Massachusetts Question 1

Great Debates
1

Well? What say you?

Note to mods: While the following text is copied in full, it is not copyrighted material.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip/pipidx.htm

Arguments

As provided by law the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: Today, consumers in 34 states can buy wine at grocery stores. But in Massachusetts, a 72-year-old law prevents most grocery stores from selling wine – and creates a virtual monopoly for package stores.

Voting “yes” on Question 1 will:

Bring Massachusetts up to date, by giving cities and towns the local option to issue wine-only licenses to qualified grocery stores.
Save consumers an estimated $26 to $36 million every year, by allowing more competition and consumer choice in wine sales.
The liquor lobby and its allies use scare tactics and false claims against this measure. The truth is, they just want to protect the current package store monopoly system.

Other states allow grocery stores to sell wine without any problems. There’s no legitimate reason why Massachusetts consumers shouldn’t be allowed to buy wine at their local grocery stores.

Vote “yes” for consumer choice and fair competition in wine sales.

Authored by:
YES on 1:
Grocery Stores and Consumers for Fair Competition
31 Milk Street, Suite 518
Boston, MA 02109
(800) 817-3507
www.WineAtFoodStores.com

AGAINST: Today there are over 2800 licenses to sell wine, beer and liquor in Massachusetts. A “yes” vote on Question 1 would radically alter current law and would result in over 2800 more licenses to sell alcohol in Massachusetts with no funding for increased enforcement. This will increase underage youth’s access to alcohol, and research demonstrates that more alcohol outlets inevitably lead to increases in drinking related problems, and drunk driving fatalities.

Voters should also know voting “yes” would allow most convenience stores to sell wine, a controlled substance. Young people frequent convenience stores where alcohol could be more readily available for purchase. Also, store clerks in convenience stores do not have the training and experience that experienced package store owners have to stop an underage drinker from purchasing alcohol.

Existing law limits supermarkets and convenience stores to hold only three licenses to sell alcohol. Vote “no” and keep this law.

Authored by:
Wine Merchants and Concerned Citizens for S.A.F.E.T.Y. (Stop Alcohol’s Further Extension to Youth)
One Beacon Street, Suite 1320
Boston, MA 02108
(800) 955-0626
www.noonquestionone.com

2

I’m on the fence. On the one hand, I’ve never felt a great urge to buy wine at my grocery store. On the other hand, the scare tactics about underage drinkers seem exaggerated; if only because underage drinkers don’t seem to have any trouble getting alcohol now.

It’s true that there are a lot of Mom and Pop liquor stores that are going to feel the hurt if this law goes through. Then again, selling just liquor strikes me as, at best, a morally ambiguous way to make a living. Most people aren’t problem drinkers, but a not insignificant percentage of your clientele is. So I have limited sympathy for people who make a living selling booze and lottery tickets.

The bottom line is this will probably mean less choice at my local grocery store as they rip out the ethnic food aisle and put in rows of cheap jug wine.

3

Yes. Grocery stores and convenience stores are, well, more convienent to buy wine. I’ll still go to specialty wine stores to buy wine but for a bottle for dinner while grocery shopping, why not? I only wish this extended to beer as well.

The arguments about underage drinking are bogus. I had no problem getting alcohol growing in Massachusetts, and we never drank wine anyways. I hate being punished for the actions of others.

4

The scare tactics are pretty out of control. The No lobby seems to think that we’ll have 13 year old drunks driving SUVs, mostly due the the “fact” that grocery store workers are incapable of reading drivers licenses.

And I’m not sure that this will put packies out of business. After all, they can still sell beer, scotch, and vodka. And they sell chips and salsa, despite the fact that grocery stores give them plenty of competition.

I guess that I’m mostly in favor, because I see wine as a food ingredient, not a means to get drunk. And one-stop-shopping appeals to me.

5

I should mention, on the other side, that the packy “monopoly” argument seems bogus as well. AFAIK, packies do not agree on price-fixing, they already compete with each other.

I do have to wonder about the quality of product we’d see in grocery stores. Are we talking about the good French stuff, or jugs of Ripple?

6

They’re trying to get a similar change pushed through here.

I’ve always been for it for my personal convenience, until recently when it occurred to me* that it meant local businesses going under while my money goes off to Idaho or California. Which means that I’d get a large selection of crappy beer and cheap wine easily available, but wouldn’t be able to buy the oddball (often inexpensive and usually quite good) wines and beers that I can today.

Now I think I’d rather they dropped all the asinine blue laws that still apply to liquor stores, so that I could buy liquor when I wanted to from them. Almost every grocery store in town has a liquor store within a block - I’d rather make the extra stop than lose the variety.

(Liquor stores here can not sell cold beer or wine, can not be open on Sunday, can not be open on election day, can only be open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. There may be more, that’s just the ones I remember off the top of my head.)

And I think all the scare tactics are a bunch of crap. But, won’t someone please think of the children?!?!

*due to a completely different discussion here on the Dope, of course!

7

Why would this be so? Why wouldn’t liquor stores still sell the good stuff? It seems to me that they would have even more reason to do so, in light of the competition. For that matter, why would grocery stores have a reason to only sell the cheap stuff? One would think that a store that sells lobster, caviar, and specialty cheeses would also carry the better wines.

What am I missing here?

8

I’m completely in favor of being able to buy wine and beer in the grocery store, as a matter of convenience. What’s hilarious is the “evils of drink” line being peddled by the “no” side – which, of course, is made up almost entirely of liquor stores.

9

Where wine is available in grocery stores, I don’t see any great variety – big chain stores go for the lowest common denominator big sellers. So don’t count on getting a lot of interesting wines there. think lots of Kendall Jackson and Turning Leaf and Gallo.

A lot of liquor stores in Massachusetts don’t have much more originality, I’ve found. But the few good and varied stores are going to feel the pinch from this law passing, because some of their clientele is going to be siphoned off by grocery store sales. at least some of their customers will buy there at least some of the time. that’ll hurt them, maybe enough to scuttle them.
i’m close to the edge on this one, but I suspect this will be enough to put a couple of decent wine places out of business.

10

There are a handful of grocery stores in and around Boston that sell wine and beer right now. Check out the selection at the Trader Joe’s in Cambridge, pretty good selection.

But no grocery store is going to commit the space or have the knowledgable staff that a real wine specialty store has. They will stay in business just fine. And, frankly, if some don’t stay in business I’m not going to shed any tears. Places that are profitable only when they have trade restrictions in their favor probably aren’t that well run to begin with. I’d rather have a supermarket that has a fair selection at a good price.

Heck, I live in a dry town anyways, I’ll still have to travel to get anything. :slight_smile:

11

Most people don’t buy expensive wines, they buy box wine or jug wine, or maybe occasionally an inexpensive bottle of something from California. Ergo, most grocery stores are going to primarily carry those items. They may have a small selection of higher quality, but it will be a small selection. Just like you may be able to get a lobster from the grocery store, but you’re not going to have the selection, variety, and knowledge about seafood and shellfish that you’d get at a fishmonger’s. (Not that we have any of those here in landlocked midAmerica, but it’s an example.)

I’m sure liquor stores will still sell good wine. But the loss of income will mean cutting costs, such as the money used to train staff to advise on the lesser known wines, or the money used to compensate staff well in order to keep them around long enough to make them worth training, or the money to take flyers on wines unfamiliar to the locals, and keep them stocked long enough to start selling well. All things that chain stores are unlikely to do.

I’ve seen my local favorite liquor store do all of these things, which is why they now have a large selection of cool, oddball wines that they can sell. Will they still have money to do that if you yank a bunch of their business out from under them? Even if the established stores can continue, will any new stores be able to build up that business? (My store took about ten or fifteen years to build up a wine business starting with the basic set that you’d probably see in the grocery store - they had to train customers to drink something besides jug-wine.)

That store would no longer have the opportunity to obtain new customers to train, thereby building their market of good-wine drinkers, because they’d never see the box-wine drinkers at all (except maybe once a year for “special occasion” wine - but why go to the liquor store when you could just buy one of the 5 high-end wines at the grocery?).

And I think it’ll chain-effect, with liquor stores closing, and quite possibly small, local wineries going under.

I could be wrong, that’s just how I see it working.

It’s a matter of priorities. Some people want box-wine in the grocery store because it’s easier for them. I want box-wine at the liquor store because it’s better for me. (I’m one of those that was trained up from box-wines, and I still buy a fair amount of boxes; I’m not a wine snob if that’s what you’re thinking.)

12

I was born in MA and remember buying in “packies” when I was under age (limit was 18 then). There was one in Dorchester that was notorious. But so much for nostalgia.

I live in Oregon now which allows wine sales in grocery stores. Some of the grocery stores have fantastic wine selections. My local Fred Meyer (a large chain) has hundreds of selections and includes wines from France, Spain, Italy, Chile, and Australia, as well as a wide selection of domestic wines from California, Oregon, and Washington. Prices range from $2.99 plonk to bottles costing well over $100. There are also great specialty wine stores.

The funny thing is that we have state stores for hard liquor. The selection there is kinda limited and the prices are higher than they are in CA.

I’m all for getting rid of blue laws.

13

Until I started seeing the ads for Question 1, I didn’t realize that (most) grocery stores *can’t * sell wine. There’s a Super Stop & Shop three blocks from my home that has a full liquor selection.

I don’t see any harm in allowing alcohol (at least wine and beer) to be sold in grocery and convenience stores. I find the “the cashiers aren’t qualified to check ID” argument ridiculous, as grocery and convenience stores sell cigarettes.

14

I’m voting yes for pure convenience. The ads are a hoot. It kind of makes me wonder what kind of ads would have been run during Prohibition if there had been TV?

15

I’m going to take a guess that that S&S does not, in fact, sell alcohol. It’s probably a completely seperate store that just so happens to physically adjoin the S&S, has a door joining them, and is managed by the same person. But legally, they are different businesses.

16

Nope. Dead in the middle of the store, several aisles of beer, wine, malt beverages, and various hard liquors. There’s no separation at all from the rest of the store, except that they put up barriers to block those aisles after 11:00 pm.

17

I think it’s that some grocery stores, and even convenience stores, have been able to get liquor licenses through the usual channels. It’s a mystery to me why more haven’t done so. There’s a so-called Tedeschi Food Shop near me, which is kind of a glorified convenience store, that sells at least wine and beer.

18

Huh. I wonder hw they got around the law?

19

I wonder if it is really a package store that also sells groceries.

20

Yep. Massachusetts liquor laws are all screwed up. What they describe in the bill is already legal although harder to get approved. Some convenience stores around the state already sell beer and wine and have done so for a couple of years. There is an On the Run convenience store/gas station 5 minutes from me that ripped out half of the soda case and put in beer about two years ago. They also displays of lower end wine and they sell until 10 pm on Sundays and 11 pm weeknights when virtually most stores are closed. There is a similar one on my commute to work. These are 100% genuine, newer convenience stores so there was already a way to do it. Supermarkets already sold beer, wine, and liquor as well although they are limited to three licenses within the state no matter how many locations they have,

That is basically proof that the existing laws are about nothing more than regulating markets and creating semi-monopolies and I am never a fan of that.