Package liquor sales

The Palladium-Item has an editorial advocating a freer market with respect to sales of beer and wine. Apparently there is some concern about legislative action that could limit access to beer and wine permits by convenience stores. The Pal-Item says that pressure to take such action will surely come from the package liquor industry which would like to be free of the competition. However, even if that is the motivation, that will not be how they attempt to sell the legislation. Instead, the pretext for limiting sales advocated by the package liquor industry will look a lot like the quote from the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers: “If we have thousands of new outlets selling alcohol, we’ve essentially deregulated how alcohol is sold.” The main evil of deregulation would be an increased likelihood that beer and wine would be sold to minors. While true, that’s probably is not what would motivate the industry to pay lobbyists to encourage the General Assembly to take action.

Motivations of the industry aside, however, concern over minors accessing alcohol may well be what motivates legislators to act. The Palladium-Item takes the stance that the benefits from increased market forces — would reduce prices and improve services, benefits that apparently outweigh the potentially increased access by minors, particularly if increased sales generate increased tax revenues that could be used in policing efforts.

Personally, I guess I’m conflicted on the issue. I have no particular desire to protect profits of package liquor retailers. I think our approach to minors and alcohol is problematic — by forbidding alcohol on one hand while advertising its glories on the other hand, we create a climate where minors tend to abuse alcohol as soon as they can get their hands on it. Some European countries where children are exposed to alcohol from an early age tend to have less of an alcohol abuse problem. (Though I suppose there are other countries where kids have early access *and* the country has serious abuse problems.) The Palladium-Item’s purported benefits don’t appear to me to be such unmitigated blessings when applied to sales of alcohol. Sure, I’d like to pay less for a six-pack. But would it really be a great thing for society if alcohol advertising were more effective? If alcohol sales increased enough to pay for more policing?

God knows I drank my share of beer back in the day. So I’m not one to preach against the moral evils of alcohol. But I do know that drinking too much of it is debilitating, causes one to be more likely to get into trouble of various sorts, and doesn’t help society out very much. We should probably back up, figure out what our collective position on alcohol is, and legislate accordingly. From my perspective, step one is to regard alcohol consumption as a health issue and not as a moral/religious issue. Whatever restrictions we impose on alcohol, let’s recognize that there is nothing magical about Sundays.  What use is it do to make liquor sales in stores illegal on Sundays but permit it at bars and restaurants? Are we telling folks it’s bad to drink beer in the comfort of their homes on Sundays but it’s A-O.K. to drive to a bar to do your drinking?

 I don’t have the solution, but I think we should: 1) Remove religion and morality from the alcohol debate; 2) Figure out how best to get kids and adults to drink alcohol responsibly when they do use alcohol; and 3) Improve public transportation so that when we do drink, we can get home easily without harming anyone.

Now that I’ve written a few paragraphs on this, it appears that the debate on alcohol consumption and the dangers arising therefrom has some things in common with the sex debates and the dangers arising therefrom. In both debates, I think there is a sizeable contingent that wants an “abstinence only” approach, and, because of their insistence on an unrealistic approach, we miss opportunities to limit negative consequences from these behaviors to a bare minimum.