web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Tariffs on booze? Now Trump has gone too far

Westlake Legal Group Liquor Tariffs on booze? Now Trump has gone too far Whiskey The Blog Tariffs Scotland European Union donald trump Booze alcohol

The tariff wars have been a hot topic all through Donald Trump’s presidency, as he fights to try to leverage his way into some better trade deals from Europe to China and new negotiations over NAFTA as well. Thus far, like many of you, I’m sure, I haven’t noticed any significant impact on prices we pay on a regular basis, but that may be about to change. Last week the White House launched into a new phase of negotiations with the European Union, citing ongoing issues with subsidies being given to aircraft manufacturers both in the United States and Europe.

But it wasn’t the aircraft trade that caught my attention in this emerging turf war. We’ve been having that fight for most of this century. Now, in a series of threatened escalations on both sides, tariffs on alcoholic beverages are being threatened. President Trump is talking about tariffs on scotch whiskey and the Europeans are suggesting the same treatment for our products heading across the pond.

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States criticized the Trump administration’s latest tariff threats and warned they would jeopardize U.S. jobs and hurt consumers.

“We strongly oppose the inclusion of distilled products in the proposed retaliation list,” said spokeswoman Lisa Hawkins.

“U.S. companies – from farmers to suppliers to retailers – are already being negatively impacted by the imposition of retaliatory tariffs by key trading partners on certain U.S. distilled spirits … and these additional tariffs will only inflict further harm,” she said.

So that was all happening last week. No progress was made in avoiding these new tariffs, but they also haven’t been made official yet. In hopes of staving off this booze disaster, there was a closed-door meeting at the White House yesterday with representatives from the alcohol industry. This one didn’t generate many headlines, but I checked in with one Republican who has been actively working on the issue and familiar with the results of the meeting. In short, there was no progress and no indication that the President was looking at taking booze tariffs off the table.

On background, they offered the following observation.

“There’s a huge amount of irony in tariffs on whiskey being pursued by this administration in particular.

“First of all, unlike tariffs on washing machines, President Trump’s business will itself bear the burden of these tariffs. Can you imagine how much high-end imported whiskey the Trump International sells and how much of its profit derives from that and alcohol sales more broadly? The President will have to raise prices for his customers to pay these tariffs which I doubt they’ll appreciate since his administration literally could prevent that outcome with a snap of his fingers. I’m guessing Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump may wind up lobbying their father against this.

“Second, it’s pretty odd to see a President who revels in his Scottish heritage— his mother coming from Scotland, going back there every summer, and him having family heraldry up at every Trump property in Scotland—okaying tariffs that target Scotland in particular.

Clearly, it’s time for the gloves to come off. My beagle is sometimes known on social media as #MartiniDog. And recreational/social drinking is something that cuts across party lines. There should be bipartisan opposition to tariffs on alcoholic beverages. Dump tariffs on the plane manufacturers and the avocado growers all you like, but keep your hands off the booze, sir. This is an issue as old as the nation itself, Mr. President. Don’t forget what happened to George Washington. It was a little thing called the Whisky Rebellion.

The post Tariffs on booze? Now Trump has gone too far appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Liquor-300x159 Tariffs on booze? Now Trump has gone too far Whiskey The Blog Tariffs Scotland European Union donald trump Booze alcohol   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Robert Halfon: Under our new leader, we must prize social justice above social mobility

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.

Compassionate Conservatism courses through the veins of this Party. I know – I speak to colleagues and members every day. From educational attainment to lack of in-work progression. From family breakdown to fragile social care. From addiction to defunct housing. These concerns, and many more that disproportionately affect society’s most disadvantaged individuals, are deeply troubling for us all.

We are the Party of high school standards and aspiration. The Party that introduced the National Living Wage, the Modern Slavery Act, the Pupil Premium. Compassionate Conservatives believe in a strong safety net, but also in a dynamic welfare system that is ambitious for individuals, rather than one that writes them off.

Our Party is the champion of free trade and enterprise – the engine of prosperity for us all. But, we also recognise the state’s vital role in helping disadvantaged individuals overcome adversity so that they, too, can prosper.

All too often, however, our concerns about the most disadvantaged are not reaching the light of day. According to a recent poll by the Centre for Social Justice, just five per cent of low-income voters think the Conservative Party is “compassionate”. 72 per cent say the Party is not concerned about people on low incomes. 52 per cent believe that we “don’t understand what it is like to struggle”. And 57 per cent say Conservatives “only care about the rich”. These are damning statistics, and do not reflect my colleagues’ natural sentiments.

Meanwhile, the Left hoovers up recognition, despite the mirage of its self-declared monopoly on compassion. Take its proposals on welfare, which focus more on parking people on benefits than on encouraging aspiration. Or Corbyn’s plan to scrap tuition fees; an enormously wasteful and regressive measure that would suck precious resources out of the pot – resources that could instead be used to support the most disadvantaged. Or Labour’s misconceived notion that helping poorer individuals can only be achieved by taking down the rich.

It is time Conservatives claim compassion as one of our own. However, we cannot do so until we are clearer about what we mean by this.

Equality of opportunity should be right at the heart of our thinking. The problem, however, is that this has become synonymous with social mobility – a term that has become increasingly fashionable but loses sight of the bigger picture. At its core, social mobility implies the capability to move up the ladder of opportunity. But it is not enough just to focus on this. There are swathes of people who are not even at the foot of the ladder in the first place; people who are so far removed from the mainstream that the idea of progression and self-fulfilment is a distant fog.

If we are serious about creating opportunity for all, Conservatives also need to have an answer for these individuals and can only do so by thinking about social justice. This means addressing all the personal circumstances in somebody’s life that are shackling his or her ability to enjoy the opportunities that exist in society. In addition, we must tackle the things that cause people to crash into poverty, rather than the symptoms: educational failure, worklessness, family breakdown, unmanageable debt, addiction, disability, exposure to crime, poor housing.

If we fail to grasp this, we will fail the Conservative Party’s moral heritage. We will also, almost certainly, demolish our prospects of a working majority in the next general election.

The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that over 1.4 million poorer voters live in the 100 most marginal seats in the country. And in every single one of those seats, these individuals exceed the majority of the standing MP, in many cases by a considerable margin. Put simply, the Conservative Party cannot win the next general election without winning the hearts and minds of society’s most disadvantaged individuals.

The next leader must deliver Brexit, arguably, the most daunting task faced by a post-war Prime Minister. And he must do so swiftly and decisively. But this cannot define his premiership. Brexit was a symptom of a much broader restlessness in our society: the marginalisation of large numbers of people from prosperity. The answer to that is a bold, assertive domestic agenda that has social justice right at its core.

Whatever the outcome of the leadership contest, the victor must stitch together the ripped fabric of our society. He must reach out to those who are stuck on the side lines of prosperity. And he must reignite the compassionate instincts that lie at the heart of this great Party.

To make a start, our future Government should transform the current Social Mobility Commission into a Social Justice Commission, embedded in the heart of Downing Street. They must address all the concerns I have outlined, and more, to make sure Government brings every single person to the ladder of opportunity, not matter who they are, where they come from, or what difficulties they face.

The Commission should produce social justice impact assessments on domestic policy and legislative proposals. They should not only be a means by which negative effects are flagged but should be used to ensure that everything we Conservatives do is positively helping to improve the lives of those who need looking out for most.

As our Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, has said, delivering Brexit is about more than just leaving the EU. “The hard bit is yet to come. Because we’ve got to reflect why so many people voted the way that they did in the biggest democratic exercise this country has ever seen.”

What comes next is equally important, if not more so, and delivering social justice to all corners of our nation must be a focal part of it.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Visits Austin Brewery to Sign Law Allowing Beer-To-Go Sales

Westlake Legal Group unnamed-620x414 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Visits Austin Brewery to Sign Law Allowing Beer-To-Go Sales Texas republicans Politics Greg Abbott Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post beer austin Allow Media Exception alcohol

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) visits Austin Beerworks to sign House Bill 1545 allowing Beer-to-Go sales. Photo courtesy of Office of the Governor.

I had the pleasure of living in Austin for five years, and while I enjoyed my time in Texas, I quickly came to realize that there were a number of areas where the Lone Star State did not measure up to its reputation as a bastion of conservatism.

Alcohol policy was one key area suffering from government overregulation. Liquor stores have long been banned from selling their wares on Sundays, and even beer is restricted on Sunday mornings.

Then there was the bizarre prohibition on breweries being able to sell their beer to go, directly to customers. Texas was the only state in the entire country that prohibited such sales, a thorn in the side of the state’s blooming craft beer industry. The breweries had been allowed to operate tap rooms and sell beer to customers to drink on the premises, but were barred from selling any beer directly to the customers to take home.

The restriction was the byproduct of the state’s blue laws targeting vices like drinking, and lobbyists for beer distributors and other groups that benefitted from breweries being unable to sell their own products directly. Efforts had been organized multiple times over past years — slowed by Texas’ legislative schedule that meets only every other year — but had stalled out until this past session.

A bill allowing Texas breweries to join the other 49 states and have the freedom to sell their own product finally worked its way through the various committees in the House and Senate, and successfully passed both chambers. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) had voiced his support for the bill and scheduled a signing ceremony at Austin Beerworks, one of the local Austin breweries whose owners had been active in lobbying in support of the bill, along with other members of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild.

Abbott posted a video on his Twitter account afterwards from the Austin Beerworks brewery floor, noting that “craft brewing is big business in Texas,” but the law had previously banned breweries from selling beer-to-go.

“That is not freedom,” said Abbott, announcing that he had just signed the law to fix the situation. “Enjoy responsibly!”

The new law takes affect September 1.

Austin Beerworks celebrated the new law with several tweets of their own.

Cheers, Texas.

Now if ABW could just start distributing here in Tallahassee, that would be great. 

Read my RedState article archive here.

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter: @rumpfshaker.

The post Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Visits Austin Brewery to Sign Law Allowing Beer-To-Go Sales appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group unnamed-300x200 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Visits Austin Brewery to Sign Law Allowing Beer-To-Go Sales Texas republicans Politics Greg Abbott Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post beer austin Allow Media Exception alcohol   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Get Dad tipsy for Father’s Day: 3 spirits for last-minute gifts

As parents of an almost-4-year old and a 15-month old, we don’t get out like we used to. This just means our bar cart is as robust as ever. I’m using Father’s Day as an excuse to replenish our supply. Here are a few ideas for last-minute gifts for pops.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

The new vintage is all dressed up and ready for a cocktailor a summer spritz!!

A post shared by Mommenpop Citrus Vermouths (@mommenpop) on May 25, 2019 at 11:57am PDT

Momenpop Vin D’Pampe Vermouth Rosé
From the California winery, Poe, comes a line of citrus-flavored vermouths. I spied this at The Organic Butcher and will gift my husband the grapefruit version. I’m sure he’ll add an amaro and tonic to turn this into a cocktail. // The Organic Butcher: 6712 Old Dominion Drive, McLean; $24

Don Ciccio & Figli Ambrosia
Ambrosia, the DC-based distiller’s sweeter version of Aperol, flush with blood orange, cantaloupe, carrots and turmeric, is the newest amaro from Italian-inspired Don Ciccio. We currently stock Donna Rosa Rabarbaro, Amaro Tonico Ferro-Kina and Finocchietto, and have drank or gifted most of their styles. There’s an amaro or cordial for anyone’s taste, and it’s a good excuse to try them all at the new headquarters in Icy City. // Don Ciccio: 1907 Fairview Ave. NE, Washington, DC; $35

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Downtown Wine + Spirits (@dtwineknoxville) on Jul 5, 2018 at 9:29am PDT

Bonal Gentiane-Quina
This French aperitif works just as well as a nightcap. It’s a little bitter, very smooth and with its low-alcohol content, is also a great addition to cocktails to balance out flavors and add body. It keeps in the fridge for about a month. I first discovered Bonal and Byrrh (pronounced: beer, and my preferred aperitif) at The Whole Ox back when the Marshall butcher shop still served dinner. I’ve also picked up bottles at La Fromagerie in Old Town Alexandria and Red Apron in Mosaic District. // The Whole Ox: 8357 W. Main St., Marshall; Bonal $26; Byrrh $29

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Ted’s Bulletin (@tedsbulletin) on Jun 9, 2019 at 6:46am PDT

News, events, etc.

Critic-favorite El Sol is opening a location in Vienna this fall. [Cision]

The Ballston location of Ted’s Bulletin is moving away from being known as a greasy spoon and toward a French brasserie. From the same owners, Sidekick is now open with a Wendy’s Frosty-and-fries croissant. [Eater, Eater]

The owners of World of Beer in One Loudoun will replace it with Jefferson Ale House. [The Burn]

Arlington’s House of Mandi is now the Egyptian-themed King of Koshary. [ARLnow]

Reminder: This is the last weekend for Ray’s the Steaks. [NVM]

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Is a bartender responsible for serving a mass murderer?

Westlake Legal Group is-a-bartender-responsible-for-serving-a-mass-murderer Is a bartender responsible for serving a mass murderer? The Blog murder drunk bartender alcohol

Westlake Legal Group bartender Is a bartender responsible for serving a mass murderer? The Blog murder drunk bartender alcohol

This story out of Texas, while tragic, gives us the opportunity to see how far communal responsibility stretches in terms of bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and the actions of their patrons who become excessively inebriated. In a Dallas suburb two years ago, a man was clearly overserved and highly intoxicated when he began acting erratically, displaying weapons and suggesting that he was going to do something violent. After leaving the bar he drove to the house of his estranged wife and killed her, along with seven of her friends. The shooter became the ninth person to die when police arrived and killed him in the ensuing shootout. So how responsible is the bartender in all of this? It’s an important question since she’s being charged with a crime. (Washington Times)

A suburban Dallas bartender is accused of continuing to serve drinks to a drunken man who later went to his estranged wife’s home and killed her and seven other people while they were watching a Dallas Cowboys game on TV two years ago.

Lindsey Glass, 27, was arrested last week and charged with a misdemeanor violation of the state’s “sale to certain persons” law, which bars the sale of alcohol to a “habitual drunkard or an intoxicated or insane person.”

According to Plano police, Glass continued to serve alcohol to Spencer Hight that September 2017 day even after it was clear he had had too much to drink. A medical examiner later determined that Hight’s blood alcohol level was four times the state’s legal limit.

Lindsey Glass is the bartender in question and she’s been charged with violating Texas’ “sale to certain persons” law. Read the details at the link, but it’s actually kind of vague. It makes no mention of any actions that the customer may engage in after leaving the establishment, only the fact that they could be considered “a habitual drunkard or an intoxicated or insane person.” The customer, in this case, could arguably be described as all three.

The punishment for the crime has quite the range on it, however, so it’s easy to see how a judge might grade the defendant on a scale based on the outcome. The law allows for a fine of anywhere from $100 to $500 and/or jail time ranging from none to one year. We can readily imagine that a bartender who served a guy who had a few too many and went outside and was pulled over by the cops for a DUI might just get the lowest fine. If the drunk hit somebody with his car, she might get a stiffer fine and perhaps even a couple of weeks in jail. In the case of a mass murderer, is it unreasonable to think that the judge will lock her up for a year? And should she be treated that way?

This case has some complicating factors. Nobody is arguing that Glass shouldn’t have been serving the shooter in his condition. That’s particularly true when you learn that at one point he was displaying a handgun and a bar worker escorted him out to his car so he could lock the gun in the trunk… and then let him back in the bar to continue drinking. Later he was spinning a large knife on the bar and saying he had some “dirty work” to do.

But for her part, Glass argues that she had tried to get the guy to not drive home. She reported his behavior to her supervisor and even went so far as to drive to the estranged wife’s house right after the shooter left. He was already there, but she called 911 to alter them before the shooting even started.

The question I have is whether or not a judge should be able to factor in what the shooter did after leaving. In the end, he might have gone out to kill someone or he might have passed out in his car in the bar’s parking lot. Either way, Lindsey Glass committed the exact same crime of serving alcohol to someone who was clearly very far over the limit. Isn’t the mass murder still the sole responsibility of the shooter, no matter how inebriated he might have been?

Lindsey Glass clearly did not serve her employer or her customer well on that fateful night. (The bar has since given up its liquor license anyway.) But it doesn’t seem as if she should bear the responsibility for the murders that followed. If she receives a stiffer punishment than is usually given out for overserving, that will be an inappropriate sentence in my opinion.

The post Is a bartender responsible for serving a mass murderer? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bartender-300x153 Is a bartender responsible for serving a mass murderer? The Blog murder drunk bartender alcohol   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Victoria Borwick: We must invest in the next generation to cut knife crime

Victoria Borwick is the former Conservative MP for Kensington and was the Deputy Mayor of London to Boris Johnson from 2012 to 2015.

The rise in knife crime and violent crime, particularly amongst young people, has heightened the debate about drugs. However, I am not one of those hand-wringers who think the answer to knife crime and drug wars is the legalisation of drugs. What do you think the drug dealers would go off and do? Sit around? This is very unlikely. This is a problem that must be tackled from all sides with unity and purpose. This is about investing in our young people.

Why do young people deal in drugs? Because they want to fund their lifestyle – they seek the protection and fake friendship of gang life, and carry a knife for “safety”. This is a very serious issue and has disastrous consequences for us as a society. This is not the time for pointing the finger at just one cause.

First, we must re-examine our education system so it is not just about passing “final year” exams, but about training people to give them the skills to get a job. If you have a job and steady income you are far less likely to get involved in crime. For too long, we have under-invested in skills and training programmes – they have been a poorly funded add-on and not a serious career path.

Yes, there is greater investment now, but there are many years to make up for. These opportunities and options should start far earlier in children’s lives, enabling a twin-track of skills training – IT skills, engineering skills, advanced robotics, and AI as well as practical skills in electrical engineering and all the construction trades. There is a reason that so many employers on building sites take young people from overseas: they have started their practical skills and engineering training far younger than we offer here in the UK.

Young people need role models, and need to know and have evidence that there is a better life than taking drugs, dealing drugs and carrying knives. Sometimes there is no real boundary between the lives of the victims and the background of the perpetrators. This is not just a policing matter; voluntary organisations, young people’s groups, cadets, schools, families and the wider community all have a role to play. Schools should open their premises in the evenings so they can be used by local voluntary groups for sports and opportunities to learn and relax in a safe environment. Councils can be the co-ordinators, the convenors that bring together all the local provision, to focus on and track those who need the greatest help.

Drug takers often descend into other criminal activity – something legalisation would not stop, as drugs would still have to be paid for even from “approved stores”. Additionally, addicts would still crave different combinations and stronger variations which dealers will be all too happy to supply. Evidence from the USA suggests that black market operators will simply adapt rather than disappear.

A report from the Centre for Social Justice at the end of last year found that legalisation would probably drive a million young people to take drugs, so why on earth would we want to inflict this on our society, on our communities? This is a time for positive help and investment in our future, in the next generation – not make it easier for them to become addicts and criminals.

I find it abhorrent that given what we know about the dangers of smoking and alcohol we should consider softening our approach to drugs and encourage the next generation to think it was “safe” despite all the evidence to the contrary – especially as tobacco was once considered “healthy” and “medicinal”. Look at the change in attitudes to smoking during one generation, it is no longer the personification of style and we now know it leads to poor health, asthma, cancer –  and, frankly, it smells awful.

As the previous Deputy Mayor of London, I have been out with the ambulance service on some of those very busy weekends in holiday times, and I have seen for myself the dangers of too much drink, of being abandoned by your friends and how lonely and disorientated those high on drugs can be, totally unable to care for themselves.

Evidence from Canada and Colorado shows that drug liberalisation has not significantly reduced drug use, in fact, there has often been a spike as people think it must be OK because it is now legal.

How can policy makers think this is the responsible thing to do? This is an important public health issue and it needs to be approached in the same way, just as we teach about the dangers of smoking and alcohol we need to be very clear about the damage of inappropriate drug use.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later

Westlake Legal Group oh-yes-study-shows-drinking-during-middle-age-may-reduce-risk-of-dementia-later Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later The Blog study Dementia Booze beer Alzheimer's alcohol

Westlake Legal Group bb Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later The Blog study Dementia Booze beer Alzheimer's alcohol

All this time, I’ve been blaming President Trump for my day-drinking when I should have been thanking him.

His greatest legacy will be the total eradication of dementia in the U.S. population.

Note the fine print, though. It’s not the case that the more you drink, the less likely you are to lose mental acuity later. (Would that it were.) There’s a sweet spot: Drinking too little or too much increases the risk of dementia later on.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), followed participants who were aged between 35 and 55 when it began in the mid-1980s. Abstinence in midlife was associated with a 45% higher risk of dementia compared with people who consumed between one and 14 units of alcohol per week. Long-term abstainers and those who reported a decrease in alcohol consumption also appeared to have an increased risk…

The team of French and British researchers suggested that part of the excess risk of dementia in abstainers could be attributable to the greater risk of cardiometabolic disease reported in this group…

Commenting on the study, Dr Sara Imarisio, the head of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “As this study only looked at people’s drinking in midlife, we don’t know about their drinking habits earlier in adulthood, and it is possible that this may contribute to their later life dementia risk.

Yeah, that’s a li’l wrinkle in the data, huh? Some middle-aged teetotalers probably became teetotalers because they were alcoholics in their youth and spent the rest of their adult lives recovering. Did their abstinence in middle age increase their dementia risk or was it their (possible) youthful indulgence that did it? Even if they weren’t youthful drinkers, it may be that they suffered from other health problems in middle age that forced them to stay away from alcohol and it’s those underlying health issues, not the teetolating, that led to dementia later. There’s no suggestion of causation in the study between abstinence and dementia, as far as I can tell. It’s purely a claim of correlation. And you know what they say about causation and correlation.

Right now you’re thinking, “Yeah, yeah, just give me the bottom line. How many beers are in 14 ‘units’ of alcohol? Because if it’s one beer per unit, that’s 2-3 pretty decent evenings per week in the name of holding off Alzheimer’s.” Alas, it is not. Fourteen units is six pints of weak beer, seven glasses of wine, or 14 shots of the hard stuff. Evenly distributed over a week, that’s one very mild buzz per sitting if you’re lucky. Unevenly distributed, it’s a pretty fun night — although 14 units in the span of a few hours has its own health drawbacks.

Oh, and just to further dampen your enthusiasm, yes, of course there are studies out there suggesting precisely the opposite conclusion from this one. Aren’t there always?

Relatedly, new data from Gallup:

Westlake Legal Group g Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later The Blog study Dementia Booze beer Alzheimer's alcohol

That was quite a spike for the hard stuff after the 2016 election, huh? A few traditional beer- and wine-drinkers apparently decided that they needed something stiffer to get through the day in 2017. I wonder why. Anyway, back to normal now. One can get used to anything.

The post Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bb-300x159 Oh yes: Study shows drinking during middle age may reduce risk of dementia later The Blog study Dementia Booze beer Alzheimer's alcohol   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com