November 8, 2006
Question 1 Defeated. No Vino in yo' Star.
Question 1, the ballot initiative that would have allowed cities and towns in the Commonwealth to issue licenses to grocery stores to sell wine, was rejected by Massachusetts voters yesterday. The measure failed 56-44, according the Boston Globe.
Widely reported to be the most expensive ballot question campaign in state history (a combined $11.5 million was spent), public opinion on Question 1 seemed to turn around last week after its opponents ramped up their negative ad campaign and highlighted the so-called "public health" aspects of allowing wine to be sold at grocery stores. Opponents contended that the initiative would allow underage drinkers easier access to wine and threaten the state's low drunken driving rates. How many teenagers would risk arrest to buy or steal a $10 bottle of pinot noir at Stop 'n Shop when they could continue to get their older friends or siblings to make the purchase for them—in which case the law would make no difference. Question 1's proponents, meanwhile, ran a media campaign focusing on consumer choice and convenience, pointing out that the initiative didn't include beer or liquor and would leave discretion to individual towns and cities whether or not to issue these new licenses.
In the end, though, the liquor industry was able to assert its clout to maintain the status quo, so you'll have to continue making side trips to package stores or smaller wine shops to purchase your vino in Massachusetts.
Post contributed by Adrienne Aldredge. Flickr user paul goyette shows us what we won't be finding in our local grocery store.
|
Infuriating.
This was an *economic* question. If you want to have solid substance abuse and DUI/DWI policy, pass smart laws accordingly. Relying on blue laws to boost statistics on low incident rates of abuse is absurd. Do something about the DUIs and access instead of handicapping retailers.
I've no interest in seeing a Stop N Shop gain more marketshare on more goods. What offends me is that in Brookline I could buy two-buck Chuck at Trader Joe's and in Peabody, near my present home in Salem, I can't. Why? Because of ridiculous laws that restrict the number of liquor licenses per business at the state level rather than in your own community, where your interests should be addressed.
THAT's what this ballot question was about, and why so-called opponents of the question were out-of-line, and the voters mislead.
Amen, Mark. On the nose, that.
Yeah, I was thinking about the fact that Trader Joes in both Brookline and Cambridge can sell wine and so can Whole Foods in Cambridge. Is Cambridge some magical place or something? I mean I know it's called 7 square miles surrounded by reality, but what gives?
Natis-- The deal is that right now, stores are limited as to how many liquor (beer/wine) licenses they can hold. For example, there are many Trader Joe's in the area, but the commonwealth limits them to 3 licenses. So you can buy your cheap wine and beer in Brookline, Cambridge, and on Boylston only. Same goes for Whole Foods and other stores. It's incredibly stupid. But hey, at least the state loosened up enough a couple of years ago to finally sell booze on Sundays.
One more factor in this, and a reason that many people I know voted "no" on 1: if grocery stores were allowed to sell wine, the choice of what wine to sell in those stores would be in the hands of the home offices of 5 (or 6, can't recall) huge grocery conglomerates that own EVERY store under various names in various parts of the coutry. The wines one would see in grocery stores, then, would likely represent a reduced selection over the packie down the block, whether that store is a Kappy's or a mom-n-pop joint: the stores would sell the bottles that they already sell in other states and other stores owned by the overarching parent company. It would be harder for small wine houses to get shelf space at big grocery stores, especially if they don't have a distibutor that can get them into the big money stores. A "yes" vote on 1, then, could also have been seen as a vote against small vintners (is that what they are?) and a vote for corporate comglomeration and geographic homogeneity.
Just sayin'.
Just to weigh in as someone on the "no" side, I'll second Robin's 'watering-down of selection' argument as one of my primary motivations. I take it farther though, as a beer afficionado, that it would water-down my rare and interesting beer selection. First, the loss of market share at all would hurt the smaller liquor stores that often sell the rarer beers, and second, regardless of what Stop and shop tells you, it's wine now, beer later -- no doubt.
Additionally, I don't think the public safety argument is hogwash. The fact is, some package stores and gas stations would qualify for licenses, and no one argues they're worse at enforcement. Anecdotally, my 4 years working at Stop and Shop (in a rather wealthy neighborhood, mind you) tells me that teenage grocery store clerks are far less willing to enforce liquor laws than liquor stores. And like I said, it's wine now, beer later. I mean, it's true DUI enforcement should be the primary method at reducing these problems, but why even increase the potential for such little benefit.
Speaking of which, what were the positives of this again? Saving a couple bucks on slightly cheaper mass-market alcohol? We're talking a recreation item, not bread and milk. I'm also not really concerned with handicapping giant grocery store chains' profits -- they had at least as much of an economic interest in pouring all the money they put into this campaign as the liquor stores did, and their refusal to even acknowledge the public safety issue makes them at least as guilty as the liquor stores for exaggerating it.
OK, I was born and raised in a place that allowed anyone to buy wine in grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. I thought packaging stores were where you went to ship boxes.
This alcohol policy didn't affect anything for me growing up. You bought the hard liquor at the liquor store. You couldn't sell alcohol there if you were younger than 21.
What I want to know is, if convenience stores can't sell wine, why can some package stores sell some convenience items? I'm used to Trader Joe's selling wine and I miss the wine section very badly (and the prices). My impression is that TJ's likes to buy from the smaller vintners.
And not to throw fuel on the fire, but I got the Question 1 on my vote card, but my friends in Malden & an area of Quincy didn't. It could be bad graphic design keeping them from finding the question(s), but they were specifically looking for it to vote yes on it. They are over 21, by the way.
If someone wants alcohol, they will get it no matter how or where.
Alexander Hamilton was killed by Aaron Burr in a duel because he dared to inflame him with a series accurate statements concerning the well being of a nation as opposed to Burr's selfish intentions. Well I, Cicero, am about to go to that space also. The right to vote was fought over furiously, becaue it was thought the 'common man' and now 'woman' might put themselves before the good of the nation. This has become an emotionally charged issue due only to egocentric want and needs. The real question is how many more LIQUOR outlets does the state of Massachusetts need. Do we need more or is gluttony getting the better our our judgement. It is obviously the latter. Liqour stores, resteurants, bars, cafes abound throughout the commonwealth. A shortage of liqour outlets? Nothing could be further from the truth. A look at all that are drunk on the streets of Boston on any given weekend nite proves this beyond a doubt. Every alley reeks of urinations, empty liquor botle and cans are everywhere. As an experienced and skilled drinker I know these are signs of drunkeness. Should we the public want more. No, if anything we should want less. Those who cannot wrench themselves from their wretched condition of consuption to aspire a higher spiritual condition are oblivious to this reality. Thus bringing about the question are they qualified to have the right to cast a ballot.