Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you
Powered by Disqus

Links

Like IB

«
»

Cocktails & Conversation

This past week I got a nice little reminder about how outdated and antiquated Indiana’s alcohol laws are.  I was heading back to the house after teaching class when my wife called asking me to pick up a few items from the grocery store.  While I was there I decided a 6-pack of beer would be nice.  So I walked over to the beer section and then I was reminded that in Indiana, I can’t get cold beer in a grocery store.  I was not a happy camper.

I picked up the things my wife asked for and after I left made a trip to the local liquor store.  I got my cold beer, but I also had to pay more to get it; an entire dollar more.   Now I know a dollar is no big deal for someone who drops $10 on a good martini.   My complaint is that I couldn’t get what I wanted where I wanted because of what primarily amounts to protectionism.

There is no logical reason why cold beer sales should not be allowed in grocery stores.  Just like there is no logical reasons why retail alcohol sales should not be allowed on Sundays.  The liquor store industry argues that allowing cold beer sales in grocery stores and Sunday alcohol sales will hurt “mom and pop” outlets.  I don’t doubt some people might go out of business but is it the job of the government to protect certain segments of the economy at the expense of others?

If you are  a smart businessman I’m sure you can compete with the big box stores.  You have to do business a little differently and perhaps adopt a different model, but there’s no reason why smart, aggressive entrepreneurs can’t give the big guys a run for their money.   And there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to get a cold beer in a grocery store and not have to drive somewhere else and pay more for the same product that’s 30 degrees colder.

*****

Job Update: If  you read my post from the other day you know I’m “looking” for work.  Well I had a job offer at 10:30 yesterday morning.  It was a limo driver position that paid $13 an hour.  I couldn’t take it though, because it was offered by a friend who listens to the morning show, which technically violates my networking guidelines.   It would have been fun though.  After all I did play the “Hoke” in the stage version of  “Driving Ms. Daisy” so as long as my passengers looked like Jessica Tandy, I would have been in great shape.

Posted: 12|3|10 at 8:04 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0. Comment | Trackback

  • pascal

    Wah wah…couldn’t have instant gratification of cold beer. Wah wah…no logical reason…wah wah. As I recall, the USA did at one time ban nearly all sale of alcoholic beverages…..but, they had no logical reason for so doing? Too, we understand the plea implicit in the “no logical reason” boner-a begging for instruction.
    You got some weight off and look better for it-you don’t need a beer belly.

  • Think Again

    Well, the fact is, Abdul, in the alcohol business, local stores can’t compete with the big-box stores.

    I don’t care.

    The state regulates alcohol for one reason: taxes. They’ll tell you they’re trying to be altruistic and want to hold-down the alcohol accident rate, or some other such nonsense. It’s bull.

    They want the tax money. Period. So let’s take off the masks, drop the pretenses, and raise all the tax money we can.

    The business of selling alcohol ought to be about: strict enforcement re: age of buyers, and whether they’re drunk already when they present themselves to the clerk with a six-pack. After that, it’s a bookkeeping issue.

    We engage in this silly little public-policy dance. It’s costly, but it keeps some lobbyists fat and happy. I’d be interested in your friend Brad K’s take on this. The strictly-Libertarian view is: sell it safely, collect the taxes, move on.

    Carry on, Hoke. But you’re no Morgan Freeman.

  • Think Again

    Well, the fact is, Abdul, in the alcohol business, local stores can’t compete with the big-box stores.

    I don’t care.

    The state regulates alcohol for one reason: taxes. They’ll tell you they’re trying to be altruistic and want to hold-down the alcohol accident rate, or some other such nonsense. It’s bull.

    They want the tax money. Period. So let’s take off the masks, drop the pretenses, and raise all the tax money we can.

    The business of selling alcohol ought to be about: strict enforcement re: age of buyers, and whether they’re drunk already when they present themselves to the clerk with a six-pack. After that, it’s a bookkeeping issue.

    We engage in this silly little public-policy dance. It’s costly, but it keeps some lobbyists fat and happy. I’d be interested in your friend Brad K’s take on this. The strictly-Libertarian view is: sell it safely, collect the taxes, move on.

    Carry on, Hoke. But you’re no Morgan Freeman.

  • Think Again

    Well, the fact is, Abdul, in the alcohol business, local stores can’t compete with the big-box stores.

    I don’t care.

    The state regulates alcohol for one reason: taxes. They’ll tell you they’re trying to be altruistic and want to hold-down the alcohol accident rate, or some other such nonsense. It’s bull.

    They want the tax money. Period. So let’s take off the masks, drop the pretenses, and raise all the tax money we can.

    The business of selling alcohol ought to be about: strict enforcement re: age of buyers, and whether they’re drunk already when they present themselves to the clerk with a six-pack. After that, it’s a bookkeeping issue.

    We engage in this silly little public-policy dance. It’s costly, but it keeps some lobbyists fat and happy. I’d be interested in your friend Brad K’s take on this. The strictly-Libertarian view is: sell it safely, collect the taxes, move on.

    Carry on, Hoke. But you’re no Morgan Freeman.

  • Taxpayer 834512

    I would say that we’re protecting the illegal immigrant “segment(s) of the economy” by offering extended benefits for non-citizens (education, emergency room medical, etc.) This affects the decision for them to keep a job here, therefore affecting the ability of long-term unemployed citizens to get a job (granted the limo gig may likely be a less job than what they had).

    It would be nice if all this stuff didn’t affect each other and was easily categorized in separate boxes. Ask the average working citizen if they’re carrying all their different wallets today, or they have to pay for their local, state, and federal governments from the same one.

  • Johnnystir

    Looks like a simple economic argument. The state is not getting revenue that it could be getting via sales tax and excise tax. In a state that’s strapped for cash, it seems like allowing sales on Sunday is a no brainer.

  • http://twitter.com/IndyStudent Matthew Stone

    These laws just go to show how we’ll bend over backwards for the hotel, restaurants, bars, and sports arenas in this state. But for folks who want to enjoy it at home and not pay a server and a dishwasher?

    I’d just like a consistent law. Either ban alcohol sales on Sunday, or allow them everywhere. Every time I’m at a grocery store at midnight on Saturday and I see employees block off the alcohol isle with some big boxes, I just roll my eyes.

  • IndyHardR

    I dont drink unless I have to have a meeting with an attoney. So Really dont care. It’s more stupid that we can’t buy a car on Sunday.

  • Think Again

    Is that true? I had no idea.

  • http://twitter.com/IndyStudent Matthew Stone
  • Anonymous

    I think that it’s incredibly stupid that 70 & 80 year old people are being ‘carded’ to buy booze.

    Something else we can thank lawyers for.

  • Guy77money

    Then somerbody explain to me why the city gives money to both the Colts and the Pacers. Or as the quote states ” I don’t doubt some people might go out of business but is it the job of the government to protect certain segments of the economy at the expense of others?” The others being the tax payers of Marion County and restraunts that get hurt when there are games going on down town.

  • Melyssa

    The colts and pacers are necessary to help herd the sheep.

  • pascal

    What part of Bread and Circuses is not understood?

  • pascal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622800493796156.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop It is a stretch to question the State’s role in alcohol sales (which mostly did not exist prior to a Rockerfeller paid for study back in the day) with the article on government schools (which also deals with the delivery of a consumer good) but we might as well profit from the observations of someone who has experience in fixing things.
    While it is customary to bash former Mayor Peterson his work with charter schools was a bold advance.

  • pascal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622800493796156.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop It is a stretch to question the State’s role in alcohol sales (which mostly did not exist prior to a Rockerfeller paid for study back in the day) with the article on government schools (which also deals with the delivery of a consumer good) but we might as well profit from the observations of someone who has experience in fixing things.
    While it is customary to bash former Mayor Peterson his work with charter schools was a bold advance.

  • Think Again

    I’m not sue I favor the pro sports subsidies, but: there is no argument–downtown loves these events. Huge boost to business.

  • Think Again

    It may be customary for some to bash Peterson, but every day I hear more and more folks comment that they made a ballot mistake in 2007.

    The evidence is pretty stunning.

  • Dave

    Isn’t this a volley between protection racquets? Are we but one “new law” or regulation, from “evolutionary greatness?”

    Rule & exception making (bureau selection of “winners & losers”), are a minimum, multi-billion dollar a year business, one of extortion exceeding Ten Commandment / Golden Rule necessity; the demandments of a predatory, ruling caste.

    Isn’t the pyramidal, greed ‘n gun barrel tax schemes, of socialists / collectivists / despotic rednecks; a bizarre practice of “enlightened cannibalism?” Their “pie” is perpetually “fixed,” owing not to reality (our world / universe is one of endless abundance), but their contempt (hatred) for the rights & liberties of others whom they seek to “control” (while hypocritically passing, barricade after barricade, of self discipline).

  • pascal

    Melville wrote about the need for people to see behind the pasteboard masks. Seeing thru them as well as the created myths by which people are led away from their common sense perceptions is a neglected aspect of governent education. Most folks know very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch-but a cost free “education” provided by the State is easily swallowed whole.
    The “regulation” of alcohol is one of those easily percieved myths, that such is for the common good. It isn’t. As noted by the perceptive Dave-it is a racket.

  • Think Again

    A racket? mmmm. Never thought of it that way.

    It is a product on which the government collects tax. I’m all for the tax, within reason.

    It’s also a product which, when abused, which is too often, causes wretched harm to innocents. I’ve dealt with it in my life. It’s not fun.

    But an open debate about the “racket” thing might be a good idea. I’m for eliminating rackets where we can.

  • pascal

    The racket of government schools would be a good place to begin. We could do that before the Legislature does. Remember, it is the stupid party which is now in control of things. Often times one hears about “follow the money” as a guide to understanding but viewing things as markets also has a viewpoint worth examination.
    We do not now have even minimum standards to which our governent schools are accountable in ANY fashion. A pure voucher system WITH accountable standards would fit within a regulatory scheme and produce the results demanded at about 40% of the cost. But, you could quibble and say maybe at 50% of the cost or 30% of the cost. But, no one would be able to honestly argue that the cost would be MORE than is currently be extracted.

  • Taxpayer 834512

    No disagreement. While Bart Peterson might have been better in hindsight, I’m not sure the best choice in looking for transparent, accountable, and affordable government between the extremes of the President Obama and Barnes and Thornburg reigns wouldn’t have been Fred Peterson. That’s presuming he would not have also been a puppet to downtown corruption. Perhaps a tall order.

    We’re to trust that Ms. Kennedy is not going to lead us down a similar path based on her Baker and Daniels employ? We’re to trust the judgement of another Mayor subject to the whims of another pack of legal jackals? Not I. Until he proves to have more drawbacks than party and funding, I’m paying attention to the Libertarian mayoral candidate, Richard Kent. Maybe he goes to work in a tutu and despises small animals, but all I know so far from this morning’s paper is, “…works in public relations for an event security company and has been an activist in Indianapolis Public Schools.”

    If Mr. Kent has been more on the side of the kids than the incumbent powers at IPS, and has seen what NOT to do when mayor- he’s a step-up from yet another set of attorneys using the taxpayers as indentured servants, assuring the counselors that they’ll be in tropical climes with plenty of bon-bons in retirement.

    Don’t get me wrong, when I need a lawyer I don’t want a plumber. The city can’t get legal help from the best sheet metal workers we can find. Pardon if I’m expecting an “unfair” magnitude of genuine statesmanship. But, there’s a fundamental disconnect in always expecting results benefitting the public, when you enlist someone potentially- potentially more concerned about their check clearing than avoiding corruption or thinking about what’s best for the community.

    Dan Burton, Ryan Vaughn, and Greg Ballard are now bridges too far for this conservative. Based on what I’ve seen- so is Melina Kennedy and most Democrats. I would work on behalf of Councilwoman Scales if she would run. I don’t think Melyssa can be bought either. But, we’re stuck with the choices we have.