The good people at the federal government who keep our minds safe from the evils of nudity on TV and profanity on the radio have a new enemy to look after: bottle caps.
It’s true. A branch of the federal government, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau are going after Vaune Dillmann and his Mt. Shasta Brewing Co. for inscribing the words “Try LEGAL Weed” on the tops of its bottles.
The 61year-old, retired cop from Weed, California has been using the slogan to promote his Mountain High IPA and Shastafarian Porter microbrew lines.
Dillmann contends that the double entendre grabs potential consumers’ attention and helps generate a higher profit. By looking at the names of the beers he sells, I assume his potential consumers refer to everyone as “man” and vote Democrat.
According to the feds, though, the slogan is “misleading to the consumer in terms of what may or may not be the properties contained within that product” and it condones drug use.
I guess when your job revolves around taxing two-thirds of the three horsemen of fun (the third being firearms), I shouldn’t expect these people to have much of a taste for pot jokes.
But, honestly, do they really think that those of us who are over 21 are so dumb that we can’t tell the difference between a corny marketing campaign and what’s actually in the product?
Just think about it, there are dozens of products on the market right now with drug connotations. Unless I’m completely naïve, people don’t seem to be confused by these products.
For instance, there’s “Herbal Essences.” Many stoners refer to marijuana as “herb” and the essence of herb has got to be some kind of druggie reference.
Budweiser has its slogan “this Bud’s for you,” an obvious homage to smoking “bud.”
And, of course, the Mercedes Benz has the not so popular, but still common reference as the “uncut Bolivian cocaine of cars.”
If these products and others like them aren’t misleading consumers, there should be no concern over a simple “weed” reference on a beer bottle.
And, about the whole promotion of drugs thing, when did that become a crime?
Sure, using drugs is illegal, but promotion of drugs is as American as apple pipes. For crying out loud, the entire Constitution was written on hemp (at least that’s what every pothead I’ve ever met has told me). If the founding fathers’ writing stuff on hemp doesn’t condone promotion of drugs, I don’t know what does.
By going after Dillman, the government is, again, poking its ugly, humorless head in places it doesn’t belong. How a company chooses to sell its product should be up to it, not the government.
What Dillmann is doing is perfectly legal. Sure, maybe it does condone drug use, and it is a bit tasteless. But this country was founded on the idea that people can run their lives and businesses however they please, as long as it does not break any laws. From what I understand of the First Amendment, condoning drug use does not break any laws.
Until the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau step off of the little guy and act as our forefathers intended, this “bud” and “weed” will be for Dillmann — man.
Simon Barta is a senior English major and an assistant opinions editor for the Daily Forty-Niner.