in Seattle. Over two-dozen beers and several wines were banned. The wines included were MD 20/20, Night Train, Thunderbird, Wild Irish Rose, Cisco, Boone’s Farm, and Gino’s Premium Blend.
In
2008, the Washington Liquor Control Board recognized two locations within the
city of Tacoma as AIA’s. Over
forty low cost, high-alcohol-content beers and wines were outlawed for sale.
The wines there included MD 20/20, Cisco, Night Train, Wile Irish Rose and Thunderbird. It was announced last week that Tacoma is working to establish its third AIA.
Then,
in 2010, the Washington State Liquor Board declared an AIA in downtown Spokane,
prohibiting over 30 low-cost, high-alcohol-content beverages from being sold.
Last
year, the State of Oregon was set to enact its own AIA ban in the downtown section
of Portland when plans were abruptly stopped. In a letter sent to a Portland City Commissioner it was
stated that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission did not have the power to
enact such a rule.
Portland
residents are divided on the issue of AIA bans; would it really work? Should the ban be on all low cost, high-alcohol-content (14% or higher) beers and wines in the entire city, or state? For
now, the City of Portland and its residents await a ruling by the State’s
Attorney General.
And
how long is the time between when the banned list is issued and when it is updated? A wine may be released at 14%
alcohol one year, but the next year the alcohol content is only 13%. Will the wine be monitored? By whom? What agency rules to remove it from the list?
And we must ask ourselves – Are we, as a society, trying to legislate morality?
And we must ask ourselves – Are we, as a society, trying to legislate morality?
Just
how much accountability should a person be required by law to accept for their
personal actions?
~
Joy