Alcohol sales laws

[US 89]

But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?

No.

Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.

The point is that the state can regulate importation of alcohol in ways that do not otherwise conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn't say that because it doesn't have to–it's axiomatic.

You're not seriously arguing that a state could enact a law saying "only Catholics" or "only Protestants" can import alcohol into the state, or "only whites can import liquor; blacks can only import beer," are you? Because if you believe the Twenty-First Amendment gave states 100% control, then that's what you have to conclude.

If a state enacted such a law, it would also violate the 14th Amendment, which promises equal protection to all citizens.

[DeaconG]

And Pennsylvania's beer sales laws are positively messed up.

When prohibition was repealed, the governor said he wanted to make alcohol purchases "as complex and difficult as possible".

That was what Gifford Pinchot said nearly 80 years ago, but I hardly think it characterizes current attitudes toward alcohol consumption in the state–either legislatively or culturally. To the contrary, the state has vested interest in keeping all types of alcohol sales as robust as possible.

Pennsylvania's alcohol-retailing landscape has changed dramatically in just a few years. When I came of legal age a decade ago, beer and malt beverages could be purchased only in cases from warehouse-like beverage distributors or in six-packs from taverns that had a license to sell carry-out beer. Wine and liquor was sold exclusively through state-owned stores–which usually had rather limited hours and were never open on Sundays.

The first wave of liberalization came with changes to the state stores: Hours were extended (including Sundays), and newer, nicer Premium Collection stores began popping up in better shopping centers–replacing small, shabby "hole in the wall"  locations.

The most dramatic shift resulted from legislation that allowed grocery stores to sell six- and twelve-packs of beer as part of an in-store café. The catch is that all alcohol sales must take place within the café area on separate registers. Wegmans already had significant café operations in most locations, and downmarket competitors like Giant and Weis quickly began adding token dining areas to so they could start selling beer. Even Sheetz has been adding in-store dining areas to select locations to qualify for beer sales. Later legislation allowed wine sales in these grocery store cafés.

The upshot is that now in Pennsylvania, like a number of other states, you can make a grocery shopping trip and pick up beer and a bottle of wine at the same time. There's the minor inconvenience of needing to go to a second register to pay for your alcoholic beverages, but compared to the situation of just a few years ago, it's very little inconvenience indeed.

Liquor remains the exclusive domain of state stores, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Attempts to privatize the state store system are perennial; none have succeeded. Former Governor Thornburgh described the situation fairly well: "...the principal roadblock to reform has traditionally been an odd coalition of state store employee unions, fundamentalist anti-alcohol groups and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving... It would take some courageous leadership to stare down this combination, something I do not see in the Commonwealth today."

They're now talking 2020, and it looks like they're serious this time. Under the current proposal, the stores will be able to sell hard liquor, but they will have to go through the state warehouses, which will remain under state control. My brother just put his papers in to retire from the PLCB after 35 years, his superiors were telling him "now would be a good time to get out!" (and he's tired of retail).

In Central Florida, almost all grocery and convenience stores sell beer and wine, the hard stuff usually gets sold either through ABC Stores or Walgreen's (with a few VS stores mixed in).

[vdeane]

Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.

The point is that the state can regulate importation of alcohol in ways that do not otherwise conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn't say that because it doesn't have to–it's axiomatic.

But still, why even include that section?  At all?  Simply repealing the 18th amendment would have been enough.  The states already had the power to regulate alcohol as they do today.  If you've ever lived somewhere that banned styrofoam takeout containers, or plastic bags in grocery stores, or that raised the age for smoking to 21, you've felt that authority.  Those didn't require a Constitutional amendment - why would alcohol?

You're not seriously arguing that a state could enact a law saying "only Catholics" or "only Protestants" can import alcohol into the state, or "only whites can import liquor; blacks can only import beer," are you? Because if you believe the Twenty-First Amendment gave states 100% control, then that's what you have to conclude.

No... but my brain didn't leap to that conclusion from "giving the states the power to regulate alcohol means Congress delegated their authority from the Interstate Commerce Clause".

[jwolfer]

At least as of 2013, there were ten Virginia counties in which liquor sales (but not beer and wine sales) were prohibited: Bland, Buchanan, Charlotte, Craig, Floyd, Grayson, Highland, Lee, Patrick, and Russell.

Highland is certainly remote.  I suppose thirsty  people have to drive across the border to West Virginia or east on twisty U.S. 250 to Staunton for a bottle.

The ABC used to run surveillance operations at some liquor stores in DC where they'd observe Virginians loading their cars with more liquor than was allowed; they'd then radio ahead and someone on the other side of the Potomac would bust people.

Montgomery County, Maryland has a Virginia-style ABC store system and used to run  similar operations near D.C. liquor stores near the border with Montgomery County. Were I going to make a large purchase of alcohol today to take advantage of lower D.C. alcohol prices, I would head for the Costco located off of New York Avenue, N.E. (U.S. 50), which does a massive business selling refreshment (I have seen people purchasing 5 or 6 full Costco shopping carts loaded with nothing but alcoholic drinks).

In the northeast  corner of Maryland, where private liquor store owners have a lot of political clout, Pennsylvania agents used to stake out stores in Cecil County for people with Pennsylvania registration making purchases, then stop them north of the border.  That stopped when the elected Cecil County sheriff had his deputies arrest several Pennsylvania agents (and supposedly had their cars towed and impounded) on questionable legal grounds (the State's Attorney later dropped the charges).

My brother lives in Calvert County, MD.. They buy all their booze from Costco in D.C... 

LGMS428

[1995hoo]

Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.

The point is that the state can regulate importation of alcohol in ways that do not otherwise conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn't say that because it doesn't have to–it's axiomatic.

But still, why even include that section?  At all?  Simply repealing the 18th amendment would have been enough.  The states already had the power to regulate alcohol as they do today.  If you've ever lived somewhere that banned styrofoam takeout containers, or plastic bags in grocery stores, or that raised the age for smoking to 21, you've felt that authority.  Those didn't require a Constitutional amendment - why would alcohol?

I presume–and that's all it is because I wasn't there in 1933 and I haven't done the research to confirm or rebut this–that it was intended to ensure Congress couldn't pre-empt all state alcohol laws. (I'm pretty sure Congress didn't come up with the "bribery" concept they used for the NMSL and the 21 drinking age until sometime later–but even in those cases, the thing Congress wants to make the states do has to be something that will pass constitutional muster, so they couldn't say, for example, "Make Judaism your official state religion or you lose federal highway funds.")

You're not seriously arguing that a state could enact a law saying "only Catholics" or "only Protestants" can import alcohol into the state, or "only whites can import liquor; blacks can only import beer," are you? Because if you believe the Twenty-First Amendment gave states 100% control, then that's what you have to conclude.

No... but my brain didn't leap to that conclusion from "giving the states the power to regulate alcohol means Congress delegated their authority from the Interstate Commerce Clause".

You might not make that connection, but when judges analyze these sorts of issues, that's exactly the sort of analysis they engage in. Your original proposition was that an amendment dispenses with whatever was already in the Constitution. From a judge's standpoint, and particularly a federal appellate judge or Supreme Court Justice, that raises the question of what the consequence of your proposition would be. In your mind you might not have been thinking of things like the First Amendment, but the judges would. It can be damn frustrating in law school when you first encounter that sort of thing when the professor tries to draw you out onto a tree branch with your "logic" and then he cuts the branch out from under you, but this is why they do it!

[realjd]

- In Texas they have to label these citrus-y pre mixed coctails "flavored beer", because all a beer retailer can sell is "beer".

That's not just a Texas thing, that's a US thing. In most countries if you go buy a Smirnoff Ice, it's Smirnoff vodka and lemonade. In the US, it's a "flavored malt beverage". They basically make a tasteless beer then add lemonade flavor. Same for the premixed Jack and Cokes, and others like that.

It's for tax purposes. Beer is taxed at a much lower rate than liquor/spirits. It also allows stores that can sell beer but not liquor to sell the product.

I was somewhere in the past few years where they were selling 12 oz cans of straight vodka. Australia maybe? It seems like something you'd find in Australia.

[DeaconG]

- In Texas they have to label these citrus-y pre mixed coctails "flavored beer", because all a beer retailer can sell is "beer".

That's not just a Texas thing, that's a US thing. In most countries if you go buy a Smirnoff Ice, it's Smirnoff vodka and lemonade. In the US, it's a "flavored malt beverage". They basically make a tasteless beer then add lemonade flavor. Same for the premixed Jack and Cokes, and others like that.

It's for tax purposes. Beer is taxed at a much lower rate than liquor/spirits. It also allows stores that can sell beer but not liquor to sell the product.

I was somewhere in the past few years where they were selling 12 oz cans of straight vodka. Australia maybe? It seems like something you'd find in Australia.

Oh dear God, you mean Hop'n Gator IS STILL A THING? KILL IT WITH FIRE!

[7/8]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

[Rothman]

Psst: Florida is a mess, politics-wise.  No wonder the law doesn't make sense.

[NJRoadfan]

That's not just a Texas thing, that's a US thing. In most countries if you go buy a Smirnoff Ice, it's Smirnoff vodka and lemonade. In the US, it's a "flavored malt beverage". They basically make a tasteless beer then add lemonade flavor. Same for the premixed Jack and Cokes, and others like that.

It's for tax purposes. Beer is taxed at a much lower rate than liquor/spirits. It also allows stores that can sell beer but not liquor to sell the product.

Its was also an advertising thing. Malt beverage commercials can be shown on broadcast TV (hard alcohol commercials weren't allowed by the big networks until recently), increasing a vodka brand's visibility.

[kalvado]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

One thing to remember - from the legal perspective foreigners must have their paperwork on them at all times - so being in a bar without a passport makes them subject to deportation. While this an extreme scenario which is extremely unlikely to happen, some lawyer can piggyback on that law and say that since it is a requirement anyway.
Now NYS specifically lists Canadian licenses (but not Mexican, EU  or any other) as acceptable document, but that may be a state thing.

[jwolfer]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

I would venture to say its not the law but rather an idiot employee.  The employee would probably not accept a Delaware DL (people often dont realize DE is a state)

LGMS428

[kalvado]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

I would venture to say its not the law but rather an idiot employee.  The employee would probably not accept a Delaware DL (people often dont realize DE is a state)

LGMS428

Exact wording of Frorida statue 562.11(c)

one of the following forms of identification with respect to the person: a driver's license, an identification card issued under the provisions of s. 322.051 or, if the person is physically handicapped as defined in 2s. 553.45(1), a comparable identification card issued by another state which indicates the person's age, a passport, or a United States Uniformed Services identification card,

I am not sure what kind of driver license they mean. In general, driver licenses are mostly valid across the world, rental agencies are mostly OK with foreign licenses as long as there is some English in the document or a  good enough translation.... To make things worse, as far as I understand most restrictive reading would exclude out-of-state non-driver ID issued to a non-handicapped person...

[roadman65]

Texas once had a tax collector at the border crossing in Laredo.  Though the feds once allowed a quart of booze to be brought back into the US per person (per month if you lived local), but Texas did not allow that exemption and made sure you paid the tax in their state even if you were passing through.

I lived in FL at the time and did not buy anything alcoholic, but if I did it would have sucked that I would have had to pay state tax on booze to a state I did not purchase it from and then not even consume it in as I would have taken it back home with me where technically FL could tax me under law (although who in FL would enforce it). 

Even CA allows you tax free booze up to an amount as in 88 I bought Cuervo brand tequila  home from Tijuana across the I-5 entry and no one from CA was there to stop me from carrying the bottle from there, into my possession until I left for NJ via LAX, and then of course NJ had no way of knowing I brought back tequila from Mexico upon arrival in Newark.  However Texas is really bad.

Also Baker County is dry, but allows its citizens to cross US 71 into Miller County, AR to buy liquor as stores line that side of the TX/AR line in Texarkana due to the dry side of the city thanks to the county its part of there.  Double standard there as AR booze is okay but Mexican booze is not.

[realjd]

Texas once had a tax collector at the border crossing in Laredo.  Though the feds once allowed a quart of booze to be brought back into the US per person (per month if you lived local), but Texas did not allow that exemption and made sure you paid the tax in their state even if you were passing through.

I lived in FL at the time and did not buy anything alcoholic, but if I did it would have sucked that I would have had to pay state tax on booze to a state I did not purchase it from and then not even consume it in as I would have taken it back home with me where technically FL could tax me under law (although who in FL would enforce it). 

Even CA allows you tax free booze up to an amount as in 88 I bought Cuervo brand tequila  home from Tijuana across the I-5 entry and no one from CA was there to stop me from carrying the bottle from there, into my possession until I left for NJ via LAX, and then of course NJ had no way of knowing I brought back tequila from Mexico upon arrival in Newark.  However Texas is really bad.

Also Baker County is dry, but allows its citizens to cross US 71 into Miller County, AR to buy liquor as stores line that side of the TX/AR line in Texarkana due to the dry side of the city thanks to the county its part of there.  Double standard there as AR booze is okay but Mexican booze is not.

They still do this at land borders. They do it at cruise ports too for anyone getting off a cruise ship. It used to be only TX residents got charged but now it's everyone. The right answer is to keep your alcohol in a backpack or something and say "no sir"  and keep walking when they ask. You should always, always be honest with the federal customs folks, but those state customs guys are leeches who should be ignored.

[michravera]

But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?

No.

Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.

The point is that the state can regulate importation of alcohol in ways that do not otherwise conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn't say that because it doesn't have to–it's axiomatic.

You're not seriously arguing that a state could enact a law saying "only Catholics" or "only Protestants" can import alcohol into the state, or "only whites can import liquor; blacks can only import beer," are you? Because if you believe the Twenty-First Amendment gave states 100% control, then that's what you have to conclude.

If a state enacted such a law, it would also violate the 14th Amendment, which promises equal protection to all citizens.

It's not part of the Constitution, but the US can and does prohibit many things that are prohibited by the states. The 21st Amendment just makes it illegal at the federal level to do what is illegal in the state.

One example is that the US prohibits murder of US government employees. Now, every state and territory has some law against murder.

[Brandon]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

I would venture to say its not the law but rather an idiot employee.  The employee would probably not accept a Delaware DL (people often dont realize DE is a state)

That crap usually happens to New Mexicans.

[inkyatari]

There's a little town south of Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky called Pig.  This small, small, blink-and-you-miss-it town has a diner, the Porky Pig Diner (if you're ever in the area, I highly suggest stopping in.  Probably THE best southern style home cooking and BBQ I've ever eaten.)

Being just 3-4 miles south of the National Park, they get visitors from around the world. They have many stories of people from Europe ordering their food, and wanting a glass of wine.  Unfortunately, this town is in a dry county, and the foreign tourists really get shocked at the concept of a dry county.  It makes no sense to them (nor most sane Americans, but I digress.)

The cook at the restaurant told me that, at the time we went there in 2010, there was talk of removing the dry county status because there are far more drunk driving accidents in the county than in the neighboring "wet" counties.

It makes sense.  If you have to drive 20 miles to get a brewski, you're going to partake on the drive back home.  It's not like running down to the corner Walgreen's to get a 6 of "Big Flats" beer.

[kalvado]

The cook at the restaurant told me that, at the time we went there in 2010, there was talk of removing the dry county status because there are far more drunk driving accidents in the county than in the neighboring "wet" counties.

It makes sense.  If you have to drive 20 miles to get a brewski, you're going to partake on the drive back home.  It's not like running down to the corner Walgreen's to get a 6 of "Big Flats" beer.

Talking about unintended consequences...

[roadman65]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

I would venture to say its not the law but rather an idiot employee.  The employee would probably not accept a Delaware DL (people often dont realize DE is a state)

LGMS428

Florida state law also says toll evasion is a punishable offense, yet we at the toll booth hand out pay later cards for most people who purposely refuse to carry cash with them and not pay the stupid daily rental fee for their transponders.   Laws are only as good as they are enforced.

BTW my brother in law and ex deputy says technically adultery is against the law but no one knows that, yet so much of that these days.   

Also I heard that in GA, that sodomy is illegal as it is on the books, so with homosexuals not being jailed over the past hundred or so years means that is one deeply lost one, or untrue.  However if the former is true, then its supports the fact that laws are only as good as the one who enforces them

[jwolfer]

My family just found out today that Florida state law says that anyone who resides outside the US must present either a passport, a copy of a passport (ex: a photo of it), or a nexus card if they're asked for ID. My older brother tried to get a beer at Epcot and they didn't accept his driver's licence. This is the first time an Ontario driver's licence wasn't good enough for purchasing alcohol that anyone in my family remembers. My brother even got beer earlier at a different place in Epcot and his licence was good enough there. Seems like a silly law to me, especially for a touristy state like Florida

I would venture to say its not the law but rather an idiot employee.  The employee would probably not accept a Delaware DL (people often dont realize DE is a state)

That crap usually happens to New Mexicans.

I read or heard somewhere that is part of the reason NM tags have the state name as "New Mexico USA"

Z981

[hbelkins]

There's a little town south of Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky called Pig.  This small, small, blink-and-you-miss-it town has a diner, the Porky Pig Diner (if you're ever in the area, I highly suggest stopping in.  Probably THE best southern style home cooking and BBQ I've ever eaten.)

Being just 3-4 miles south of the National Park, they get visitors from around the world. They have many stories of people from Europe ordering their food, and wanting a glass of wine.  Unfortunately, this town is in a dry county, and the foreign tourists really get shocked at the concept of a dry county.  It makes no sense to them (nor most sane Americans, but I digress.)

The cook at the restaurant told me that, at the time we went there in 2010, there was talk of removing the dry county status because there are far more drunk driving accidents in the county than in the neighboring "wet" counties.

It makes sense.  If you have to drive 20 miles to get a brewski, you're going to partake on the drive back home.  It's not like running down to the corner Walgreen's to get a 6 of "Big Flats" beer.

I'd never heard of Pig. It doesn't appear on the Kentucky state map. But Google tells me it's in Edmonson County.

Kentucky is now allowing some precincts in otherwise dry counties to hold referenda to allow alcohol sales by the drink. Happened recently in the precinct in which Natural Bridge State Resort Park is located. So now the park lodge and restaurant has sales by the drink, but not package sales. Perhaps that's something the restaurant owner should look into.

I live in a completely dry county so I'm used to it. (Not that I ever want to have a drink with my meal, which I don't.)

[jeffandnicole]

Kentucky is now allowing some precincts in otherwise dry counties to hold referenda to allow alcohol sales by the drink. Happened recently in the precinct in which Natural Bridge State Resort Park is located. So now the park lodge and restaurant has sales by the drink, but not package sales. Perhaps that's something the restaurant owner should look into.

I live in a completely dry county so I'm used to it. (Not that I ever want to have a drink with my meal, which I don't.)

In a similar tone, NJ, which still had 3 or 4 dozen dry towns, made a law a few years back that small breweries are permitted to open in such dry towns.

In one town near me, the opening of a few small breweries showed that the sky will not fall, and hordes of people won't be driving around drunk (not that they had to go far anyway...there was probably a half-dozen bars and restaurants just outside the town).  They had a vote at the last election to permit standard alcohol licenses, and it finally passed.  In years past, several other referendums failed.

[inkyatari]

I'd never heard of Pig. It doesn't appear on the Kentucky state map. But Google tells me it's in Edmonson County.

I thought it appeared on the state map.  It definitely appears on the Mammoth Cave map.

https://www.nps.gov/maca/planyourvisit/maps.htm

[SSOWorld]

observe...

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1267436,-86.1767815,14z/data=!5m1!1e1