Letter to the Editor: Sunday sales 

To the editor:

This week, the Governor of Connecticut signed a bill expanding the off-premise sale of beer, wine and liquor on Sunday. Like Indiana, Connecticut had previously only allowed the carry-out sales on Sunday of wine at wineries and beer at small breweries.

The advocates of easier access to alcohol in Indiana will now say we are the only state without Sunday sales. The truth is that Indiana is now one of 12 states that prohibit any Sunday sales of liquor and one of 32 states that do not have the statewide sale of liquor on Sunday.

If Indiana were to do what those who favor easier access to alcohol advocate, we would be more like California than Connecticut. California is one of only a few states that have essentially deregulated the sale of alcohol. In Connecticut, you can't buy liquor in a grocery store, and you can't by beer in a gas station.

Allowing liquor stores in Connecticut to sell liquor will not put anyone out of business. In Indiana, 250 small businesses would go out of business, and a thousand employees would lose their jobs as stores like Wal-Mart that allow easy access to alcohol by both adults and minors would increase their market share at the expense of locally owned and operated package stores. There would be a shift in where alcohol is sold, but there would be no increase in tax revenue or employment as some have claimed. The sale of alcohol that now takes place on six days would simply be spread out over seven days. Hoosiers would have fewer choices of locations and fewer choices of alcohol products as items that only package stores carry would be harder to find. 

The debate in Indiana over the past 5 years has not been about "when" alcohol can be sold as much as about "who" sells alcohol and "how" it is sold.  Hoosiers have told us that they want alcohol to be regulated, and they prefer the restrictions state law requires for package stores. We don't believe allowing liquor stores to sell liquor on Sunday in Connecticut will change how Hoosiers want alcohol sales to be regulated in Indiana.

In the end, the question is, "Do we want to be more like extremely liberal California or more like a common-sense state like Connecticut that has said 'no' to those calling for deregulation?" I think I know how Hoosiers will answer that question. 

John Livengood

President/CEO

Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers

200 S. Meridian St. #350

Indianapolis, IN 46225

317-684-7580

May 5, 2012

The Coalition for Drug Abuse Prevention will ask the N.C. ABC Commission to regulate alcoholic beverages containing sweeteners and fruit juice as liquor and sell them in ABC stores - a measure that would reduce underage drinking, the coalition says.

The malt beverages, which include wine coolers, are known as "alcopops" and are sold in grocery and convenience stores. The sweet, fruity drinks are marketed to teens and young adults, said Ava Troxler, the coalition's executive director.

Some of the drinks have high alcoholic content, Troxler said, but juices and flavorings often hide the taste of alcohol.

If the drinks are sold only in ABC stores, teens would have less access to them, she said, because people must be 21 to buy alcoholic beverages in ABC stores. But adults still will be able to buy the beverages for teens.

"Healthy 19-year-olds have dropped dead drinking this stuff," Troxler said. "It's one night of binge drinking in a can."

The N.C. ABC Commission doesn't have the authority to reclassify alcopops as liquor, said Agnes Stevens, a commission spokeswoman. The General Assembly would have to change the laws to give the commission that authority, she said.

To view the full story, click this link: http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/may/05/1/coalition-will-ask-abc-commission-to-regulate-alco-ar-2247979/

Source: Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal

Online Wine Merchants Fail to Check IDs

May 7, 2012

Many Internet alcohol vendors are lax at verifying that customers are of legal age, making it easy for teens to buy alcohol, according to a new study.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asked eight volunteers between the ages of 18 and 20 to attempt to purchase alcohol from 100 of the most popular vendors using prepaid gift cards.

Nearly 60 percent of companies selling alcohol online made little, if any, effort to verify customers' ages. Of 45 successful orders, 51 percent didn't use any type of age verification.

But the researchers also placed blame on the delivery companies, despite corporate policy that age verification is required for wine shipments. Wine is the only alcoholic beverage that the shipping companies - FedEx and UPS in this study - will ship as per their regulations.

"Some packages were left at the door, or handed to recipients after checking an underage identification or simply asking if the person receiving the package was 21," said Rebecca Williams, the study's lead author at a research associate at the University of North Carolina Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Chapel Hill.

Driver's licenses given to anyone younger than 21 are clearly marked in N.C., making anyone younger than the legal drinking age easy to identify.

Williams added that parents should also be aware of how easy it is to purchase alcohol online, and how easy it is for teens to obtain and use a parent's driver's license.

To view the full story, click this link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/07/few-online-vendors-check-age-of-customers-buying-alcohol/

Source: ABC News

Washington: Prepare for sticker shock with liquor sales going private

May 14, 2012

Starting June 1, you can buy alcohol in places other than state-run liquor stores, but will customers be able to swallow the new prices?

For the next two weeks liquor will only be sold in state-run stores but that changes June 1 when sales go private. In anticipation, Super One Foods on the South Hill put up liquor prices on empty shelves.

Those prices were $9 to $10 per bottle above average prices found in state-run liquor stores.

"That would not be good; I wouldn't like that. But I don't drink that much so it wouldn't affect me too much but still I'd like to save a much as I can," Shayne McCarthy said.

Super One Foods says those prices are in no way accurate and that distributors haven't set prices yet. However the Washington State Liquor Control Board is speculating that prices will go up.

Right now state run stores mark up liquor about 52-percent. When Initiative 1183 takes effect, that percentage will be replaced by a standard 10-percent fee at distribution and two fees at the retail level, totaling 37-percent.

But to make any profit retailers and distributors will have to add their own markup. The state estimates the final markup could be between 52 and 72 percent, something that could cause buyers to stop reaching for the top shelf.

"Probably buy less nice stuff," Emily Burnett said while shopping in the Mission Avenue shopping center Monday afternoon.

"Well, I'd probably buy less of it. Make it last longer. Stick to beer," she added.

Next year the 10-percent fee on distribution will drop to five percent but it could be just a matter of consumers paying for convenience.

Link: http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/Prepare-for-sticker-shock-with-liquor-sales-going-private/-/101214/13392284/-/e3hf97z/-/index.html

Source: KXLY

States with Stronger Alcohol Controls Have Lower Alcohol-Related Traffic Death Rates

May 15, 2012

States that more heavily control the sale and distribution of alcohol have lower alcohol-related traffic deaths than states that take a more hands off approach, according to a Keystone Research Center policy brief.

These findings differ from those of economists John Pulito and Antony Davies, PhD, whose research was published by two "free market think tanks"-Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Foundation and George Mason University's Mercatus Center.

The reason that KRC's brief reaches different conclusions is simple: The Pulito-Davies research omitted two variables that are critical to explaining differences in alcohol-related traffic fatality rates among the states - average vehicle miles traveled and average per capita income. When you include those factors, Pennsylvania has an estimated 58 fewer alcohol-related traffic deaths among adults each year than it would have if the state had no controls over the distribution of alcohol.

In The Road Less Traveled: States That More Tightly Control the Sale and Distribution of Alcohol Have Lower Alcohol-Related Fatalities, Keystone aims to set the record straight for policymakers and others who have cited the Pulito-Davies research.

"What impact will privatization have on the safety of our roads and highways? This is a critical question for policymakers to answer, and they should have the facts," said Mark Price, PhD, Keystone labor economist and co-author of the policy brief.

The Keystone policy brief also reinforces the findings of a task force of public health experts appointed by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In April, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services published a piece in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Preventive Medicine finding that alcohol privatization contributes to increases in alcohol consumption, creating a greater risk of alcohol abuse and its associated social costs.

"It is not surprising that the Keystone Research Center found that state control of alcohol distribution is associated with fewer alcohol-related fatalities," said Task Force member Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "This is in line with the Task Force's conclusion that retail alcohol privatization increases the risk of excess consumption of alcohol and associated risks. It is also in keeping with a larger body of research that has found negative social impacts from privatization of alcohol distribution."

To view the full story, click this link: http://keystoneresearch.org/media-center/press-releases/states-stronger-alcohol-controls-have-fewer-alcohol-related-traffic-deat

Source: The Keystone Research Center