The sale of wine in grocery stores featured prominently on yesterday's ballot. Question 1 asked voters if they supported allowing food stores in the commonwealth to sell the alcoholic beverage.
To the dismay of wine enthusiasts alike, Massachusetts voters objected to the law in yesterday's election. In doing so, the state's voters passed on an opportunity to radically increase the number of liquor licenses in the state by creating a new category of alcohol retailers among grocery and convenience stores.
Ultimately, the ballot question's failure promotes an anti-consumer attitude in Massachusetts by keeping a Puritan-era code largely intact.
An increase in the number of retailers selling wine would inevitably make buying wine more convenient for the consumer. More importantly, the consumer would save money as a result of the increased competition opened up from the proposed legislation.
According to WineAtFoodStores.com, the proposal would save consumers an estimated $26 to $36 million every year.
This news is no doubt encouraging for the liquor store lobbyists in Massachusetts.WineAtFoodStores.com also reports that liquor stores control over 85 percent of wine sales across the state. No wonder liquor store lobbyists fervently opposed Question 1, as well as past legislation which sought to disperse the control on wine sales.
Opponents of the law worried that diffusing the sale of wine to food store outlets, including convenience stores, would make it easier for youngsters to purchase alcohol.
These teetotalers have greatly skewed the issue at hand.
Local licensing authorities are responsible for deciding who would receive the limited number of new licenses. And when the grocery and convenience stores apply, they will receive no less scrutiny than liquor stores already in existence.
Arguments against the law are more broadly anti-alcohol than necessarily anti-wine. By the looks of it, opponents wished for voters to imagine vodka being sold next to candy racks.
But naysayers inflated the alcohol issue to appeal to fellow conservatives. After all, Question 1 did not propose the sale of hard alcohol or even beer in food stores.
The suggestion that a Yes vote on Question 1 inadvertently solicits the sale of alcohol to minors was brashly unfounded.
Approving Question 1 would have put Massachusetts in the company of 34 other states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores, further showing that the question was more a matter of consumer interest and less a matter of alcohol consumption.
The failure of Question 1 represents a victory for the liquor store lobby which employed scare tactics and deception to promote its agenda. Massachusetts consumers must continue to take their wine business to liquor stores and liquor stores only, giving Tufts wine aficionados one more reason to stay away from Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Shaw's and Foodmaster.
