Alcohol sales laws

[realjd]

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When prohibition was repealed, the governor said he wanted to make alcohol purchases "as complex and difficult as possible".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

Walgreens by you sells liquor? None of the drug stores sell liquor here in Melbourne. ABC is the biggest chain, and every Winn Dixie has a liquor store, and a few Publix locations do also. Plus BJs and Sam’s. No Walgreens or CVS do though.

[bwana39]

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 BOWIE 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.

Just FYI. Things are changing. Texas has much more liberal liquor laws post covid. 

While Texarkana Texas still doesn't have hard liquor, it and virtually every town in the county has beer and wine sales. Maud (in Bowie County) is wet for packaged liquor and there are  two liquor  stores there. Cocktails have come down in price significantly at Texas-side restaurants.  Yes, the hard liquor sales are still significant along state line, the sales of beer in T-A has slowed to a drip.

Surprisingly, both adjacent Arkansas Counties to Miller are dry. Most of Arkansas is dry.

I have never been dunned for taxes on less than 2 liters of Mexican booze, but it has been close to 20 years.  I also never went through Webb county.

In Arkansas, it is technically illegal to import out of state alcohol. IDK if they still do it, but the Sevier County Sheriffs deputies used to sit on US-70 and stopped people returning from Oklahoma with Oklahoma booze. It is kind of moot now since Sevier County voted wet in 2020.

[Road Hog]

I have stopped before to pick up a sixer in DeKalb Texas, which last I checked was in Bowie County. Texas is even a crazier crazy-quilt of alcohol sales laws than Arkansas, which mostly equates weak-ass Bud Light with hard liquor.

[KCRoadFan]

As for my region (Kansas City metro):

Missouri is pretty easy - you can buy alcoholic drinks of any sort, practically anywhere. I know that Missouri has one of the most permissive liquor law regimes in the country (if not the most).

Kansas, on the other hand, used to have some of the strictest liquor laws - I believe that along Southwest Boulevard, there used to be (and I’m pretty sure still is) a liquor store on the Missouri side with a sign that advertised “real beer”.

Anyway, as for Kansas, I believe it used to be that the only places you could get alcoholic drinks were at liquor stores and restaurants - along with so-called “private clubs” that sold “memberships” for a dollar. (I think that’s right; go ahead and correct me if I’m mistaken.) Grocery and convenience stores, on the other hand, could only sell so-called “3.2” or “near beer”. Lately, Kansas has loosened up their liquor laws some; today, you can now buy beer at Kansas grocery stores (although still not wine and hard liquor; for those, Kansans still need to go to a liquor store or cross over into Missouri). Anyway - before Kansas could start selling beer in grocery stores, it was definitely an interesting dichotomy on either side of the state line in the KC metro!

[Scott5114]

My mom grew up in Kansas City KS. When she was first old enough to drink (which would have been the early 80s), Kansas didn't allow alcohol sales on Sundays, so if she wanted some she'd just drive over to Missouri to get it.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Minnesota is the last state with a 3.2 liquor law. Not Utah (which was 49th to eliminate theirs), Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana. I don't drink but I find things like this to be embarrassing and petty, but there seems to be little appetite to change liquor laws.

[Takumi]

In South Africa, beer was sold with liquor in dedicated stores, but you could buy wine at the grocery store. (Usually the liquor store was an offshoot of the grocery store, like when we would go to Pick & Pay, there was a Pick & Pay liquor store around the corner from it.)

[LilianaUwU]

It's silly to say prohibition has ended in the United States when there are still so many dry counties.

[1995hoo]

It's silly to say prohibition has ended in the United States when there are still so many dry counties.

That depends on what you understand the word "Prohibition" to mean. As used in the US, it usually means "national prohibition" as implemented by the Eighteenth Amendment–the word "national" is both implied and understood, especially when the "p" in "Prohibition" is capitalized, which it usually is when referring to the Eighteenth Amendment and its repeal. When used in that way, then it's certainly correct to say Prohibition ended about 90 years ago (as I type this, it's a few months shy of 90 years).

[Road Hog]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction today where having alcoholic beverages are illegal (other than the obvious restrictions, under 21, certain establishments, etc.)

Locals down to the township level have the option of deciding whether or not to allow sales in most states. Oklahoma has no local option in its state laws; the entire state is wet for beer although it only recently repealed its 3.2 beer and liquor-by-the-drink laws.

[SP Cook]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol.

Actually, that is a myth.  The 18th Amendment simply said:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There was nothing in it about possession of liquors at all, and people could use up the liquor they had on hand, which was, of course, a function of wealth.  The Yale Club ordered an 18 year supply of liquor which it kept on site (no transportation) for its elite members. 

Prohibition is a complex subject.  A good book on it is "Last Call" by Daniel Orkent (who is the guy who invented fantasy sports, BTW, along with "Orkent's Law" ("The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.") ).  Among the points in the book (and people here know he is not of my politics) is that while there was a deep religious element to prohibition, it was not the right-wing "bible thumpers" that were at the forefront of that, but rather the mainline, left progressives, who thought they knew better how the lower classes should live.

[1995hoo]

^^^^

Note also the words "for beverage purposes" in the Eighteenth Amendment. Alcohol could still be manufactured, transported, and sold for other purposes, such as medicinal uses (e.g., it's quite common to use rubbing alcohol as an antiseptic) or for religious purposes (e.g., sacramental use in Catholic and Orthodox churches). I've read that the Passover seder caused difficulties when some states tried to regulate distribution of wine for that purpose by requiring it be distributed through synagogues–apparently some state governments accused some synagogues of massively overstating their membership (who knows whether that was accurate or whether it was prejudice in action).

[JayhawkCO]

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction today where having alcoholic beverages are illegal (other than the obvious restrictions, under 21, certain establishments, etc.)

Lots of villages in Alaska.

[Brandon]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol.

Actually, that is a myth.  The 18th Amendment simply said:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There was nothing in it about possession of liquors at all, and people could use up the liquor they had on hand, which was, of course, a function of wealth.  The Yale Club ordered an 18 year supply of liquor which it kept on site (no transportation) for its elite members. 

Prohibition is a complex subject.  A good book on it is "Last Call" by Daniel Orkent (who is the guy who invented fantasy sports, BTW, along with "Orkent's Law" ("The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.") ).  Among the points in the book (and people here know he is not of my politics) is that while there was a deep religious element to prohibition, it was not the right-wing "bible thumpers" that were at the forefront of that, but rather the mainline, left progressives, who thought they knew better how the lower classes should live.

What made Prohibition, Prohibition was the Volstead Act.  This is what enabled the feds to go in and ban alcohol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act

"An act to prohibit intoxicating beverages, and to regulate the manufacture, production, and sale of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes, and to ensure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful industries."

[kkt]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol.

Actually, that is a myth.  The 18th Amendment simply said:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There was nothing in it about possession of liquors at all, and people could use up the liquor they had on hand, which was, of course, a function of wealth.  The Yale Club ordered an 18 year supply of liquor which it kept on site (no transportation) for its elite members. 

Prohibition is a complex subject.  A good book on it is "Last Call" by Daniel Orkent (who is the guy who invented fantasy sports, BTW, along with "Orkent's Law" ("The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.") ).  Among the points in the book (and people here know he is not of my politics) is that while there was a deep religious element to prohibition, it was not the right-wing "bible thumpers" that were at the forefront of that, but rather the mainline, left progressives, who thought they knew better how the lower classes should live.

Exactly.  It was not illegal to OWN alcoholic beverages or to drink what you owned.  I didn't know about the Yale Club but it was very common for private clubs and individuals to stock up on alcohol before prohibition took effect and for their members or themselves and their friends to continue to enjoy alcohol throughout "prohibition".

As far as today, LilianaUwU may have the wrong idea about dry counties.  They get talked about because they are unusual.  Counties where alcohol is available vastly outnumber dry counties.

[kalvado]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol.

Actually, that is a myth.  The 18th Amendment simply said:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There was nothing in it about possession of liquors at all, and people could use up the liquor they had on hand, which was, of course, a function of wealth.  The Yale Club ordered an 18 year supply of liquor which it kept on site (no transportation) for its elite members. 

Prohibition is a complex subject.  A good book on it is "Last Call" by Daniel Orkent (who is the guy who invented fantasy sports, BTW, along with "Orkent's Law" ("The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.") ).  Among the points in the book (and people here know he is not of my politics) is that while there was a deep religious element to prohibition, it was not the right-wing "bible thumpers" that were at the forefront of that, but rather the mainline, left progressives, who thought they knew better how the lower classes should live.

Exactly.  It was not illegal to OWN alcoholic beverages or to drink what you owned.  I didn't know about the Yale Club but it was very common for private clubs and individuals to stock up on alcohol before prohibition took effect and for their members or themselves and their friends to continue to enjoy alcohol throughout "prohibition".

As far as today, LilianaUwU may have the wrong idea about dry counties.  They get talked about because they are unusual.  Counties where alcohol is available vastly outnumber dry counties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

[Sctvhound]

SC still only has 12 counties out of 46 where you can drink alcohol on Sundays.

[kalvado]

SC still only has 12 counties out of 46 where you can drink alcohol on Sundays.

No drink or no sale?

[Sctvhound]

Sell. You can drink it in every county. And cities have different rules for alcohol. But unincorporated parts of counties have to follow their rules.

SM-G998U

[jeffandnicole]

Under Prohibition it was illegal to both sell and possess alcohol.

Actually, that is a myth.  The 18th Amendment simply said:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There was nothing in it about possession of liquors at all, and people could use up the liquor they had on hand, which was, of course, a function of wealth.  The Yale Club ordered an 18 year supply of liquor which it kept on site (no transportation) for its elite members. 

Prohibition is a complex subject.  A good book on it is "Last Call" by Daniel Orkent (who is the guy who invented fantasy sports, BTW, along with "Orkent's Law" ("The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.") ).  Among the points in the book (and people here know he is not of my politics) is that while there was a deep religious element to prohibition, it was not the right-wing "bible thumpers" that were at the forefront of that, but rather the mainline, left progressives, who thought they knew better how the lower classes should live.

Exactly.  It was not illegal to OWN alcoholic beverages or to drink what you owned.  I didn't know about the Yale Club but it was very common for private clubs and individuals to stock up on alcohol before prohibition took effect and for their members or themselves and their friends to continue to enjoy alcohol throughout "prohibition".

As far as today, LilianaUwU may have the wrong idea about dry counties.  They get talked about because they are unusual.  Counties where alcohol is available vastly outnumber dry counties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

This list may be out of date. In NJ, Pitman NJ is no longer a dry municipality, for example.  And with NJ's rules that breweries can open in dry municipalities, it's possible a few others on the list realized the sky doesn't fall when alcohol is sold in their little town, so some other towns shown may also now allow alcohol sales.

[kalvado]

This list may be out of date. In NJ, Pitman NJ is no longer a dry municipality, for example.  And with NJ's rules that breweries can open in dry municipalities, it's possible a few others on the list realized the sky doesn't fall when alcohol is sold in their little town, so some other towns shown may also now allow alcohol sales.

For this discussion the big point may be not the exact list (and shrinking list, I assume) but an overall idea about the scale of situation. Which is far from wide spread, my impression is that it is more of a historic curiosity in most cases

[Ted$8roadFan]

(In case not already mentioned):

New England has a patchwork of alcohol-related laws, although not as byzantine as other states (er, Pennsylvania).

New Hampshire, of course, as its infamous state liquor stores (including at highway rest areas, of all places) that sell wine and liquor. Other retailers (including pharmacies) sell beer.

Vermont and Maine have a state liquor store-like system in which liquor is controlled by the state, but run by private licensees. Beer and wine are also sold in other stores.

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island have a mostly anything goes system in which almost anyone can open a liquor store (many of which are ubiquitous and known affectionately as package stores or "packies" ), but also lots of larger local chains (such as Kappys) and national chains (Total Wine).

There are a few differences: Massachusetts supermarkets have mostly gotten out of the alcohol business themselves (with the exception of Wegmans and Market Basket Liquors), and pharmacies don't sell beer. Many Connecticut supermarkets sell beer and wine, but not liquor. In Rhode Island, alcoholic beverages can only be sold in liquor stores packies; no supermarket, pharmacy, or national chains.

Local politics of course has a huge role in all of this: New Hampshire's state stores raise a ton of money for the state in the absence of other taxes. Rhode Island's liquor stores obviously have strong pull on Smith Hill. And in Massachusetts, the liquor retailer lobby is fighting efforts by convenience stores like Cumberland Farms from expanding liquor sales. IIRC, stores located near the New Hampshire border have been treated more leniently. Not sure about CT, VT, or ME, although I'm sure there's politics involved as well.