Every year, Ashley's restaurant in Westland holds a Belgian Beer Festival that highlights more than 60 different Belgian drafts.

Ashley's owner Jeff More says that due to state laws and regulations that date back to the Prohibition Era, he pays twice for glasses with Belgian logos on them and can only use the glasses for the 11 days of the festival.

More said the kegs are shipped with the special glasses to beer distributors in Michigan and the price includes the cost of the glasses. But because of an archaic state law, Ashley's also has to pay the distributor for the glasses. That's because the state's "aid and assistance" law prevents any vendor from providing anything of value for free to any wholesaler, manufacturer, grocery bar or tavern.

On the final day of the festival, all the glasses with logos have to be removed from the bar, which More said requires a truck.

"I paid for it," More said. "Shouldn’t I get to use it?"

The restrictions are part of the convoluted laws and regulations that are being debated in Lansing and involve the distribution of alcohol in Michigan.

A bill from Sen. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg, would add to the state's alcohol laws. He introduced Senate Bill 505, which would prevent manufacturers and wholesalers from giving vendors any item that has advertising on it for the use of anything but advertising. For example, a manufacturer couldn’t provide a bar with a beer mug with a Bud Light logo on it or a napkin with the Jack Daniels logo.

In fact, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission has a rule that doesn't allow bars to have beer glasses or napkins with logos on their premises. If SB 505 passed, the bill would make law of the liquor commission's current rule.

Michigan didn't even allow bars to put up illuminated advertising signs until Attorney General Mike Cox issued an opinion in 2004 that said the ban was unconstitutional and an infringement of the First Amendment. 

Andy Deloney, chairman of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, said the liquor commission is going to look at the commission's bar logo rule, which some think may have spurred the legislation.

But he said even if the MLCC allowed barware with logos, the state's "aid and assistance" law still would apply and not allow establishments to receive free barware with logos on them. The restaurants and taverns would have to buy those items. 

According to The National Alcohol Beverage Control Association's 2012 survey, Michigan and Kentucky are the only states that prohibit any "retail merchandising specialties." But several states have varying stipulations about what is allowed. For example, in Ohio, barware advertising is allowed but items can't be valued at more than $25 each. In Illinois, advertising on barware is allowed but the restaurant or bar much purchase it.

More said Ashley's was able to get the glassware with logos for its festival because the state made a rare exception. He said he disagrees with the state's restrictions.

"There isn't a rational reason (for the restrictions) except to inhibit business growth in the state," More said. "If you are a beer distributor and you don't want to give away free beer ware, then don’t do it."

Troy Tuggle, spokesman for Sen. Hune, didn't respond to a request for comment.

Mike Lashbrook, president of the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, didn't respond to an email seeking comment.

~~~~~

Here is a video explaining Michigan's convoluted three-tiered distribution system:

The state's new renewable energy report is available in draft form, but to some, what it says is secondary to how it is being described by the wind energy industry, which is financed in part by taxpayer subsidies.

A final version is scheduled to be released Nov.4, which coincides with the American Wind Energy Association's Wind Forum at East Lansing.

The draft report is already generating some sparks. Wind energy advocates claim the report paints a rosy picture of the future of wind power in Michigan. However, those who claim wind energy is neither cost-effective nor the best way of cutting emissions, say the report is not a positive one for wind energy producers.

"The findings in the report were, in reality, not positive for the future of wind energy production in Michigan," said Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a non-profit organization focused on the impact of industrial wind turbines in the region.

Martis points to three examples where he says the draft report is being misrepresented by wind energy advocates.

First, he said wind energy advocates claim the study concludes that a 30 percent mandate is possible.

"What the study actually said is that 30 percent is 'technically' possible, but there would be a number of hurdles to overcome," Martis said.

Michigan currently has a 10 percent government imposed mandate that is supposed to be reached by 2015.

Second, wind energy advocates ignore the study's finding that the health impacts of wind turbines are real. Additionally, he said, they ignore the study finding that the required setback distance from homes should be increased to an extent that establishing future wind plants (or wind farms) could become problematic.

"This was a very significant finding in the study," Martis said. "In fact, the study recommends the setback distance be increased to two kilometers, which is a mile and a quarter. We agree with this completely."

Seventeen Michigan residents have filed a lawsuit pertaining to health issues associated with windmills, alleging dizziness, sleeplessness, headaches and other symptoms from the noise. A panel of experts appointed to work on the noise issue recommended a decibel level limit, but state officials ignored them and disbanded the group before it could write its final report. The head of a wind association discussed the recommendations with state officials and then told them to "delete these types of emails because of the possibility of FOIA requests," according to an email Michigan Capitol Confidential received through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Third, Martis said, the state report agrees with the IICC analysis that it is economically ignorant to compare the price of wind energy production with that of coal plants.

"The two are not interchangeable," Martis said. "It would be like trying to compare my Edsel with a goat."

Jim Dulzo of the Michigan Land Use Institute did not respond to a request for comment. To see what wind energy advocates are saying about the draft report, see here and here.

The federal government says the vast majority of Michigan is "poor" or "marginal" for wind power.