AARoads Forum

I'm not sure I will ever understand how alcohol sales are regulated.

I made a stop Sunday at the BFS store at I-68 and WV 26 in Bruceton Mills. The store sells wine, beer and liquor. Wine and beer sales were allowed on Sunday, but the liquor section was closed off. What logical reason is there for allowing wine and beer to be sold on Sunday, but not distilled spirits?

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

Thanks prohibition! And religious groups that frown upon alcohol use.

Where i live in Clay County, Florida alcojol sales were restricted on Sunday until after 2p. A few years ago there was a referrendum so now all days are the same 7a-2a sales but we still cant buy alcohol on Christmas Day,( cuz its Jesus' birthday and all) the baptists on the county commision keep it that way.

LGMS428

Of all the screwed up things in government, alcohol sales laws are probably the worst.  For example, in Massachusetts, you need a special license to sell alcohol.  One level of license allows you to sell beer and wine, but not hard liquor.  You need a different license to sell beer, wine, and hard liquor.  Plus each city and town has a maximum cap on the number of licenses they can issue.

Once the licenses are issued, they can be bought and sold on the open market (for outrageous money)- with the approval of the local licensing board - which brings in the NIMBY "But we already have too many liquor stores" or "DO we really want a restaurant that will be open until 2 am" arguments.

And if a city or town wants an increase in the number of licenses they can issue, they have to petition the State Legislature to allow that increase.

Now, do you want me to explain what the blue lines in hockey are for?

In my town, only local businesses can sell any kind of booze.  Chain stores are forbidden from selling it.

come to indiana, where all alcohol sales are banned on sundays, and if you run a grocery store, you must also run a pharmacy if you want to sell liquor, but if you want to just sell beer, that's fine, no need for a pharmacy.  oh ya, only liquor stores can sell the cold stuff, if you're anything else, it must be warm.

Illinois is a mess of local laws.  There are no state-run stores selling alcohol of any kind.  It's all done through private retail outlets from tiny liquor stores to large supercenters.

Some municipalities allow for selling all alcohol on the main sales floor within specific hours (like, say 6 am to midnight).  Examples include Joliet and Chicago.
Some municipalities allow for selling alcohol only within separate liquor store within a grocery store or supercenter (again, hours apply).  Examples include Plainfield and Naperville.
Some restrict the sales of alcohol tightly, allowing for only beer and wine and only to be sold at grocery stores.  The example here includes Wheaton.  Wheaton used to be the only dry municipality in Illinois until about a decade ago.

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 15, 2017, 04:50:06 PM
come to indiana, where all alcohol sales are banned on sundays, and if you run a grocery store, you must also run a pharmacy if you want to sell liquor, but if you want to just sell beer, that's fine, no need for a pharmacy.  oh ya, only liquor stores can sell the cold stuff, if you're anything else, it must be warm.

Are you sure? I was in a Walmart in Corydon, Ind., last winter and they had cold beer. Also pretty sure I saw cold beer in a Walmart near South Bend last fall.

Ha, the small town of Pikeville, NC has an ordinance banning alcohol sales in town limits that goes back at least as far as 1995, with an exception made for Food Lion (opened in 2000), which can sell wine only. Pikeville thought that would keep drunken idiots out of town. Apparently, they still have yet to realize that residents can easily drive 3 FUCKING MILES north on US-117 to Fremont (my hometown) and buy alcohol there and bring it back to Pikeville. Dumbasses. :pan:

A few years ago, one of the major gas station chains (I forget which) offered to build a gas station in Pikeville right off the I-795 exit, but they told the town they wouldn't come in unless the town did away with the ordinance. Pikeville told them to fuck off.

I wish I had $1 for every time I've had to explain TX liquor laws to people (used to work in hospitality, funny how drunks only asked me for something to buy *after* it was unavailable for the night!)...

A city/town/place or a county precinct has to have enough signatures on a petition, which is presented to the appropriate officials.  Those officials will verify the signatures on the petition--and that there are enough--before calling for an election.  Registered voters of the area can vote on the proposition on the election day, and if a majority says yes, the proposition passes.  A proposition can be for:  any combination of beer/wine/liquor sales and/or liquor by the drink at bars/restaurants. 

If an area approves liquor by the drink without having lawful store sales of beer/wine/liquor in the same area, the bar/restaurant has to issue "memberships" to those who want to have drinkies.  They have to check for those with memberships or risk getting stung by the TABC (the state regulatory agency).  Some areas stipulate how long a restaurant or bar can serve.  One of the Dallas suburbs, Frisco, can't serve after midnight; while neighboring Plano can serve till 2am.  Citizens of Frisco have tried at least twice to vote to change their cutoff time till 2am, but enough have voted no both times, so it's still midnight there.  Big metro areas with large amounts of bars/restaurants can do singular memberships called unicards (sorry, I've never known the process on those since I never had one) which dramatically simplifies things for the establishment and the customer.  If an area does allow store sales, then bars/restaurants don't have to fool with memberships.

Most areas that are 'wet' have sales of beer/wine.  Election propositions can be all-in-one for sales of beer/wine/liquor, or separated into multiple propositions (beer, wine, beer/wine, liquor), which might be the case in areas where those that want the election think that sales of beer and/or wine have a better chance of passing than a proposition for liquor sales.  Once an election has passed, the city/precinct has to prepare itself for receiving applications to sell whatever product was approved, as well as any possible zoning they may want (no sales within x feet of a school/church, for example).  Those that want to sell beer/wine can sell it within the confines of an existing grocery or convenience store (if they meet any zoning regulations that were passed), but liquor has to be in a separate area/store (not mixed in with existing store space/stock).  Liquor sales at stores are not allowed on Sundays (one of TX' last 'blue laws'), but can be served on Sundays at bars/restaurants.  If a liquor store has beer/wine/liquor all in one store building, that store won't be able to open on Sundays, even with the presence of beer/wine, which can be sold on Sunday.  Some liquor stores have split storefronts so they can still have one side open for beer/wine sales. 

IIRR, there are exceptions about selling wine for those who operate a winery (a growing industry in TX... pardon the pun) in a local 'dry' area.

While the state regulates sales/activity about booze, it doesn't have it's own stores (like NC, for example).  Most stores that sell booze close between 10:30p and midnight.  Nothing is legally available in TX after 2am (the latest bars/restaurants can serve)... if you want something later, go to Shreveport, they can serve till 6am (because they have casinos).  Some bars open during the week as early as 7am, seemingly to get the shift-worker crowd (or the day-drinkers!!).

Years ago, you had to drive quite a ways to find a 'wet' town/area, now it's almost the opposite!  So many places that have had religious/old-coot influence, have seen what kind of tax revenue they can possibly make, so out go the old ways in those areas.  My dad used to joke back in the day that every lake in TX has at least one 'wet' town on or near it!  Walmart is trying to challenge the state's liquor licensing process (I've forgotten the intricacies of that, but it's restrictive), and I've heard they want to challenge the no-liquor-sales-on-Sunday thing also.

ETA::::: sorry, kids, forgot something--
For those who would like to enjoy a strip club, and drinkies, there are 2 choices in TX.  Either, the strip club will be able to serve you drinks (they have their liquor license), and you don't get to see 'everything'; or, you get to see 'everything' but have to bring your own booze with you (they don't have a liquor license) but usually the place will have setups/ice/mixers/etc to get you started with what you brought.

Virginia's liquor stores are run by the state, and are the only stores you can buy liquor, while beer and wine can be sold in grocery stores and gas stations and such. I don't know of any dry localities (certainly none close to Richmond), but the city I live in does have a blue law banning alcohol sales before 1PM on Sundays.

CT's liquor laws have been liberalized in the past few years (maybe the only good thing our current governor has done).  When I was a kid, liquor stores were only open 9AM-8PM Monday through Saturday, and closed on all Sundays and major holidays.  Currently, liquor sales hours are 8AM-10PM Monday through Saturday, and 10AM-6PM on Sundays.  Beer can be sold in grocery stores and convenience stores during those hours (after hours, they have to be locked in a cooler, covered by tarps, or covered by curtains on a shelf), but hard liquor and wine must be bought in what we call "package stores".  Another stupid law is that liquor stores can't sell potato chips or snacks.  As far as bars, they can stay open till 1:00 Sun-Thu, and 2:00 Fri-Sat.  There is an exception that allows bars to be open till 3:00 AM on New Year's Eve, but they can't stay open for the extra 1:00 hour on the first Sunday in November.  The 2 (soon 3) casinos are also subject to the same serving hours.    Beer can be sold in growlers from taps at a bar, but only during liquor store hours, and they must be tagged or stickered for carryout purposes.  And you can't buy a 6 pack over the bar for takeout.  There are no more remaining dry towns; Bridgewater was the last until just a few years ago. 

Campbell County legalized Sunday alcohol sales about 10 years ago - around the same time Gallatin County outlawed it.

I do remember going to a camping event in Campbell County on a Sunday back in 1993, and other folks there complaining that they couldn't buy beer anywhere around.

Quote from: Takumi on August 15, 2017, 06:13:07 PM
Virginia's liquor stores are run by the state, and are the only stores you can buy liquor, while beer and wine can be sold in grocery stores and gas stations and such. I don't know of any dry localities (certainly none close to Richmond), but the city I live in does have a blue law banning alcohol sales before 1PM on Sundays.

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.

Virginia also places limits on the amount of alcoholic beverages you can bring into the Commonwealth. I don't remember what all the limits are, but for liquor it's one "gallon," a particularly stupid rule since liquor is not sold by the gallon. (There's even a further rule that defines how much liquor sold in metric-sized bottles is deemed to equal a "gallon," given that there are 3.78 litres in a US gallon and it'd be hard to buy that amount of liquor.) 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. Even today, if you move into Virginia from out of state and you want to bring liquor you already own, you're supposed to apply for an importation permit (I doubt anyone does and I doubt it's enforced). All this is mainly an issue if you're on an international flight arriving at an airport in Virginia because CBP will sometimes (but not always!) enforce state law limiting import amounts. (They're supposed to do this, but I've found that in practice usually the Customs agent can't be bothered with the paperwork and just waves you through.)

BTW, the reason a state can impose those kinds of import limits is that Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, provides as follows (emphasis added):

QuoteThe transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

(Note the Supreme Court has held that this provision is subject to other parts of the Constitution that existed prior to the amendment's ratification, such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause–for example, a state can't say in-state wineries can ship to in-state customers while banning out-of-state wineries from doing so because that discriminates against interstate commerce and thus violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.)

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
(Note the Supreme Court has held that this provision is subject to other parts of the Constitution that existed prior to the amendment's ratification, such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause–for example, a state can't say in-state wineries can ship to in-state customers while banning out-of-state wineries from doing so because that discriminates against interstate commerce and thus violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.)

OK, that's weird.  Isn't the point of an amendment to supercede the pre-existing language?  I would think the newer parts of the Constitution would trump (pun not intended) the older parts, not the other way around.

Minnesota just legalized Sunday liquor sales this spring, which went into effect in July after decades of bitching and moaning annually. Liquor stores are only allowed to be open between 11 AM and 6 PM on Sundays. Before this you could still buy a limited selection of beer on Sundays where it was carried in some grocery stores, but only after noon.

The argument against Sunday sales had long shifted from religious reasons to small liquor store owners who feared being run out of business by larger competitors.

Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2017, 08:23:22 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
(Note the Supreme Court has held that this provision is subject to other parts of the Constitution that existed prior to the amendment's ratification, such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause–for example, a state can't say in-state wineries can ship to in-state customers while banning out-of-state wineries from doing so because that discriminates against interstate commerce and thus violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.)

OK, that's weird.  Isn't the point of an amendment to supercede the pre-existing language?  I would think the newer parts of the Constitution would trump (pun not intended) the older parts, not the other way around.

The longstanding principle of interpretation is that a provision only repeals or supersedes a prior provision when it explicitly says it does so or necessarily does so by implication–otherwise, you try to give effect to both principles. Also, there's a principle that new provisions (and statutes, for that matter) are enacted with full knowledge of what the law already is and that there is no intention to change existing law unless, again, the new enactment specifically says so or does so because there can be no other logical interpretation.

Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.

I love Iowa's liquor laws. Sales from 6am - 2am Monday through Saturday, and 8am-2am on Sunday (no idea how those two hours make any difference), and you can buy beer, wine, and liquor at just about any supermarket or gas station.

It was weird seeing a shelf full of liquor at a Target the first time.

Edit: This speaks for the Des Moines metro. I have no idea if other localities in the state have differing laws.

South Carolina's alcohol laws are very strict compared to most of the country. Liquor stores are only open 9am-7pm Mon-Sat, and closed on Sundays. Until 2006-2007, bars could only serve mini bottles of alcohol, but that law was changed.

Only 12 counties of 46 allow Sunday alcohol/beer sales, mostly on the coast and the major cities. Charleston County though has 24/7 alcohol sales in stores. There are still places that completely ban alcohol sales on Sunday, mostly in the conservative Upstate, but Sumter (home of Shaw Air Force Base) still bans it.

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 15, 2017, 04:50:06 PMit must be warm.

Stobe the Hobo's number one enemy: Warm beer.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
I'm not sure I will ever understand how alcohol sales are regulated.

I made a stop Sunday at the BFS store at I-68 and WV 26 in Bruceton Mills. The store sells wine, beer and liquor. Wine and beer sales were allowed on Sunday, but the liquor section was closed off. What logical reason is there for allowing wine and beer to be sold on Sunday, but not distilled spirits?

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

Pennsylvania's liquor laws are notorious for goofy-ness.  It was by design.  When prohibition was repealed, the governor said he wanted to make alcohol purchases "as complex and difficult as possible".  It is actually a little better than it used to be, as they now sell beer in something resembling a retail store, previously you had to carry a six pack out of a bar (with plenty of "bars" that mostly just wanted you to carry out), or a case from a warehouse.

On to WV.  Until the late 80s, WV was like VA and PA in having liquor retailing in the hands of state stores.  Very inefficient system, as the stores moved with every election and, with very few exceptions it was one store per city (although a suburb was a seperate city and could have one, no matter how small).  Kept typical government hours, but if you were in line at 4:00, you were OK.  Workers would "work to rule" carding every single person, which meant they got 6 or 8 hours of overtime every Friday. 

The state sold it off to  private businesses back then.  But kept the prohibition on Sunday sales of hard liquor. 

As to beer and wine, different rules.  Actually until the 90s, different governement agency, we had a "beer commissioner" and a "liquor commissioner" with totally different staffs in different departments.  My favorite WV rule is yet another controting of simple language to avoid the clear language of the Constitution.  The WV Constitution prohibits the "consumption of an intoxicating beverage in a saloon or other public place".  Pretty simple, right?  Well, first the legislature redefined beer as "non-intoxicting beer" and allowed beer to be sold for in-house consumption on that fiction.   Then later it allowed liquor to be sold in "private clubs".  So, for example to use a place from a recent thread, Applebee's has to form the "Applebee's liquor club" and sell "memberships" for $1, with $1 off your first drink.  Back in the day they actually used to give out membership cards and the liquor cops would do a card check every now and then, but it has all fallen to the wayside since, but it still exists on paper.

WV recently passed the "brunch bill" to allow hard liquor by the drink on Sunday mornings, previously you could not get a drink until 1 on Sundays.

If you want goofy liquor laws, head to our neighbors in the great white north.  People get the idea from the old gangster movies that Canada is/was this great domain of liquor libertarianism.  Not so.  Actually Canada had prohibition longer and harder than the USA, just not on exports, and still today liquor retailing is very inefficient and tightly controled.  Ontario has this thing called "The Beer Store" which is the only place in town to buy beer.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AM
If you want goofy liquor laws, head to our neighbors in the great white north.  People get the idea from the old gangster movies that Canada is/was this great domain of liquor libertarianism.  Not so.  Actually Canada had prohibition longer and harder than the USA, just not on exports, and still today liquor retailing is very inefficient and tightly controled.  Ontario has this thing called "The Beer Store" which is the only place in town to buy beer.

Which is one reason that Detroit became the main port of entry for liquor into the US during Prohibition.  Much of it was either brought over from Windsor on boats during the summer or carted across the ice during the winter.  From there, it was distributed across the US.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AMWV recently passed the "brunch bill" to allow hard liquor by the drink on Sunday mornings, previously you could not get a drink until 1 on Sundays.

North Carolina recently passed a similar brunch bill as well, only it covers anything that has alcohol in it. Before, alcohol could not be sold before 12 on Sundays. Now, the brunch bill allows sales to begin as early as 10. However, the law stipulates that a city or county must pass an ordinance to approve of the early Sunday sales before stores could sell alcohol early.

In other words, one city or county could allow early sales, but the next city or county over could choose not to allow early Sunday sales, at which point the 12 o'clock limit is still in effect and localities that were previously "dry" (like Pikeville) remain dry unless they adopt an ordinance changing it

You could write a novel about the Alcohol Laws in Utah, past and present.   Up until several years ago, if you wanted to drink in a bar, you had to purchase a "membership" co-signed by a "sponsor" from the establishment. 

That law finally fell by the wayside, but there are still a wonky law that says you must be at a table or at the bar to purchase alcohol (you cannot walk around with booze in your hand, it must be brought to you) and that you must have some sort of food with your alcohol at all times.   (I think those are the specific rules, correct me if I'm wrong).

I think it's also a recent law that C-stores, grocers, etc..., can now sell at least beer.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394The argument against Sunday sales had long shifted from religious reasons to small liquor store owners who feared being run out of business by larger competitors.

Given that Minnesota also leaves regulation to the local municipalities, I feel like the small owners are barking up the wrong tree.

Here's a story out of Mississippi, which I can basically boil down into the Catholics (who love their liquor) versus the Southern Baptists (who vocally oppose liquor but are also serious hypocrites).  Pearl River County, MS was a dry county as late as 2008...I don't know if it still is, as I left Stennis Space Center that year.  However, beer and wine could be sold within the incorporated cities of Picayune and Poplarville.

After Katrina hit, Pearl River County absorbed a lot of "new citizens" from Louisiana...mainly St. Bernard and Plaquimines Parishes, most of whom became permanent residents.  Of course, Louisianans, with their predominantly Catholic background, like their fairly lax alcohol sales laws, and it came to heads in Pearl River County in the 2006-2007 timeframe.  They were successful in bringing the issue to a referendum (required under Mississippi law), but the referendum just barely failed (by less than 2% IIRC).  I recall many Pearl River County natives actively opposing the referendum and citing their Baptist anti-alcohol beliefs, even though I know for a fact that many of these people would drink privately at home, going as far as to drive to Slidell or Hancock County to buy booze.  I do not know if there have been any attempts to change the "dry county" status since then.

Quote from: thenetwork on August 16, 2017, 10:26:14 AM
You could write a novel about the Alcohol Laws in Utah, past and present.   Up until several years ago, if you wanted to drink in a bar, you had to purchase a "membership" co-signed by a "sponsor" from the establishment. 

It was more like "purchase" than actually buying a "membership".  IIRC, they'd give it out for free, and the "sponsor" was typically the owner or manager.

Quote from: 1995hoo
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.

Aside from Charlotte, all in remote parts of the state. No surprise there (or for Charlotte, for that matter).

NJ's laws are fairly restrictive, although many non-restrictive laws got grandfathered in before the more restrictive laws occurred.

NJ also operates on home rule.

The main state laws that everyone needs to abide by are that liquor can only be sold between 9am and 10pm.  And that for a carry-out retailer, any one owner is restricted to two licenses. 

Many people misinterpret that.  NJ does permit alcohol to be sold in a grocery store, alongside every other normal grocery product.  However, the owner of the company is only permitted two licenses.  Many instead 'rent' their name out.  There are a few dozen Shoprite Liquors right next to a Shoprite Grocery store, but nearly every one is owned by a different entity.  It makes it look like a chain of liquor stores, and they'll even be ads with pricing good at numerous stores, but in reality it's really individual stores using the Shoprite name.

Home Rule also makes a huge difference.  Some towns may say a store selling liquor must make it the primary seller of the store...which means grocery stores can't sell alcohol. 

Going back to the hours - while liquor can only be sold between 9am and 10pm, beer and wine can be sold up to 24 hours a day.  Home rule allows each town to set the hours when sales are permitted.  Most stores selling alcohol will only be open 9 - 10pm.  Sunday hours can be more restrictive, but they don't need to be.  Generally, holidays don't matter either, but again, that's up to the individual towns.  (And those hours can be restrictive as well as more loose - many towns many allow a bar to remain open until 5am New Years Day, for example, even though very few take advantage of that).

A long time ago, licenses were sold that permitted both a bar/restaurant and takeout.  While new licenses don't have that option, those older licenses are permitted to be sold from one owner to another.  Thus, you can walk into a bar up until they close and purchase beer or wine, no matter what hour it is, as long as they permit it.

Newer rules mandate that a town can only have 1 take-out license for every 7,500 people.  Older rules weren't restricted as such, so especially in older towns and cities you can find quite a number of retailers selling alcohol.  Same is true with bars and restaurants (the ratio is 1 license for every 3,000 people).  While prevalent in older cities, it's most notable at shore resorts.  Many shore towns have very few year-round residents, and thus would barely qualify for more than 1 or 2 licenses.  However, most shore towns issued their licenses a long time ago, and thus can have way more than what they would be permitted to sell today.

Another way towns can get another license is whenever a hotel is built, as long as it has 100 rooms, the town can issue a license.  The hotel has first dibs on it; if they don't want it then the town can sell to whomever they wish, following proper procedures (usually an open bid with a minimum bid amount).

Maryland alcohol laws are similarly convoluted and often ridiculous.

One  county (my home county, Montgomery) has a countrywide system of ABC stores (only places where hard stuff may be purchased, rather similar to Virginia's statewide ABC), and all retail outlets must make their wholesale purchases (including beer and wine) from the county monopoly. This assures lousy service and limited selection.

In general, statewide, chain stores (and chain restaurants) may have one beer and wine license per county, including the larger chains like Giant, and Safeway and 7-11.  Yes, one 7-11, one Sheetz and one Wawa in each  county can sell beer and wine.  In counties other than Montgomery, private liquor stores are allowed, but as with the restriction on beer and wine licenses, one license per owner, so there are no chain liquor stores.

There has been  corruption involving licenses to sell alcohol.  Just recently a member of the Board of License Commissioners (which  regulates alcohol sales in each county) was arrested on corruption charges by federal agents in Prince George's County.   In Baltimore, there have been more than a few corruption cases involving alcohol - enforcement agents (who check that bars and retail outlets obey the law, not discourage underage drinking) had to get approval of one or more of the city state senate delegation before being hired - these are jobs on the municipal payroll of Baltimore City, not the state.

Ultimately, authority to enact and change alcohol laws is vested in the General Assembly, but as a practical matter, there are many provisions of that law that only apply to one or a few counties, also crazy (or as our English  friends might  say, "crackers").

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
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).

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
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."

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.

I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

Indiana: I was very surprised to see liquor (although a very limited selection) for sale on the shelves of Walmart. I'm used to seeing it on drugstore shelves in Kentucky, where the area can be closed off during times when liquor sales aren't allowed, but not just out in the open with potato chips and other snacks on one side, and milk and eggs on the other.

West Virginia: I'm old enough to remember when WV allowed the sale of "3.2 beer" to those 18 and older. A hometown neighbor from my childhood, originally from the Louisa area (Lawrence County), moved back home and I reconnected with him when I got to college and we figured out whom each other was after we met through mutual friends. He was a couple of years older than me, and he talked about how lots of people between 18 and 21 crossed the river to Fort Gay, WV, to buy beer legally.

DC/Virginia: The DC authorities should have told the Virginia undercover officers running sting operations on their turf to go pound sand.

Kentucky/Mississippi: It's my understanding that in dry Mississippi counties, it's illegal not only to sell alcohol, but to possess it for personal use. That's not the case in Kentucky. You can't sell alcohol in a dry county legally, but you can certain buy alcohol in wet counties or cities and bring it back home. Kentucky has a PABLOT (possession of alcoholic beverages in local option territory) law but it's meant to cover large quantities, such as a bootlegger filling up their vehicle with cases of cheap beer and pints or half-pints of cheap whiskey or vodka, and bringing it back to sell illegally.

I remember about 20 years ago, the state of New York made a big stink about online alcohol sellers shipping alcohol into dry towns - even though buyers intended it only for personal use.

Maryland's are pretty strict. They limit them to liquor stores per se and some 7-Elevens.

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.

I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)

NJ has a really peculiar law when it comes to dry towns.  Currently there's still a few dozen dry towns within the state.  However, wineries and breweries are still permitted to open within those dry towns.  So now towns that were dry, such as Pitman, managed to have 2 breweries where people can go have drinks and buy beer.  Another peculiarity of the law is that those same breweries aren't allowed to sell food, because the restaurant association got upset (roll eyes). So those places allow patrons to order and bring it food from other eateries (ie: Pizzerias), or have food trucks outside on occasion.

With these breweries, it truly does help to change the thought process in dry towns.  Previously, there's the opinion that the sky will fall if a town would allow alcohol to be sold (never mind many neighboring towns tend to have liquor stores and restaurants so close to the town line that someone from the town doesn't need to go far to get alcohol anyway).  But now in towns like Pitman, they had a vote last year to allow alcohol sales and the vote overwhelmingly passed.  They aren't rushing to sell any licenses though, which in itself can take some time to determine what and how they want to proceed with the sale of alcohol.

A couple of things I find odd traveling around.

- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.  Around here, if you fill out the paperwork and qualify, you can start a bar, it is none of the government's business how many there might be. 

- In Ohio (never have seen it elsewhere) I have seen c-stores that sell "diluted liquor".  Comes in a standard "fifth" bottle, with a big yellow label that reads something like "Jack Daniels whiskey, made in Tennessee at 70 proof, diluted by Acme Co. to 15% (cannot recall exactly) alcohol content in Stumptown, Ohio".  Apparently the dilution gets it down to the wine level of alcohol legality, as liquor stores in the Buckeye state are hard to find in the less populated areas.

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

- NC does not allow anyone over 12 but under 21 IN the liquor store.  Apparently 12 is old enough to leave in the car or tell to take a walk around the block while mommy picks up her "medicine".

Opinions.

- I have no real opinion on state vs. private liquor reatiling (although if you are going to do a state system, I like NC's where the state is the wholesaler and the county or city is the retailer.  While prices are consistant, the cities and counties will compete on service and you do not get DMV level attitudes.

- However, I do very much like SEPERATE liquor stores.  First, it is a job creator.  But it is just a lifestyle thing.  Around here most of the liquor stores are the pharmacies.  And liquor retailing attracts bums.  Bums in the parking lots asking for $$, and clearly intoxicated, clearly alcoholic, clearly "homeless" people in line at the cash register counting out change to buy one bottle of bottom shelf crud.  I would rather buy my liquor in one store and my deodorant in another, all things considered.

- We had a bill last legislature to force stores to put an orange label reading "ALCOHOLIC DRINK" on things like Not Your Father's Root Beer and the Lime-A-Ritas.   I am a 99% libertarian, but I don't know that this is not a good idea.  Not that long ago you knew just by looking what was beer and what was a soft drink. 

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
A couple of things I find odd traveling around.

- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.  Around here, if you fill out the paperwork and qualify, you can start a bar, it is none of the government's business how many there might be. 

Looks like MT has some extreme licensing: finite number of licenses, and some counties have as few as 2 or 3 on-premise ones. Licenses are sold for as much as $1M or as little as $200.. .
https://public.tableau.com/profile/ddemay1981#!/vizhome/IncontrolofliquorinMontana/Dashboard1

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.

Correct...although it does depend on the jurisdiction.  Some areas fetch more money than others.  In some, the liquor license is restricted to certain areas or districts within the town. 

NJ also only has licenses to sell everything.  There's no Beer/Wine only license or limited licenses...although there are 'seasonal licenses' for the shore area in some towns, although I'm not overall familiar with how they work.  I think there's specific dates that those bars can be open.

Kentucky has some odd laws pertaining to alcohol sales and distribution.

There's a three-tiered system that's supposed to be in place -- producer, distributor and retailer. This basically prohibits brewers of craft beers from providing their product directly to retail outlets. Most of the distributors are affiliated with the major brewers (Budweiser, Coors, Miller, etc.) and it's hard for the small breweries to get their products placed in stores when the distributors are more interested in providing large quantities of the mass-produced beer. It's a stupid law that establishes an artificial middleman.

There was a recent well-publicized case here recently involving a state representative who owns a number of liquor stores in different communities. He was transporting excess inventory from one of his stores to another. He was arrested and charged with illegal transportation. Apparently Kentucky law allows only distributors to transport for resale across county lines, not licensed retailers. The charge was eventually thrown out and the law was ruled unconstitutional. It's silly not to allow a business owner to move inventory from one store to anohter.

I personally prefer Kentucky's way of letting private businesses sell alcohol (although the licensing process is subject to political influence) vs. state-owned stores. Better to let the private sector make a profit than the government.

We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.

Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2017, 06:28:06 PM
We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.

Perfectly believable.

Situation from, I believe, Maine.
Like any other state, Maine provide a laundry list of IDs for buying alcohol. State driver license, permit, or non-driver ID, military ID, passport, etc etc..
All worked well, until some folks from DC dared to buy some beer. They present their DC issued license as age verification... And clerk points out that it is not a state issued document. Neither that license is military ID, passport, or any other document from the list.... And the sale is refused.
As a result, there was a letter from AG saying that purpose of the law is to verify age, not discriminate against residents of DC, so documents from DC, PR etc. are equivalent to state issued ones..

I've heard about that sort of thing with DC licenses happening elsewhere too. Pretty pathetic.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2017, 07:33:33 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.

I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)

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

Quote from: txstateends on August 15, 2017, 06:10:56 PM
I wish I had $1 for every time I've had to explain TX liquor laws to people (used to work in hospitality, funny how drunks only asked me for something to buy *after* it was unavailable for the night!)...

A city/town/place or a county precinct has to have enough signatures on a petition, which is presented to the appropriate officials.  Those officials will verify the signatures on the petition--and that there are enough--before calling for an election.  Registered voters of the area can vote on the proposition on the election day, and if a majority says yes, the proposition passes.  A proposition can be for:  any combination of beer/wine/liquor sales and/or liquor by the drink at bars/restaurants. 

If an area approves liquor by the drink without having lawful store sales of beer/wine/liquor in the same area, the bar/restaurant has to issue "memberships" to those who want to have drinkies.  They have to check for those with memberships or risk getting stung by the TABC (the state regulatory agency).  Some areas stipulate how long a restaurant or bar can serve.  One of the Dallas suburbs, Frisco, can't serve after midnight; while neighboring Plano can serve till 2am.  Citizens of Frisco have tried at least twice to vote to change their cutoff time till 2am, but enough have voted no both times, so it's still midnight there.  Big metro areas with large amounts of bars/restaurants can do singular memberships called unicards (sorry, I've never known the process on those since I never had one) which dramatically simplifies things for the establishment and the customer.  If an area does allow store sales, then bars/restaurants don't have to fool with memberships.

Most areas that are 'wet' have sales of beer/wine.  Election propositions can be all-in-one for sales of beer/wine/liquor, or separated into multiple propositions (beer, wine, beer/wine, liquor), which might be the case in areas where those that want the election think that sales of beer and/or wine have a better chance of passing than a proposition for liquor sales.  Once an election has passed, the city/precinct has to prepare itself for receiving applications to sell whatever product was approved, as well as any possible zoning they may want (no sales within x feet of a school/church, for example).  Those that want to sell beer/wine can sell it within the confines of an existing grocery or convenience store (if they meet any zoning regulations that were passed), but liquor has to be in a separate area/store (not mixed in with existing store space/stock).  Liquor sales at stores are not allowed on Sundays (one of TX' last 'blue laws'), but can be served on Sundays at bars/restaurants.  If a liquor store has beer/wine/liquor all in one store building, that store won't be able to open on Sundays, even with the presence of beer/wine, which can be sold on Sunday.  Some liquor stores have split storefronts so they can still have one side open for beer/wine sales. 

IIRR, there are exceptions about selling wine for those who operate a winery (a growing industry in TX... pardon the pun) in a local 'dry' area.

While the state regulates sales/activity about booze, it doesn't have it's own stores (like NC, for example).  Most stores that sell booze close between 10:30p and midnight.  Nothing is legally available in TX after 2am (the latest bars/restaurants can serve)... if you want something later, go to Shreveport, they can serve till 6am (because they have casinos).  Some bars open during the week as early as 7am, seemingly to get the shift-worker crowd (or the day-drinkers!!).

Years ago, you had to drive quite a ways to find a 'wet' town/area, now it's almost the opposite!  So many places that have had religious/old-coot influence, have seen what kind of tax revenue they can possibly make, so out go the old ways in those areas.  My dad used to joke back in the day that every lake in TX has at least one 'wet' town on or near it!  Walmart is trying to challenge the state's liquor licensing process (I've forgotten the intricacies of that, but it's restrictive), and I've heard they want to challenge the no-liquor-sales-on-Sunday thing also.

ETA::::: sorry, kids, forgot something--
For those who would like to enjoy a strip club, and drinkies, there are 2 choices in TX.  Either, the strip club will be able to serve you drinks (they have their liquor license), and you don't get to see 'everything'; or, you get to see 'everything' but have to bring your own booze with you (they don't have a liquor license) but usually the place will have setups/ice/mixers/etc to get you started with what you brought.

In California, no sales of alcoholic beverages are allowed between 2AM and 6AM any morning.
There are basically 4 combinations of license beer-wine or any and for sealed for take out or open for on site consumption. When an entity applies for a license, an upgrade, or a change of ownership, it must post a notice of its application where people can see it for a period of time.
Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages for on site consumption and which stay open after 2AM (like casinos) are often very strict about picking up all of the vessels well in advance of the 2AM deadline. Some of those with a 2AM closing time appear a bit more lenient.

Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2017, 06:28:06 PM
We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.

Sounds like the clerk was being a twit.  I hope they asked for the manager.  Also, in that state, you can sell if you're 18, but not buy.

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2017, 07:33:33 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.

I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)

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

No.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
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.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.

Not sure about other cities and towns in Massachusetts, but Boston has very strict regulations about the use of liquor licenses once issued.  If a license holder doesn't have a business that is currently open (regardless of the reason), the city's Licensing Board will summon then to a hearing and can demand they sell the license (which go for upwards of $300K on the secondary market) to another pending applicant.  At first this sounds reasonable, except that businesses that are rebuilding because of fire, flood, or other damage are routinely summoned to explain why they aren't open to the public and have been threatened (yes, there's no more appropriate word for this tactic) with being forced to sell their license if they don't reopen within a given time frame - which is usually unrealistically short, given the work involved (and the inevitable delays dealing with insurance reimbursement) to restore after incurring major damage.

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 04:11:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
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.

Quote from: briantroutman on August 16, 2017, 12:28:30 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
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).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 04:11:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM
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?

Quote
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".

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2017, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
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

Quote from: vdeane on August 19, 2017, 12:05:42 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 04:11:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM
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.")

Quote

Quote
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!

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- 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.

Quote from: realjd on August 26, 2017, 01:45:29 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- 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!

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 :hmmm:

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

Quote from: realjd on August 26, 2017, 01:45:29 PM
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.

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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.

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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

Quote from: jwolfer on August 27, 2017, 11:01:18 AM

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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)

Quoteone 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...

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.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2017, 08:12:23 PM
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.

Quote from: roadguy2 on August 18, 2017, 05:56:05 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 04:11:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
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.

Quote from: jwolfer on August 27, 2017, 11:01:18 AM

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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.

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.

Quote from: inkyatari on October 06, 2017, 09:59:06 AM
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...

Quote from: jwolfer on August 27, 2017, 11:01:18 AM

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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

Quote from: Brandon on October 06, 2017, 05:53:58 AM

Quote from: jwolfer on August 27, 2017, 11:01:18 AM

Quote from: 7/8 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
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 :hmmm:

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

Quote from: inkyatari on October 06, 2017, 09:59:06 AM
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.)

Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2017, 03:03:17 PM
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.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2017, 03:03:17 PM

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

observe...

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

Quote from: DeaconG on August 18, 2017, 08:08:38 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on August 16, 2017, 12:28:30 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
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.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2017, 08:12:23 PM
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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.)

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

Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 10, 2023, 11:59:48 PM
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).

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.

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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.

^^^^

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).

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 11, 2023, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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."

Quote from: SP Cook on July 11, 2023, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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.

Quote from: kkt on July 14, 2023, 12:46:54 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 11, 2023, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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

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

Quote from: Sctvhound on July 16, 2023, 05:15:42 PM
SC still only has 12 counties out of 46 where you can drink alcohol on Sundays.

No drink or no sale?

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

Quote from: kalvado on July 14, 2023, 12:54:52 PM

Quote from: kkt on July 14, 2023, 12:46:54 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 11, 2023, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on July 11, 2023, 03:04:13 PM
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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2023, 11:08:26 AM
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

(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.