Alcohol Policy Information System
The Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS) is an online resource that provides detailed information on a wide variety of alcohol-related policies in the United States at both State and Federal levels. It features compilations and analyses of alcohol-related statutes and regulations. Designed primarily as a tool for researchers, APIS simplifies the process of ascertaining the state of the law for studies on the effects and effectiveness of alcohol-related policies.
History
To read about the laws and regulations under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and other related provisions of Title 27, United States Code and Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, click below.
The Volstead Act and Related Prohibition Documents
By the turn of the 20th century, temperance societies were prevalent in the United States. Concerned citizens had begun warning others about the effects of alcohol nearly 100 years earlier. In 1826 the American Temperance Society was founded to convince people to abstain from drinking. Not long after, the Women's Christian Temperance Union pledged not only to ban alcohol and drugs, but to improve public morals. The anti-Saloon League was formed in 1893 and eventually became a powerful political force in passing a national ban on alcoholic beverages.
Research
State and Local Alcoholic Beverage Tax Revenue (‘77-‘08)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau WINE
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Beer
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Distilled Spirits
Economic Impact of Beer in Arizona
Arizona On-Site Shipping Statute
Acceptable forms of Arizona Identifications
Brinegar v. United States
Petitioner was convicted in a federal district court for a violation of the Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936, on charges of transporting intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma contrary to the laws of that State.
Craig et al. v. Boren, Governor of Oklahoma, et al. (1976)
Appellant Craig, a male then between 18 and 21 years old, and appellant Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that an Oklahoma statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18 constituted a gender-based discrimination that denied to males 18-20 years of age the equal protection of the laws.
Granholm, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Heald et al. (2005)
Michigan and New York regulate the sale and importation of wine through three-tier systems requiring separate licenses for producers, wholesalers, and retailers. These schemes allow in-state, but not out-of-state, wineries to make direct sales to consumers.
44 Liquormart, Inc. et alv. Rhode Island et al. (1996)
Petitioners, a licensed Rhode Island liquor retailer and a licensed Massachusetts liquor retailer patronized by Rhode Island residents, filed this action seeking a declaratory judgement that Rhode Island laws banning the advertisement of retail liquor prices except at the place of sale violate the First Amendment.
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)
Appellee Irvis, a Negro guest of a member of appellant, a private club, was refused service at the club's dining room and bar solely because of his race. In suing for injunctive relief, appellee contended that the discrimination was state action, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the Pennsylvania liquor board had issued appellant a private club liquor license.
McGowan v. Maryland (1961)
The issues in this case concern the constitutional validity of Maryland criminal statutes, commonly known as Sunday Closing Laws or Sunday Blue Laws. These statutes, with exceptions to be noted hereafter, generally proscribe all labor, business and other commercial activities on Sunday.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke (1995)
We decide in this case whether Ordinance 288 enacted by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, prohibiting the placement of stationary, outdoor "advertising that advertises alcoholic beverages" in certain areas of the City, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of commercial speech.
