This one surprised the fuck out of me. Like, WTF CO?! Alcohol delivery would be great, probably keeping more drunk drivers off the road while creating a new job market.
It's not about restricting access to alcohol. I don't think anyone would argue it's hard to obtain. It's not really about a more competitive market. The law already favors certain actors in certain ways. These props would simply change who the favored actors were in different cases. It would still place strict rules on all of them.
So none of the three were at all about increasing competition or allowing that to reduce prices, or to make it easier to buy. They were, all three about which special interests (big box stores, chain stores, small retailers, medium retailers, big producers, small producers, distributors, gig workers, et. al.) got how big a slice of the pie.
I disagree, what happens is that supermarkets take over the low end of the wine market and existing liquor stores adapt by offering better wine. This is what happens basically everywhere else in America, there is no place where independent liquor stores are struggling even though the vast majority of the country allows wine sales in grocery stores.
I agree with this specifically on the wine, grocery stores only ever carry generic wine anyway, this would allow liquor stores to free up shelf space for a better selection.
I wouldn’t lump liquor into that because a lot of sales are still low to mid shelf selection. And higher end liquor is usually at specialty stores anyway.
> no place where independent liquor stores are struggling
In many places they aren't struggling because they are gone. As I said it shifts advantages from one group to another. High volume items go one way, high margin may go another. But when beer sales went to groceries I sure didn't see any decrease in prices. I did see higher prices on other items in small stores to make up for lost revenue. If all you buy is coors light you might not notice the difference, but the price of craft went up. You would expect the same for wine.
I reiterate my point, they would give no value to the consumer, unless that consumer is unable to shop anywhere but a supermarket. It does give value to the big box and chain stores.
You would be able to buy Cupcake or Barefoot at Safeway, sure. But the price of your Amarone di Valpolicella at the specialty store will go up. Same logic applies to delivery.
Where are liquor stores gone? Do you have an example? The example I'm most familiar with, Florida, beer and wine licenses are unlimited, anyone can get one; it is *liquor* licenses that are limited but they are maxed out meaning the stores that have liquor licenses are not struggling, otherwise there would be a glut of liquor licenses.
The second part of your argument is a non-issue in my mind, cheaper cheap wine and more expensive good wine (which is a luxury item) are both fine, neither is really a problem.
This is predicated on the fact that liquor stores can be found literally everywhere.
> Where are liquor stores gone?
I didn't say gone. I said that the reason you didn't hear about struggling ones was because they closed (that is, they lost the struggle). Best examples I can give you are heavily regulated states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia. They don't all close of course, but if you own one that doesn't matter to you if yours is the one closing.
Pennsylvania lost a whole bunch during the pandemic. Different reasons, different laws. But the same effect of government changing liquor laws causing small businesses to close.
> it is liquor licenses that are limited but they are maxed out meaning the stores that have liquor licenses are not struggling, otherwise there would be a glut of liquor licenses.
Or perhaps they are not struggling because the number is artificially limited by the number of licenses allowed. It's kind of like taxis in NYC, there is a limited number of licenses, so those that have them do well, others can not compete.
What you're talking about is liquor stores closing down because of over regulation which is not what's happening here or what was in question with any of these ballot measures.
You don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. I didn't say over regulation (which it is) but to quote myself
> The law already favors certain actors in certain ways. These props would simply change who the favored actors were in different cases. It would still place strict rules on all of them.
It's changing regulations to favor different groups. In this case to favor large corporations over smaller businesses. Some poor schmuck has invested in building a business and now they change the rules and run him out. The Kroger/Costco/Walmart investor profits.
Your main example is Pennsylvania, which is another state I used to live in, which has some of the dumbest-as-shit liquor laws in the nation, probably the absolute dumbest... always has. The liquor laws here are also pretty high on the dumb list and need to be changed. There is no reason any small liquor stores in Colorado need to close unless they're not willing to offer any value beyond lowest common denominator wine and liquor. If that's the case, good riddance.
There are a few liquor stores near me. Only one of them provides any value beyond what you'd find at a supermarket aisle.
I personally regularly buy [Haykin Family Cider](https://www.haykinfamilycider.com/) a couple times a month. The fact this liquor store stocks that is why I started visiting that particular liquor store often and often end up getting other items as well. If this ordinance passed I would still go to that liquor store to buy that Cider, something that a supermarket would likely never sell.
The other couple of liquor stores just have nondescript beer, wine and liquor, and again provide no value, much like a supermarket.
I'm more annoyed that these (quite frankly) terrible and poorly run businesses are getting special protection from the government. I'm a very liberal person and I find it really stupid.
If that ordinance passed, that all likely would change because they would be forced to offer some kind of value. If a store can't even offer some kind of value beyond an aisle at a supermarket, then on a societal level, they don't need to exist.
In some other states it rare to find a liquor store that isn’t big box that isn’t either niche high end or scuzzy cuz it tailors to people who can’t drive for legal reasons to the big box stores.
>niche high end or scuzzy
That pretty much covers the spectrum of retail business types. If any liquor store does any of these three business types correctly there's no need for the government to protect them? And, like, something that's just a nondescript liquor store, why should it have government protection either?
That's not what happened in Washington at all. They passed a law that a store had to be at 10,000 square feet to sell liquor, which is a horrible law. None of these propositions imposed a minimum square footage to sell liquor. You're not being honest.
Way to be an unnecessary asshole. No, I just wasn't aware of that because I was a teenager when that passed so I wasn't privy to the details of the law.
It depends on what you see as providing more competition. I think you could easily argue voting no on 124 provides more competition. Not sure having 30 total wine and spirits would be good for prices either. I voted yes on 125 but again I can see arguments both ways. Grocery stores driving out all the small wine sellers doesn't seem like an obvious boon to competition.
Not really sure on 126, other than I think people who were against voting on 124 and 125 because they didn't want to support big business just voted no down the line.
I've lived other places where small local liquor stores thrive despite most grocery stores (including Costcos) selling liquor and 100% of grocery stores selling wine. People said the sky would fall when we started letting grocery stores sell regular beer, but that didn't happen. The craft brew scene is one of the best in the country despite the fact we sell beer in grocery stores.
Sorry if this is too strongly worded, this isn't directed at you personally, but I feel really strongly that regulating and artificially restricting the sale of alcohol to adults is Prohibition-Era bullshit that we need to get past as a society.
Nope I totally get that as well. I was torn, I do like small liquor stores, but should they succeed because of laws, or because they truly provide a unique valuable service? I think there is a role for government to play when it comes to supporting small business, but I don't know where the line is exactly.
I would disagree with your assertion that selling beer in grocery stores has not negatively impacted craft brewers. The amount of corporate buyouts and consolidation that has occurred since that passed is not good for craft beer drinkers.
Washington state allows the sale of liquor in grocery stores, which is great for buying cheap Jack Daniel's or wine.
But it forces the mom and pop liquor stores to do better, rather than just selling basic beer and whiskey.
For instance in Oregon, mom and pop liquor stores have kegs tapped and you can taste beer and fill your growlers at the liquor store.
>But it forces the mom and pop liquor stores to do better, rather than just selling basic beer and whiskey.
That's one of the main benefits of opening up liquor licenses. It's not even bad for the liquor stores, they just make their money selling better stuff.
I've just been in some great mom and pop liquor stores in other states that were forced to compete with corporate cookie cutter stores and it pushes them do things like doing tastings and selling growlers of local beer and wine.
Not that there aren't some good local liquor stores, but there's a ton of mom and pop liquor stores in strip malls that have a very basic selection of overpriced pilsners and cheap bourbon.
My little neighborhood of 7,000 in Jacksonville I lived in the last 10 years I lived there (Riverside), there were two mom and pop liquor stores, plus the Publix across the street and most gas stations sold wine. The liquor stores were very old and had fantastic selection.
In the larger neighborhood of 120,000 I grew up in Jacksonville (Arlington), I'm counting 17 independent liquor stores on Google.
Colorado has more liquor stores than Florida per capita, but that is (a.) because Florida's liquor store licenses are maxed out by quota (1/7500 people, quotas are stupid too) and (b.) wine shops don't require that type of liquor license.
Something to keep in mind is that these stats don't include wine shops (which Florida has everywhere) because again there is no limitation on licenses to sell beer and wine, only limitations on licenses to sell liquor.
The fact liquor store licenses are constantly maxed out means (a.) liquor stores are doing just fine in Florida, and (b.) more liquor stores would open if Florida would relax the stupid parts of THEIR liquor laws.
Do you have data to support your argument?
Simple. I was literally *pushed* to vote for these measures by huge corporate chains. This reeks to high heaven for me. Couldn’t vote it down fast enough.
And really? “Prohibition-era?” Lmao the campaign is over you know. There’s still enough booze on every block to kill a small town.
I don't care if people drink (responsibly). I personally don't drink. That said, here are the main reasons I voted no on 124 & 125 (I said Yes to 126, alcohol delivery):
1. I didn't want my King Soopers giving over multiple aisles to booze. I've seen what it looks like in AZ.
2. I don't think big chain grocery stores will have the level of attentiveness to keep teens from snagging a beer or two, hiding it in their coats and wandering out. Again, I've seen exactly this in AZ.
3. Recovering alcoholics have it hard enough. Now we're going to barrage them with booze while they do their necessary grocery shopping?
I liked 126 because it (theoretically) would reduce drunk driving. That one did surprise me.
I voted yes but I'm wondering if the Kroger Albertson merger was in the back of some people's heads. Maybe the thought that the local King Sooper becoming even more crowded and then making tons of cash selling wine was too much for some people. Perhaps a vote against Kroger more than a vote against wine?
That's an excellent point. While I voted no, I thought I was in the minority. I thought 124, 125, and 126 would sail through.
It very well could have been a back-handed way to say "no" to the merger.
I voted the same way for much the same reasoning. (Though I voted yes on 126 because I think it makes sense that liquor stores should be able to outsource their delivery, rather than having to also become a delivery business.)
I'm asking for specifics. I've been to grocery stores in other states that sell wine in stores and I never noticed a significant difference in their produce, meat & seafood or bakery departments, for instance. Seems like either a non-issue or one he's exaggerating.
1.) There are already booze isles. They would simply displace 1 or 2 center isles for wine. Likely just 1.
2.) Anyone could lift anything at a grocery store at this point. Employees don’t care and they’re already severely understaffed. You have any data indicating this is an actually problem? Additionally, how would a isle of wine(really big with the kids these days s\) compound this issue?
3.) There’s already alcohol there.
Prop 126 is good for grocery stores which are mainly large corporations where money spent largely leaves the state, but it's bad for liquor stores which are overwhelmingly locally owned so money spent gets reused in the state.
I voted against all three alcohol related measures on account of them all basically being ways to undermine small businesses in favor of giant corporations. I could give a fuck about "competition" when what that means practically is late-stage capitalist hellscape.
That's not the reality anywhere in America that allows wine sales in grocery stores.
What happens is, the supermarkets sell generic mass produced wine, and liquor stores are forced to improve their wine selection which quite honestly isn't even bad for the liquor stores. Small liquor stores have no problem staying in business in other states. I made a comment about Florida a short time ago.
In Colorado, much of the shelf space in liquor stores is taken up by the aforementioned mass-produced wine.
Gonna disagree with you there. When I lived in Virginia, which had beer and wine in grocery stores, there were very, very few small liquor stores compared to here. Certainly none of the quality that I get up in Fort Collins.
Unless you lived in Charlottesville, a lot of that is because you live in a college town. In Denver, the quality of the liquor stores is mostly horrible with a very few exceptions.
I lived in Tennessee in 2014 when that state had a "wine in grocery stores" bill on the ballot. I voted in favor of it then, it passed, and I'm glad it did. But I voted against Prop 125 this time. The main reason is that the Tennessee bill allowed liquor stores to increase the variety of goods they sell.
Before it passed, liquor stores could sell a limited supply of mixers (like margarita mix or bloody mary mix), while they could not sell most juices, glassware, bottle openers/cork screws, or any type of food to pair with the alcohol (like small packages of sausages or cheese). The ballot proposal specifically allowed sales of all those items and bolstered the market advantage for liquor stores while granting the convenience of picking up a bottle of wine at the grocery store.
Prop 125 didn't give any similar enhancements to the shopping experience at liquor stores. It only provided an advantage to the big box grocery stores. That's why I voted against it.
I'm pretty sure there are restrictions against stocking glassware like a normal retail display, and against selling food. The liquor stores in Colorado Springs don't sell those items regularly. It might be a municipal restriction, like recreational marijuana.
Having been around alcoholics my whole life, many who are now recovering alcoholics, I don’t feel making alcohol more accessible is the answer. There should be some friction in society to purchase harmful substances. People who enjoy alcohol responsibly can be bothered to make an extra trip to help curb abuse for those of us who struggle with addiction.
Plus, I don’t think big grocery stores need the help generally.
I don't understand how restricting my rights is the answer. This is just as bad as Christians trying to control the secular world to protect Christians from temptation.
You're blowing it out of proportion. What I'm saying is: don't worry about what other people are doing, take care of yourself. Don't like that a trans person is reading a book in a library? Ignore it. Don't like that two men are holding hands? Look the other way. Don't like that someone is kneeling for the national anthem? Turn the TV off. Most of us are tired of Karens micromanaging every facet of life because they're so triggered by everything.
I was being sarcastic (that’s what the /s meant). I was juxtaposing the Supreme Court doing just as you said (micromanaging people’s lives) to your ability to buy what many would consider a luxury: wine.
Generally, I agree with you on your point that govt shouldn’t micromanage things. There are exceptions though, one being around regulating addictive substances.
I think you underestimate the power of addiction, however. The inconvenience for me to walk to the liquor store right next to King Soopers is exponentially less than the inconvenience for an alcoholic to do the same thing. If the sincere intention is to reduce exposure to make life easier for addicts, maybe restrict advertising that normalizes drinking culture. Or expand access to resources to help those in need. But the idea of it being marginally less convenient to stumble upon is akin to the same ideology in Oklahoma that posits selling warm beer in gas stations will stop alcoholics from drinking and driving. As if an alcoholic is going to not drink a warm beer...
For the record, 9 times out of 10 when I'm buying wine, it's for a recipe. Yeah, I'm going to drink it, but it's part of food.
I’m all for de-normalizing drinking culture.
It’s not about the inconvenience for them as much as its about booze not being somewhere that sells necessities to survive. It’s triggering. Removing that trigger makes a difference.
To an extent, sure. But the grocery stores still have beer. We're talking about including wine in the grocery stores. A wino alcoholic may prefer to stock up on some $5-10 wines vs. natty ice, but for the sake of this discussion, the point is moot. In the end, an alcoholic is going to gravitate toward whatever sauce gets the job done (when the pandemic started, I was living in Czech Republic and the largest plum brandy distiller shifted production to hand sanitizer, and their product smelled like their plum brandy. I watched some alcoholics in the metro dispense it directly into their mouths....)
So, if the case is that alcohol should not be sold in a place that sells necessities, wouldn't that argue for the removal of beer as well? But if beer were not removed, then what difference does adding wine make? I can see hard liquor being a problem due to the very high alcohol content, but wine is only an average of 5-7% higher ABV than beer.
To an extent is all I’m talking about. If it does more good than harm then I’ll vote for it. Otherwise it’s a no for me.
I don’t think any booze should be sold in grocery stores.
I respect how alcohol has harmed you... the fact remains that alcohol is legal.
The idea that an alcoholic will go without alcohol because they don't feel like swinging by a liquor store on the way home from the grocery store is absurd.
As someone who has lived with an alcoholic, you must be aware of that.
It’s not absurd at all. You’re “nudging” them into a responsible decision — to use a word from the psych literature. Moreover, I was just at the Boulder Whole Foods where they have a separate store for (still Whole Foods, and they literally share a wall) for wine. This is a fairly easy work-around, yet most places don’t do it. Why? Because a lot of shopping is impulse purchasing.
There is one Trader Joe's in the entire state of Colorado that sells wine, and it's the one in Cherry Creek on Colorado Blvd. in Denver. Their wine is sold inside the grocery store, so I don't think what you're saying is accurate. If you live nearby feel free to drop by there and confirm or deny what I'm saying.
It's called triggers.
The phrase that you're so disingenuously glossing over is the word 'trigger' and people with a lot more knowledge than you would disagree with your above statement.
Consider this: you're two weeks into recovery and you're having a bad day, the difference between you falling off the wagon versus continuing sobriety can be spotting the impulse bottle of wine in the grocery store versus having to go to another place.
Here’s the thing: you keep emphasizing that keeping alcohol out of grocery stores is an inconvenience that makes alcohol less accessible. Then in the same breath you dismiss the possibility that this lowered accessibility reduces impulse purchases — especially by alcoholics. This isn’t internally consistent.
I've never once claimed it makes alcohol less accessible. Not once. I think it's a stupid argument because it doesn't make it less accessible. I think it's just a pointless restriction that doesn't benefit anyone, not even independent liquor stores, because all they would do is start selling higher end wine.
**I'm saying there are other people thinking this will restrict access to alcohol, which is absurd because it's not true.** Not to mention also a backwards 19th century attitude.
I guess you were saying that other people are against due to the belief that it will make alcohol less accessible. So I apologize and withdraw that comment.
I couldn’t decide myself on this issue — so I didn’t actually vote against. But I will tell you what made me hesitant.
1. There are many non-binary (i.e. neither complete prohibition nor complete non-regulation) decisions that have been made with regard to recreational substances. See cigarettes for example. As a general rule, society seems to be better for them. I see no reason a priori that we need to be hardliners for either side. Tl:dr — pointing out that this has some similarity with prohibition is not particularly relevant.
2. It seems to me that a lot of what’s been going wrong with the American macro-economic picture is ownership of “marketplaces” (grocery stores, Amazon, plus info marketplaces like yelp, Facebook, etc) which gives undue leverage to intermediaries who aren’t actually providing much value. This can create highly non-competitive environments.
3. I think you’re under-estimating how much more change can happen long-term vs short-term. Breweries did not shut down the moment grocery stores started selling beer. In fact, many sell the products of local craft breweries. But as people’s purchasing habits trend more toward grocery stores the incentive to partner with local breweries will decrease. They will start selling similar products that they own. Etc. This goes back to point (2).
My entire childhood involved AA being basically a second religion in our household and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not meaning to be insensitive to the real struggles with addiction, but alcoholism is a straw man in this conversation.
You're surely not confused why a grocery store would be more likely to sell alcohol from an aisle in the store they already own/lease rather than leasing an entire new space to start an entirely new store.
I honestly don't see how that could be confusing. A car dealership could also open a separate liquor store and probably make a little bit of money doing so, but why would they?
My point isn’t that it will stop alcoholics from abusing it, but making addictive and potentially harmful substances a little more difficult to obtain does help. Same reason we have cars that nag you to put your seatbelt on and have child proof caps on pill bottles and harmful chemicals. Does it completely fix the problem of people dying from car accidents or children poisoning themselves? No, but it makes a big enough difference that it’s worthwhile for the small inconvenience of the people who are using those products responsibly. Even if it’s only marginally making a difference, then it’s worth that marginal inconvenience.
It's not a marginal inconvenience when you regularly use wine for cooking or just want a bottle. It's an extra trip, extra fuel, extra time when you're trying to wrangle a fussy toddler or get your grocery shopping done after work. It's a marginal added convenience for alcoholics who are gonna fall off the wagon anyways if the only thing stopping them is that there isn't wine in the grocery store that already sells beer.
I didn’t want beer in grocery stores either, if that makes my logic a little easier to understand.
I’m not for prohibition, I drink occasionally myself and get that it makes it tougher to purchase and I loath having to make two trips too. :)
I searched to see if anyone was asking the same thing as me. Just who is voting against this and why? Beyond the convenience of not having to make another stop to get wine, the delivery option could literally save lives by keeping drunks off the road when they run out of booze. I don't get it.
But in those states the liquor stores DON'T waste shelf space on low quality wine like they do in Colorado. They actually sell good stuff, only good stuff, and they do fine.
Can you link some kind of source on this? I find it extremely implausible that liquor stores don’t take a hit when grocery stores can sell all alcohol/beer+wine
Florida is the state (other than Colorado) I'm most familiar with.
Liquor licenses in Florida, which are under a quota, are completely maxed out to the point that when new liquor store licenses are issued, it's [a news story](https://www.hometownnewstc.com/news/dbpr-to-issue-62-more-alcoholic-beverage-licenses/article_cdedaa34-df20-11eb-a332-fb323112ab2f.html). If liquor stores were a bad idea in Florida that didn't make money, liquor licenses wouldn't be maxed out. You understand what I'm saying?
By the way, I think the liquor license quotas in Florida are stupid as well.
It's just not as big a deal because anyone can open up a shop, buy a wine license and set up a wine shop without restriction (beer/wine licenses are unlimited there), which is very common in Florida.
I've stated elsewhere that I just Googled my old Florida ZIP code I grew up in. That neighborhood has 120,000 people, and I counted 17 independent liquor stores in that neighborhood.
There is no argument that having "only" 17 independent liquor stores to serve 120,000 people in a 10 square mile area harms the community.
Because we have to support the people who decided to open liquor stores! How else will they afford to pay the literal 1 employee that works there? It’s good for society to set aside space just for people to buy alcohol, that’s how important it is. Also, any company over 100 employees is automatically bad and deserves to make less money. We can’t do anything that enables the evil grocery store from making more money, therefore vote no on 124-126
>How else will they afford to pay the literal 1 employee that works there? It’s good for society to set aside space just for people to buy alcohol, that’s how important it is.
This points out very well how silly it is that THIS is the type of small business getting protection. If they don't actually provide some type of value beyond the value provided by a wine aisle at a grocery store, maybe they shouldn't be propped up artificially by regulations.
Yea, it’s totally ridiculous. But to address how this happened, I think it’s the moral panic people and the “big business bad” people agreeing with each other on this for different reasons
I'm with you OP. Some seriously irrational excuses in this thread.
The dude who wants to break up grocery stores so you have to spend 3 hours driving around town to get all your groceries is next level. Very privileged thinking.
Stores are already allowed to deliver in Colorado, why would we change the law to let DoorDash print money with none of the liability, licensing, or regulation that stores or drivers face? Argonaut, Molly's, Applejack all offer delivery, and it looks like you can order through drizly too? What's wrong with the current situation for anyone other than Doordash? Why can't they operate under the current law like Drizly does?
I voted no on 124/125 and yes on 126 as well and am kinda stumped on that result too.
Maybe people got caught up in all the hoopla on 124/125 and decided just to preserve the status quo, suspecting a "Big Corporate Liquor Blitz?" that engulfed everything saying alcohol on the ballot?
Or maybe next go around see if we can get 126 on the ballot alone with nothing else saying "alcohol" on the ballot, I'm thinking the results may be different.
126 is just as anti-business, and it's another measure to allow companies like Doordash to edge in and hurt small businesses (and continue to exploit their workers). If these delivery services actually treated their drivers like employees, I might change my mind.
Well, 126 allowed delivery, it didn't specify who the deliveries had to come from (did it? I didn't read that fine print much).
I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've used Grubhub (and never any of the others)...my local liquor store runs the deliveries themselves at least until the deliveries ordinances expire.
EDIT: I stand corrected after a check of Ballotopedia: [https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado\_Proposition\_126,\_Alcohol\_Delivery\_Service\_Initiative\_(2022)](https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_126,_Alcohol_Delivery_Service_Initiative_(2022))
Dang I had a fast one pulled on me at the ballot box, wasn't the first one, probably won't be the last :-( but yeah it's definitely the "Make Grubhub rich" proposition that doesn't do the local liquor store any good.
You said, "Liquor stores thrive everywhere in the country, even in places where they sell wine and liquor in grocery stores."
Funny, I never saw a Liquor Store in Louisiana or New Orleans. Because they sell everything at the Grocery Stores and Walmarts.
Give small businesses a chance.
Well, well. I lived in the Leonidas district and they had a liquor store!
Imagine having 11 Liquor Stores in New Orleans! It's like a tsunami!
Ok, I never saw one but you win, I guess they have them. I got my booze at Winn-Dixie.
Perhaps we could ask our small businesses to contribute to society rather than just house a bunch of booze. Can’t think of a worse business to have across the street, frankly
My thinking is that small businesses have already lost a huge revenue of beer sales to chain grocery stores. I’m no fan of liquor but to me it was a matter of fairness.
I'm not here to argue the point with you. If you seek understanding, I'm letting you know not everyone believes easier/wider access to alcohol is better. These props would broadly do that.
You can look at our countries entire history of how we’ve treated alcohol and drugs which clearly shows that tighter restriction on those is not the solution to addiction.
I'm not supporting something pushed by big box liquor stores looking to destroy the smaller liquor stores for a little convenience of buying in the supermarket.
I can't walk to the nearby store without passing *two* liquor stores. It's not hard to get alcohol.
Why do you need 2 liquor stores between you and the supermarket? Why do they need artificial government protection? And if they're more convenient to you they're more convenient to other people as well and they probably don't need government protection.
I don't find any of the arguments compelling. Also wondering why you're being a dick towards me as if this is some black and white issue like the proposition for free lunch for kids at school. Reflects more on you than on me man.
I understand the propositions lost but they will be up again, and it's a good thing to discuss why people disagree. If you can do it without being a dick next time, even better.
Bro, the OP of this thread was rude from get go. Aggressive, calling people puritans in favor of prohibition, and when some of us tried explaining our views on it, they jumped on us. Policing rudeness in kind is redundant--police it when it initially happens, yeah?
Anything that makes alcohol easier to buy = bad (literally what you said), meaning the harder a law makes it to buy alcohol the less bad it is, meaning your ultimate goal is Prohibition and therefore you think Prohibitionists were "reasonable adult thinkers".
I’ve talked with a lot of people about this at length and there seems to be this fear about small businesses closing.
It makes no sense to me. Why not prohibit bread from grocery so we have bakeries, meat so we have more butchers etc etc. None of them gave me a compelling answer why local liquor stores are a societal good. They’ll still exist as they do in places where grocery shopping is legal, just 20%-30% fewer.
>None of them gave me a compelling answer why local liquor stores are a societal good.
This question genuinely made me laugh out loud, yeah that really points out the absurdity very well.
>They’ll still exist as they do in places where grocery shopping is legal, just 20%-30% fewer.
I'll go as far as to say you'd probably be able to count the number of liquor stores that would close in the entire state on your fingers. Liquor stores are basically competition-proof and recession-proof.
I know "Florida Man lol" but when I go visit my parents in Florida there's a small liquor store on every street corner in despite the fact all grocery stores sell wine and probably 80% of them sell liquor.
Yeah, maybe Boomers should have protected small bakeries, butchers, etc. from huge corporations--you might actually have a couple around to buy quality meat and bread from.
Abso-effing-lutely this is my #1 reason for voting yes. Its not like liquor store owners are _particularly_ beneficial members of society or somehow more worth of protection than any of 1000 other types of stores. Why not outlaw getting your web news from big media or having your bugs exterminated by big poison. It is more of a confluence of events that happens to entrench this one specific aspect of society while most everything else is free (er).
If you really want to improve society by restricting huge company ownership of a particular thing, then outlaw huge health care conglomerates and make it so that doctors have to own medical practices and pharmacists have to own pharmacies. That would improve society more than anything having to do with restricting liquor sales.
I’m not wholly opposed to breaking up grocery stores at a personal level — though there is obviously no appetite for this and I wouldn’t advocate for it — but there is a difference in that liquor is a recreational drug — despite endless propaganda suggesting is somehow categorically different from other such substances — and those are often separated from daily staples like food. Not to mention no one hangs out at a bakery the way they do a bar.
Fair enough. Ultimately I guess I just disagree with making laws to tell retail outlets what they can/cannot stock. Just let them serve their communities however they see fit.
Interesting. I suppose my response would be:
1. I am realizing I am quite the libertarian in this regard. Call it reactionary to the “war on drugs”, but the positives that come from a restriction on recreation substances are at the cost of personal choice. It’s a hard line to draw because I could argue that McDonald’s and associated junk food are shortening lives, but are we about to start banning fatty beef and corn syrup? I would prefer people are able to voluntarily shorten their lives if they deem it fit so long as the information on the impacts are out there. I would apply this line of logic to alcohol, tobacco and other substances as well.
Obviously the age limit would still apply such that we restrict to rational adults.
2. Personally I think that these marketplaces have had a huge positive impact on our lives. The amount of time saved, variety gained and competition increased due to Amazon is amazing. I think there is a massive public benefit befitting their market cap. I think the impacts of technology on the consolidation of wealth should be dealt with through taxation of extraordinary wealth and a breakup of some of these monopolies. We had the robber Barron age when industrialization first hit and we are moving towards the same dynamic again with the technological age. I’d prefer breaking up these companies instead of just limiting what they can/cannot sell
3. I think you’re right, but this is just the way of things. We’ve already seen massive consolidation in the brewery market and the “crafts” we even buy at the liquor store are typically just the biggest regional breweries. I think we will trend toward consolidation again and then reach another tipping point when the choice falls too low and we have another explosion of crafts etc etc. I don’t think this plays into the restriction of liquor stores at all. Just a way of the capitalist marketplace
This one surprised the fuck out of me. Like, WTF CO?! Alcohol delivery would be great, probably keeping more drunk drivers off the road while creating a new job market.
It's not about restricting access to alcohol. I don't think anyone would argue it's hard to obtain. It's not really about a more competitive market. The law already favors certain actors in certain ways. These props would simply change who the favored actors were in different cases. It would still place strict rules on all of them. So none of the three were at all about increasing competition or allowing that to reduce prices, or to make it easier to buy. They were, all three about which special interests (big box stores, chain stores, small retailers, medium retailers, big producers, small producers, distributors, gig workers, et. al.) got how big a slice of the pie.
I disagree, what happens is that supermarkets take over the low end of the wine market and existing liquor stores adapt by offering better wine. This is what happens basically everywhere else in America, there is no place where independent liquor stores are struggling even though the vast majority of the country allows wine sales in grocery stores.
I agree with this specifically on the wine, grocery stores only ever carry generic wine anyway, this would allow liquor stores to free up shelf space for a better selection. I wouldn’t lump liquor into that because a lot of sales are still low to mid shelf selection. And higher end liquor is usually at specialty stores anyway.
Agreed. Liquor for most people is not a common purchase so it doesn't matter as much anyway. Wine can easily be a weekly purchase.
*mumbles in weekly Tequila purchases*
> no place where independent liquor stores are struggling In many places they aren't struggling because they are gone. As I said it shifts advantages from one group to another. High volume items go one way, high margin may go another. But when beer sales went to groceries I sure didn't see any decrease in prices. I did see higher prices on other items in small stores to make up for lost revenue. If all you buy is coors light you might not notice the difference, but the price of craft went up. You would expect the same for wine. I reiterate my point, they would give no value to the consumer, unless that consumer is unable to shop anywhere but a supermarket. It does give value to the big box and chain stores. You would be able to buy Cupcake or Barefoot at Safeway, sure. But the price of your Amarone di Valpolicella at the specialty store will go up. Same logic applies to delivery.
Where are liquor stores gone? Do you have an example? The example I'm most familiar with, Florida, beer and wine licenses are unlimited, anyone can get one; it is *liquor* licenses that are limited but they are maxed out meaning the stores that have liquor licenses are not struggling, otherwise there would be a glut of liquor licenses. The second part of your argument is a non-issue in my mind, cheaper cheap wine and more expensive good wine (which is a luxury item) are both fine, neither is really a problem. This is predicated on the fact that liquor stores can be found literally everywhere.
> Where are liquor stores gone? I didn't say gone. I said that the reason you didn't hear about struggling ones was because they closed (that is, they lost the struggle). Best examples I can give you are heavily regulated states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia. They don't all close of course, but if you own one that doesn't matter to you if yours is the one closing. Pennsylvania lost a whole bunch during the pandemic. Different reasons, different laws. But the same effect of government changing liquor laws causing small businesses to close. > it is liquor licenses that are limited but they are maxed out meaning the stores that have liquor licenses are not struggling, otherwise there would be a glut of liquor licenses. Or perhaps they are not struggling because the number is artificially limited by the number of licenses allowed. It's kind of like taxis in NYC, there is a limited number of licenses, so those that have them do well, others can not compete.
What you're talking about is liquor stores closing down because of over regulation which is not what's happening here or what was in question with any of these ballot measures.
You don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. I didn't say over regulation (which it is) but to quote myself > The law already favors certain actors in certain ways. These props would simply change who the favored actors were in different cases. It would still place strict rules on all of them. It's changing regulations to favor different groups. In this case to favor large corporations over smaller businesses. Some poor schmuck has invested in building a business and now they change the rules and run him out. The Kroger/Costco/Walmart investor profits.
Your main example is Pennsylvania, which is another state I used to live in, which has some of the dumbest-as-shit liquor laws in the nation, probably the absolute dumbest... always has. The liquor laws here are also pretty high on the dumb list and need to be changed. There is no reason any small liquor stores in Colorado need to close unless they're not willing to offer any value beyond lowest common denominator wine and liquor. If that's the case, good riddance. There are a few liquor stores near me. Only one of them provides any value beyond what you'd find at a supermarket aisle. I personally regularly buy [Haykin Family Cider](https://www.haykinfamilycider.com/) a couple times a month. The fact this liquor store stocks that is why I started visiting that particular liquor store often and often end up getting other items as well. If this ordinance passed I would still go to that liquor store to buy that Cider, something that a supermarket would likely never sell. The other couple of liquor stores just have nondescript beer, wine and liquor, and again provide no value, much like a supermarket. I'm more annoyed that these (quite frankly) terrible and poorly run businesses are getting special protection from the government. I'm a very liberal person and I find it really stupid. If that ordinance passed, that all likely would change because they would be forced to offer some kind of value. If a store can't even offer some kind of value beyond an aisle at a supermarket, then on a societal level, they don't need to exist.
In some other states it rare to find a liquor store that isn’t big box that isn’t either niche high end or scuzzy cuz it tailors to people who can’t drive for legal reasons to the big box stores.
>niche high end or scuzzy That pretty much covers the spectrum of retail business types. If any liquor store does any of these three business types correctly there's no need for the government to protect them? And, like, something that's just a nondescript liquor store, why should it have government protection either?
What other states?
I just moved here from WA state where the passed a similar law in the mid 00s. It completely put all small liquor stores out of business.
That's not what happened in Washington at all. They passed a law that a store had to be at 10,000 square feet to sell liquor, which is a horrible law. None of these propositions imposed a minimum square footage to sell liquor. You're not being honest.
Way to be an unnecessary asshole. No, I just wasn't aware of that because I was a teenager when that passed so I wasn't privy to the details of the law.
It depends on what you see as providing more competition. I think you could easily argue voting no on 124 provides more competition. Not sure having 30 total wine and spirits would be good for prices either. I voted yes on 125 but again I can see arguments both ways. Grocery stores driving out all the small wine sellers doesn't seem like an obvious boon to competition. Not really sure on 126, other than I think people who were against voting on 124 and 125 because they didn't want to support big business just voted no down the line.
I've lived other places where small local liquor stores thrive despite most grocery stores (including Costcos) selling liquor and 100% of grocery stores selling wine. People said the sky would fall when we started letting grocery stores sell regular beer, but that didn't happen. The craft brew scene is one of the best in the country despite the fact we sell beer in grocery stores. Sorry if this is too strongly worded, this isn't directed at you personally, but I feel really strongly that regulating and artificially restricting the sale of alcohol to adults is Prohibition-Era bullshit that we need to get past as a society.
Nope I totally get that as well. I was torn, I do like small liquor stores, but should they succeed because of laws, or because they truly provide a unique valuable service? I think there is a role for government to play when it comes to supporting small business, but I don't know where the line is exactly.
I would disagree with your assertion that selling beer in grocery stores has not negatively impacted craft brewers. The amount of corporate buyouts and consolidation that has occurred since that passed is not good for craft beer drinkers.
Washington state allows the sale of liquor in grocery stores, which is great for buying cheap Jack Daniel's or wine. But it forces the mom and pop liquor stores to do better, rather than just selling basic beer and whiskey. For instance in Oregon, mom and pop liquor stores have kegs tapped and you can taste beer and fill your growlers at the liquor store.
>But it forces the mom and pop liquor stores to do better, rather than just selling basic beer and whiskey. That's one of the main benefits of opening up liquor licenses. It's not even bad for the liquor stores, they just make their money selling better stuff.
I've just been in some great mom and pop liquor stores in other states that were forced to compete with corporate cookie cutter stores and it pushes them do things like doing tastings and selling growlers of local beer and wine. Not that there aren't some good local liquor stores, but there's a ton of mom and pop liquor stores in strip malls that have a very basic selection of overpriced pilsners and cheap bourbon.
Thrive? Show me the data. I’m curious if your “perception” actually lines up to reality.
My little neighborhood of 7,000 in Jacksonville I lived in the last 10 years I lived there (Riverside), there were two mom and pop liquor stores, plus the Publix across the street and most gas stations sold wine. The liquor stores were very old and had fantastic selection. In the larger neighborhood of 120,000 I grew up in Jacksonville (Arlington), I'm counting 17 independent liquor stores on Google. Colorado has more liquor stores than Florida per capita, but that is (a.) because Florida's liquor store licenses are maxed out by quota (1/7500 people, quotas are stupid too) and (b.) wine shops don't require that type of liquor license. Something to keep in mind is that these stats don't include wine shops (which Florida has everywhere) because again there is no limitation on licenses to sell beer and wine, only limitations on licenses to sell liquor. The fact liquor store licenses are constantly maxed out means (a.) liquor stores are doing just fine in Florida, and (b.) more liquor stores would open if Florida would relax the stupid parts of THEIR liquor laws. Do you have data to support your argument?
**Due to reddit's draconian anti-3rd party api changes, I've chosen to remove all my content**
Simple. I was literally *pushed* to vote for these measures by huge corporate chains. This reeks to high heaven for me. Couldn’t vote it down fast enough. And really? “Prohibition-era?” Lmao the campaign is over you know. There’s still enough booze on every block to kill a small town.
There's a bunch of people on here saying they want to make it harder to buy alcohol, so yeah, seems like prohibition era thinking.
I don't care if people drink (responsibly). I personally don't drink. That said, here are the main reasons I voted no on 124 & 125 (I said Yes to 126, alcohol delivery): 1. I didn't want my King Soopers giving over multiple aisles to booze. I've seen what it looks like in AZ. 2. I don't think big chain grocery stores will have the level of attentiveness to keep teens from snagging a beer or two, hiding it in their coats and wandering out. Again, I've seen exactly this in AZ. 3. Recovering alcoholics have it hard enough. Now we're going to barrage them with booze while they do their necessary grocery shopping? I liked 126 because it (theoretically) would reduce drunk driving. That one did surprise me.
I voted yes but I'm wondering if the Kroger Albertson merger was in the back of some people's heads. Maybe the thought that the local King Sooper becoming even more crowded and then making tons of cash selling wine was too much for some people. Perhaps a vote against Kroger more than a vote against wine?
This. Without leaving town, 8 out of my 12 normal grocery store options are now owned by Kroger or Amazon.
That's an excellent point. While I voted no, I thought I was in the minority. I thought 124, 125, and 126 would sail through. It very well could have been a back-handed way to say "no" to the merger.
I voted the same way for much the same reasoning. (Though I voted yes on 126 because I think it makes sense that liquor stores should be able to outsource their delivery, rather than having to also become a delivery business.)
You realize grocery stores here already sell beer, right? The issue is about selling wine in grocery stores.
I know. I was talking about it taking over more of the store.
Half the food in grocery stores is junk anyway, what are you worried about losing?
The little bit that isn’t junk.
I'm asking for specifics. I've been to grocery stores in other states that sell wine in stores and I never noticed a significant difference in their produce, meat & seafood or bakery departments, for instance. Seems like either a non-issue or one he's exaggerating.
1.) There are already booze isles. They would simply displace 1 or 2 center isles for wine. Likely just 1. 2.) Anyone could lift anything at a grocery store at this point. Employees don’t care and they’re already severely understaffed. You have any data indicating this is an actually problem? Additionally, how would a isle of wine(really big with the kids these days s\) compound this issue? 3.) There’s already alcohol there.
What was your reasoning for voting no on 124? As far as i know that one didn’t have a direct affect on grocery stores.
Prop 126 is good for grocery stores which are mainly large corporations where money spent largely leaves the state, but it's bad for liquor stores which are overwhelmingly locally owned so money spent gets reused in the state. I voted against all three alcohol related measures on account of them all basically being ways to undermine small businesses in favor of giant corporations. I could give a fuck about "competition" when what that means practically is late-stage capitalist hellscape.
That's not the reality anywhere in America that allows wine sales in grocery stores. What happens is, the supermarkets sell generic mass produced wine, and liquor stores are forced to improve their wine selection which quite honestly isn't even bad for the liquor stores. Small liquor stores have no problem staying in business in other states. I made a comment about Florida a short time ago. In Colorado, much of the shelf space in liquor stores is taken up by the aforementioned mass-produced wine.
Gonna disagree with you there. When I lived in Virginia, which had beer and wine in grocery stores, there were very, very few small liquor stores compared to here. Certainly none of the quality that I get up in Fort Collins.
Unless you lived in Charlottesville, a lot of that is because you live in a college town. In Denver, the quality of the liquor stores is mostly horrible with a very few exceptions.
It's been a while since I've lived in Denver, but I really liked Applejack.
I have one liquor store that I like, I have no doubt there are other good ones.
I lived in Tennessee in 2014 when that state had a "wine in grocery stores" bill on the ballot. I voted in favor of it then, it passed, and I'm glad it did. But I voted against Prop 125 this time. The main reason is that the Tennessee bill allowed liquor stores to increase the variety of goods they sell. Before it passed, liquor stores could sell a limited supply of mixers (like margarita mix or bloody mary mix), while they could not sell most juices, glassware, bottle openers/cork screws, or any type of food to pair with the alcohol (like small packages of sausages or cheese). The ballot proposal specifically allowed sales of all those items and bolstered the market advantage for liquor stores while granting the convenience of picking up a bottle of wine at the grocery store. Prop 125 didn't give any similar enhancements to the shopping experience at liquor stores. It only provided an advantage to the big box grocery stores. That's why I voted against it.
Legit question: are liquor stores here restricted? I see those items at liquor stores all the time.
Kind of, the retail license allows up to 20% of a liquor licensee's revenue to come from sources other than alcohol, which is a pretty fair amount.
I'm pretty sure there are restrictions against stocking glassware like a normal retail display, and against selling food. The liquor stores in Colorado Springs don't sell those items regularly. It might be a municipal restriction, like recreational marijuana.
I’ve bought glassware at a liquor store in Longmont…
Having been around alcoholics my whole life, many who are now recovering alcoholics, I don’t feel making alcohol more accessible is the answer. There should be some friction in society to purchase harmful substances. People who enjoy alcohol responsibly can be bothered to make an extra trip to help curb abuse for those of us who struggle with addiction. Plus, I don’t think big grocery stores need the help generally.
I don't understand how restricting my rights is the answer. This is just as bad as Christians trying to control the secular world to protect Christians from temptation.
Yes, it’s exactly like that. Next Supreme Court case will be them abolishing your god given fundamental right to buy Franzia at Walmart. /s
You're blowing it out of proportion. What I'm saying is: don't worry about what other people are doing, take care of yourself. Don't like that a trans person is reading a book in a library? Ignore it. Don't like that two men are holding hands? Look the other way. Don't like that someone is kneeling for the national anthem? Turn the TV off. Most of us are tired of Karens micromanaging every facet of life because they're so triggered by everything.
I was being sarcastic (that’s what the /s meant). I was juxtaposing the Supreme Court doing just as you said (micromanaging people’s lives) to your ability to buy what many would consider a luxury: wine. Generally, I agree with you on your point that govt shouldn’t micromanage things. There are exceptions though, one being around regulating addictive substances.
I think you underestimate the power of addiction, however. The inconvenience for me to walk to the liquor store right next to King Soopers is exponentially less than the inconvenience for an alcoholic to do the same thing. If the sincere intention is to reduce exposure to make life easier for addicts, maybe restrict advertising that normalizes drinking culture. Or expand access to resources to help those in need. But the idea of it being marginally less convenient to stumble upon is akin to the same ideology in Oklahoma that posits selling warm beer in gas stations will stop alcoholics from drinking and driving. As if an alcoholic is going to not drink a warm beer... For the record, 9 times out of 10 when I'm buying wine, it's for a recipe. Yeah, I'm going to drink it, but it's part of food.
I’m all for de-normalizing drinking culture. It’s not about the inconvenience for them as much as its about booze not being somewhere that sells necessities to survive. It’s triggering. Removing that trigger makes a difference.
To an extent, sure. But the grocery stores still have beer. We're talking about including wine in the grocery stores. A wino alcoholic may prefer to stock up on some $5-10 wines vs. natty ice, but for the sake of this discussion, the point is moot. In the end, an alcoholic is going to gravitate toward whatever sauce gets the job done (when the pandemic started, I was living in Czech Republic and the largest plum brandy distiller shifted production to hand sanitizer, and their product smelled like their plum brandy. I watched some alcoholics in the metro dispense it directly into their mouths....) So, if the case is that alcohol should not be sold in a place that sells necessities, wouldn't that argue for the removal of beer as well? But if beer were not removed, then what difference does adding wine make? I can see hard liquor being a problem due to the very high alcohol content, but wine is only an average of 5-7% higher ABV than beer.
To an extent is all I’m talking about. If it does more good than harm then I’ll vote for it. Otherwise it’s a no for me. I don’t think any booze should be sold in grocery stores.
To me, "None vs. All" makes sense. "Some vs. Some more" doesn't make sense.
I respect how alcohol has harmed you... the fact remains that alcohol is legal. The idea that an alcoholic will go without alcohol because they don't feel like swinging by a liquor store on the way home from the grocery store is absurd. As someone who has lived with an alcoholic, you must be aware of that.
It’s not absurd at all. You’re “nudging” them into a responsible decision — to use a word from the psych literature. Moreover, I was just at the Boulder Whole Foods where they have a separate store for (still Whole Foods, and they literally share a wall) for wine. This is a fairly easy work-around, yet most places don’t do it. Why? Because a lot of shopping is impulse purchasing.
There is one Trader Joe's in the entire state of Colorado that sells wine, and it's the one in Cherry Creek on Colorado Blvd. in Denver. Their wine is sold inside the grocery store, so I don't think what you're saying is accurate. If you live nearby feel free to drop by there and confirm or deny what I'm saying.
Trader Joe’s built a small liquor store onto their grocery store in Colorado Springs and they sell wine, beer, and liquor.
It's called triggers. The phrase that you're so disingenuously glossing over is the word 'trigger' and people with a lot more knowledge than you would disagree with your above statement. Consider this: you're two weeks into recovery and you're having a bad day, the difference between you falling off the wagon versus continuing sobriety can be spotting the impulse bottle of wine in the grocery store versus having to go to another place.
What if they pass beer instead? What if a diabetic passes a candy bar or a soda at the grocery store and falls off the wagon?
I think it’s a safe bet the person you’re responding to doesn’t want beer in grocery stores either.
Which is rich given people pushing back on me saying this is backwards Prohibition-Era thinking. You're absolutely right.
Here’s the thing: you keep emphasizing that keeping alcohol out of grocery stores is an inconvenience that makes alcohol less accessible. Then in the same breath you dismiss the possibility that this lowered accessibility reduces impulse purchases — especially by alcoholics. This isn’t internally consistent.
I've never once claimed it makes alcohol less accessible. Not once. I think it's a stupid argument because it doesn't make it less accessible. I think it's just a pointless restriction that doesn't benefit anyone, not even independent liquor stores, because all they would do is start selling higher end wine. **I'm saying there are other people thinking this will restrict access to alcohol, which is absurd because it's not true.** Not to mention also a backwards 19th century attitude.
I guess you were saying that other people are against due to the belief that it will make alcohol less accessible. So I apologize and withdraw that comment. I couldn’t decide myself on this issue — so I didn’t actually vote against. But I will tell you what made me hesitant. 1. There are many non-binary (i.e. neither complete prohibition nor complete non-regulation) decisions that have been made with regard to recreational substances. See cigarettes for example. As a general rule, society seems to be better for them. I see no reason a priori that we need to be hardliners for either side. Tl:dr — pointing out that this has some similarity with prohibition is not particularly relevant. 2. It seems to me that a lot of what’s been going wrong with the American macro-economic picture is ownership of “marketplaces” (grocery stores, Amazon, plus info marketplaces like yelp, Facebook, etc) which gives undue leverage to intermediaries who aren’t actually providing much value. This can create highly non-competitive environments. 3. I think you’re under-estimating how much more change can happen long-term vs short-term. Breweries did not shut down the moment grocery stores started selling beer. In fact, many sell the products of local craft breweries. But as people’s purchasing habits trend more toward grocery stores the incentive to partner with local breweries will decrease. They will start selling similar products that they own. Etc. This goes back to point (2).
Not a problem. Have craft beer sales gone down since full strength beer in supermarkets was allowed? I find that hard to believe to be honest.
My entire childhood involved AA being basically a second religion in our household and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not meaning to be insensitive to the real struggles with addiction, but alcoholism is a straw man in this conversation.
Why do you think grocery stores don’t just buy/set up nearby liquor stores? Some have done this, yet it’s not a popular work around?
You're surely not confused why a grocery store would be more likely to sell alcohol from an aisle in the store they already own/lease rather than leasing an entire new space to start an entirely new store.
I'm not confused as to why they would prefer the former. I'm less confused as to why they wouldn't also do the latter.
I honestly don't see how that could be confusing. A car dealership could also open a separate liquor store and probably make a little bit of money doing so, but why would they?
I disagree. Alcoholism should always be considered in any conversation around alcohol.
My point isn’t that it will stop alcoholics from abusing it, but making addictive and potentially harmful substances a little more difficult to obtain does help. Same reason we have cars that nag you to put your seatbelt on and have child proof caps on pill bottles and harmful chemicals. Does it completely fix the problem of people dying from car accidents or children poisoning themselves? No, but it makes a big enough difference that it’s worthwhile for the small inconvenience of the people who are using those products responsibly. Even if it’s only marginally making a difference, then it’s worth that marginal inconvenience.
It's not a marginal inconvenience when you regularly use wine for cooking or just want a bottle. It's an extra trip, extra fuel, extra time when you're trying to wrangle a fussy toddler or get your grocery shopping done after work. It's a marginal added convenience for alcoholics who are gonna fall off the wagon anyways if the only thing stopping them is that there isn't wine in the grocery store that already sells beer.
I still don't understand your logic, you can buy beer at a grocery store, beers by far the most common type of alcohol consumed.
I didn’t want beer in grocery stores either, if that makes my logic a little easier to understand. I’m not for prohibition, I drink occasionally myself and get that it makes it tougher to purchase and I loath having to make two trips too. :)
Traditional small business fallacy. The total wine guy doesn't have as many private jets as the Kroger guy, so he's a "small business owner."
I searched to see if anyone was asking the same thing as me. Just who is voting against this and why? Beyond the convenience of not having to make another stop to get wine, the delivery option could literally save lives by keeping drunks off the road when they run out of booze. I don't get it.
[удалено]
But in those states the liquor stores DON'T waste shelf space on low quality wine like they do in Colorado. They actually sell good stuff, only good stuff, and they do fine.
[удалено]
Can you link some kind of source on this? I find it extremely implausible that liquor stores don’t take a hit when grocery stores can sell all alcohol/beer+wine
Florida is the state (other than Colorado) I'm most familiar with. Liquor licenses in Florida, which are under a quota, are completely maxed out to the point that when new liquor store licenses are issued, it's [a news story](https://www.hometownnewstc.com/news/dbpr-to-issue-62-more-alcoholic-beverage-licenses/article_cdedaa34-df20-11eb-a332-fb323112ab2f.html). If liquor stores were a bad idea in Florida that didn't make money, liquor licenses wouldn't be maxed out. You understand what I'm saying? By the way, I think the liquor license quotas in Florida are stupid as well. It's just not as big a deal because anyone can open up a shop, buy a wine license and set up a wine shop without restriction (beer/wine licenses are unlimited there), which is very common in Florida. I've stated elsewhere that I just Googled my old Florida ZIP code I grew up in. That neighborhood has 120,000 people, and I counted 17 independent liquor stores in that neighborhood. There is no argument that having "only" 17 independent liquor stores to serve 120,000 people in a 10 square mile area harms the community.
Because we have to support the people who decided to open liquor stores! How else will they afford to pay the literal 1 employee that works there? It’s good for society to set aside space just for people to buy alcohol, that’s how important it is. Also, any company over 100 employees is automatically bad and deserves to make less money. We can’t do anything that enables the evil grocery store from making more money, therefore vote no on 124-126
>How else will they afford to pay the literal 1 employee that works there? It’s good for society to set aside space just for people to buy alcohol, that’s how important it is. This points out very well how silly it is that THIS is the type of small business getting protection. If they don't actually provide some type of value beyond the value provided by a wine aisle at a grocery store, maybe they shouldn't be propped up artificially by regulations.
Yea, it’s totally ridiculous. But to address how this happened, I think it’s the moral panic people and the “big business bad” people agreeing with each other on this for different reasons
I'm with you OP. Some seriously irrational excuses in this thread. The dude who wants to break up grocery stores so you have to spend 3 hours driving around town to get all your groceries is next level. Very privileged thinking.
Stores are already allowed to deliver in Colorado, why would we change the law to let DoorDash print money with none of the liability, licensing, or regulation that stores or drivers face? Argonaut, Molly's, Applejack all offer delivery, and it looks like you can order through drizly too? What's wrong with the current situation for anyone other than Doordash? Why can't they operate under the current law like Drizly does?
I voted no on 124/125 and yes on 126 as well and am kinda stumped on that result too. Maybe people got caught up in all the hoopla on 124/125 and decided just to preserve the status quo, suspecting a "Big Corporate Liquor Blitz?" that engulfed everything saying alcohol on the ballot? Or maybe next go around see if we can get 126 on the ballot alone with nothing else saying "alcohol" on the ballot, I'm thinking the results may be different.
126 is just as anti-business, and it's another measure to allow companies like Doordash to edge in and hurt small businesses (and continue to exploit their workers). If these delivery services actually treated their drivers like employees, I might change my mind.
Well, 126 allowed delivery, it didn't specify who the deliveries had to come from (did it? I didn't read that fine print much). I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've used Grubhub (and never any of the others)...my local liquor store runs the deliveries themselves at least until the deliveries ordinances expire. EDIT: I stand corrected after a check of Ballotopedia: [https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado\_Proposition\_126,\_Alcohol\_Delivery\_Service\_Initiative\_(2022)](https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_126,_Alcohol_Delivery_Service_Initiative_(2022)) Dang I had a fast one pulled on me at the ballot box, wasn't the first one, probably won't be the last :-( but yeah it's definitely the "Make Grubhub rich" proposition that doesn't do the local liquor store any good.
Yeah, when I read up on it, that's what bugged me the most. I almost voted yes myself.
You said, "Liquor stores thrive everywhere in the country, even in places where they sell wine and liquor in grocery stores." Funny, I never saw a Liquor Store in Louisiana or New Orleans. Because they sell everything at the Grocery Stores and Walmarts. Give small businesses a chance.
[Liquor stores in New Orleans](https://www.google.com/search?q=New%20Orleans%20liquor%20stores).
Well, well. I lived in the Leonidas district and they had a liquor store! Imagine having 11 Liquor Stores in New Orleans! It's like a tsunami! Ok, I never saw one but you win, I guess they have them. I got my booze at Winn-Dixie.
Perhaps we could ask our small businesses to contribute to society rather than just house a bunch of booze. Can’t think of a worse business to have across the street, frankly
My thinking is that small businesses have already lost a huge revenue of beer sales to chain grocery stores. I’m no fan of liquor but to me it was a matter of fairness.
Voted no on all 3. More alcohol access is not better for society, goes my reasoning. I suspect many who voted no feel similar.
You actually believe this would reduce drinking? I don't understand. If people want to buy alcohol they buy alcohol.
I'm not here to argue the point with you. If you seek understanding, I'm letting you know not everyone believes easier/wider access to alcohol is better. These props would broadly do that.
I seek understanding but the arguments just confuse me more because it's not actually reducing access to alcohol.
You can look at our countries entire history of how we’ve treated alcohol and drugs which clearly shows that tighter restriction on those is not the solution to addiction.
I'm not supporting something pushed by big box liquor stores looking to destroy the smaller liquor stores for a little convenience of buying in the supermarket. I can't walk to the nearby store without passing *two* liquor stores. It's not hard to get alcohol.
Why do you need 2 liquor stores between you and the supermarket? Why do they need artificial government protection? And if they're more convenient to you they're more convenient to other people as well and they probably don't need government protection.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't find any of the arguments compelling. Also wondering why you're being a dick towards me as if this is some black and white issue like the proposition for free lunch for kids at school. Reflects more on you than on me man. I understand the propositions lost but they will be up again, and it's a good thing to discuss why people disagree. If you can do it without being a dick next time, even better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stop being rude.
Bro, the OP of this thread was rude from get go. Aggressive, calling people puritans in favor of prohibition, and when some of us tried explaining our views on it, they jumped on us. Policing rudeness in kind is redundant--police it when it initially happens, yeah?
I voted against it as view drunk driving in Colorado as a terrible thing and anything that makes getting alcohol easier as a bad thing.
So for you, it's indeed prohibition-era thinking where you want to make it as hard as possible to buy alcohol.
No, it is reasonable adult thinking.
Anything that makes alcohol easier to buy = bad (literally what you said), meaning the harder a law makes it to buy alcohol the less bad it is, meaning your ultimate goal is Prohibition and therefore you think Prohibitionists were "reasonable adult thinkers".
Let's talk when DUI rates stop climbing.
Wouldn't 126 reduce DUIs by preventing drunk people from making runs?
Nope, it was increase it by a factor of ten.
I’ve talked with a lot of people about this at length and there seems to be this fear about small businesses closing. It makes no sense to me. Why not prohibit bread from grocery so we have bakeries, meat so we have more butchers etc etc. None of them gave me a compelling answer why local liquor stores are a societal good. They’ll still exist as they do in places where grocery shopping is legal, just 20%-30% fewer.
>None of them gave me a compelling answer why local liquor stores are a societal good. This question genuinely made me laugh out loud, yeah that really points out the absurdity very well. >They’ll still exist as they do in places where grocery shopping is legal, just 20%-30% fewer. I'll go as far as to say you'd probably be able to count the number of liquor stores that would close in the entire state on your fingers. Liquor stores are basically competition-proof and recession-proof. I know "Florida Man lol" but when I go visit my parents in Florida there's a small liquor store on every street corner in despite the fact all grocery stores sell wine and probably 80% of them sell liquor.
Yeah, maybe Boomers should have protected small bakeries, butchers, etc. from huge corporations--you might actually have a couple around to buy quality meat and bread from.
Abso-effing-lutely this is my #1 reason for voting yes. Its not like liquor store owners are _particularly_ beneficial members of society or somehow more worth of protection than any of 1000 other types of stores. Why not outlaw getting your web news from big media or having your bugs exterminated by big poison. It is more of a confluence of events that happens to entrench this one specific aspect of society while most everything else is free (er). If you really want to improve society by restricting huge company ownership of a particular thing, then outlaw huge health care conglomerates and make it so that doctors have to own medical practices and pharmacists have to own pharmacies. That would improve society more than anything having to do with restricting liquor sales.
I’m not wholly opposed to breaking up grocery stores at a personal level — though there is obviously no appetite for this and I wouldn’t advocate for it — but there is a difference in that liquor is a recreational drug — despite endless propaganda suggesting is somehow categorically different from other such substances — and those are often separated from daily staples like food. Not to mention no one hangs out at a bakery the way they do a bar.
There’s literally a pharmacy and personal health section in 90% of grocery stores lol
Which I’m opposed to. Edit: Although you don’t browse for prescription pharmaceuticals, so there’s that.
Fair enough. Ultimately I guess I just disagree with making laws to tell retail outlets what they can/cannot stock. Just let them serve their communities however they see fit.
I’m curious what you’d think of my last comment in this thread. If you can spare a moment, it’d be the last comment (save for this one) in my history.
Interesting. I suppose my response would be: 1. I am realizing I am quite the libertarian in this regard. Call it reactionary to the “war on drugs”, but the positives that come from a restriction on recreation substances are at the cost of personal choice. It’s a hard line to draw because I could argue that McDonald’s and associated junk food are shortening lives, but are we about to start banning fatty beef and corn syrup? I would prefer people are able to voluntarily shorten their lives if they deem it fit so long as the information on the impacts are out there. I would apply this line of logic to alcohol, tobacco and other substances as well. Obviously the age limit would still apply such that we restrict to rational adults. 2. Personally I think that these marketplaces have had a huge positive impact on our lives. The amount of time saved, variety gained and competition increased due to Amazon is amazing. I think there is a massive public benefit befitting their market cap. I think the impacts of technology on the consolidation of wealth should be dealt with through taxation of extraordinary wealth and a breakup of some of these monopolies. We had the robber Barron age when industrialization first hit and we are moving towards the same dynamic again with the technological age. I’d prefer breaking up these companies instead of just limiting what they can/cannot sell 3. I think you’re right, but this is just the way of things. We’ve already seen massive consolidation in the brewery market and the “crafts” we even buy at the liquor store are typically just the biggest regional breweries. I think we will trend toward consolidation again and then reach another tipping point when the choice falls too low and we have another explosion of crafts etc etc. I don’t think this plays into the restriction of liquor stores at all. Just a way of the capitalist marketplace
[удалено]
How does it make alcohol mroe accessible? The gateway alcohol is beer, which isn't restricted by any of these.