Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Here's to you

For once, reform of state liquor laws not a pipedream

The Rocky

Published January 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Consumers may be tempted to hit the hard stuff these days, given recent economic news. But two proposals before the legislature would be cause to raise a glass in celebration, should either become law.

Senate Bill 82, by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, has the better chance to pass. It would end the state's Sunday ban on retail alcohol sales. That's news because, unlike earlier attempts to scrap these blue laws, large retailers and independent liquor stores are on board.

Merchants have concluded that there's money to be made slaking consumers' thirst on Sundays. Support from retailers should make this sensible (and yes, overdue) reform possible. We've long endorsed an end to blue laws and hope that SB 82 soon reaches Gov. Ritter's desk.

The second measure, by Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Boulder, has not yet been introduced and admittedly has a much tougher row to hoe. At first, as he described it, Shaffer had a limited goal: do away with the bizarre state law that lets grocery stores only sell 3.2 beer and wine coolers while giving liquor stores a monopoly over the sale of stronger beverages.

His initial proposal would have allowed retailers that ring up at least 51 percent of their sales in food to sell full-strength beer and wine (but not hard liquor). Supermarkets and other food stores would qualify, but convenience stores and general merchandise retailers like Target and Wal-Mart wouldn't.

Once this proposal started percolating, however, Shaffer told us that he started viewing the entire retail liquor code as antiquated, and hoped that his legislation could begin to level the playing field for retailers.

So while supermarket sales may be the centerpiece of the legislation, he's looking at a broader bill. And he says he's open to dumping two genuine anti-consumer measures in current law: the ban on food sales in liquor stores and the limit to one license per person, at a single location.

The fact that liquor stores can't sell nuts is, well, nuts. No cheese with your wine. No pretzels with your beer (unless it's 3.2 brew). And no hot wings or sandwiches or chips and salsa for that Super Bowl party unless you plan separate stops for food and alcohol.

Letting liquor stores sell food would make it easier for them to compete with supermarkets. They could offer the convenience of shorter checkout lines and also focus on specialized merchandise that might get crowded off a large grocer's shelves.

Meantime, allowing a liquor store to have multiple outlets would let it make larger wholesale purchases, taking advantage of volume discounts it could pass along to customers.

Shaffer maintains that enacting a more liberal regulatory regime would not sound the death knell for mom-and-pop liquor stores, and experience in other states suggests he's right. Nor would it mean that storefronts peddling booze would pop up on every street corner. Counties would continue to issue retail liquor licenses, as local officials retained oversight of the business.

What Shaffer's proposal would do, however, is remove some of the convoluted barriers that reduce competition in the Colorado retail liquor market. With it and SB 82 on the books, 2008 could be the best year for consumers of adult beverages since 1933, when Prohibition came to an end.

Comments

  • January 30, 2008

    6:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I think there is alot more that Colorado legislators have to deal with in this state than who sells what kind of alcohol with what kind of food on what day.If someone is planning a party or needs alcohol on Sunday they have already bought their purchases.There is nothing wrong with the way the laws are now.It is again going to be a mess trying to please every business and denying certain businesses like Target and Walmart the same priviledges as King Soopers is wrong.Then saying a liquor store can't sell food like pretzels and stuff again is ridiciculous.If they can't put a clean bill together either allowing all establishments to sell liquor on Sunday without all the exeptions then just leave it alone.
    The majority of people who need liquor or beer for a Sunday event will buy it the day or week before.Selling liquor on Sundays really isn't a big deal.So don't make it one.

  • January 30, 2008

    7:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    socrates writes:

    Funny. I remember the republicans killing it. Rep. Weissmann (a democrat and bartender) has been championing this issue for years! Just pass it in time for Sunday!

  • January 30, 2008

    9 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JB writes:

    YES, there is a need to pass a law to correct these stupid laws. As they stand, the current blue laws stifle the fair market and artificially inflate prices. Basically it is a state legislated subsidy paid for at the price of consumers.

    I agree about needing a clean bill...make the playing field level. Let the liquor store sell food, let Target sell booze and really, why should there be the pharmacy provision? Do people need a Xanax with their vodka?

  • January 30, 2008

    11:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    malis writes:

    vudumom, I agree with you when you say "...there is alot more that Colorado legislators have to deal with in this state than who sells what kind of alcohol with what kind of food on what day."

    Your point, however, is backwards...current laws mean the legislature and the state are already spending way too much time doing just that. The proposed changes in law discussed in the editorial take away some of that micromanagement...the idea is to just let people sell goods based on consumer demand, whether that's wine in supermarkets or pretzels in liquor stores. I very much hope this common sense change happens soon. Then perhaps, <gasp> they can think about allowing cars to be sold on Sunday!

  • January 30, 2008

    12:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dilligaf writes:

    Earl:
    I'm waiting for the day that I read one of your posts and you don't blame the dems. You probably get a flat tire and it is their fault. You need to get a life. A real one.

  • January 30, 2008

    1:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Chadley25 writes:

    I would like to see both of these bills passed, but especially the one permitting liquor sales on Sundays. There is no real reason a person shouldn't be able to buy liquor 24/7. I'd settle for the "7" part.

  • January 30, 2008

    2:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    Here we have a Dem championing the big box stores to put the little guy out of business. This law has been there since the thirtys and now someone wants to change the rules; its not right to put the small liquor store out of business. This is the same attitude that the smoking ban supporters have and thats basically "I/ME,ME,ME want things to be convenient who cares how it might screw someone else!

  • January 30, 2008

    3:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JB writes:

    Brian-
    So is it fair that we, the consumers, continue to pay higher prices that essentially subsidize the "little guy." How many other small business owners in Colorado have the luxury of the state NOT ALLOWING competition from large companies? It's absurd. What if the state said that only independant coffee shops could serve coffee, or only single owner gas stations could sell petrol?

    This isn't just about I,I,I, ME, ME, ME...it's about fair laws that benifit the consumer, free market and fair competition.

  • January 30, 2008

    8:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    Been over this before with you JB the price will not come down becasue demand won't; I'm sure if you opened a liquor store 1-5 years ago you wouldn't be for this. Amazing to hear someone like you cheer walmart

  • January 30, 2008

    8:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JB writes:

    Brian-
    I'm NOT cheering Walmart, Target, King Soopers, Safeway, etc... I am cheering fair competition. There is NO reason to forbid ANY company from competing with any other company.

    As far as prices, I think we did discuss this and I can tell you from experience in other states that liquor, wine, beer IS cheaper at Vons, Costco, etc... sometimes by a lot! I saved $4 on a bottle of Yellow Tail buying it at a Vons vs. the liquor store across the street...BUT, there WAS a liquor store across the street, and I still bought some stuff there because they had more to choose from...things the grocery didn't carry! Hence, how they were able to COMPETE.

    Yes, bummer for them that they opened a liquor store 5 years ago, BUT at some point, unfair laws NEED to be changed. After prohibition, nearly every state had blue laws, and by now most have been taken off the books. 6 years ago, publicly traded companies didn't have to worry about SOX, but after Enron, they do. 50 years ago, nobody worried about air quality and factories could pump whatever crap they wanted into the air, now they can't.

    Each of these things came at a price, but in the long run we are better for it. The "changing the rules" argument is the same reason why the oil industry fights higher MPG standard, even though they will be in the long-term best interest for our country.

    I've seen some of your other posts, Brian, and you seem like a fairly bright guy. I'm surprised that you take such a short sighted view on this issue.

  • January 31, 2008

    12:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DDMervin writes:

    Brian,
    simple economics dictate that price is based on more than simply demand. Before supply and demand even get a chance to affect the price, cost sets the foundation of the price. Big box retailers can buy from the producers at lower cost, for many reasons, thus they can pass that on to the consumer.

    I agree with JB on this. A free market society gives consumers the choice. I should be free to decide to buy beer at the grocery store, and you should be free to decide to buy beer from your neighborhood liquor store.

    I do think Shaffer's possible revisions to the bill which would allow liquor store owners to open multiple locations and sell snack foods would help their cause. Thus, further repealing antiquated laws that harm consumers, and in this case also limits the liquor store proprietors.

  • January 31, 2008

    1:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    Your not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours; I do find myself on the opposite side of this issue then I would normally be on; the MPG standards is after many years (by 2020) this, I beleive, would be virtually overnight if there was someway to gradually change the law then I think it would fairer; and just because the retailers price is lower does not mean they will pass the savings on; I do like at least changing the bill to allow liquor stores to sell food (I didn't know that they weren't originally) but ultimately for now I hope it does not pass. I will not buy my beer (only alchohol I drink) at a grocery store anyway; I have bought in other states that sell in grocery stores and those prices were virtually the same as here and they have a lot less stores that were just liquor stores, so convenience, from my experiences is not going to be better; I have not bought liquor in CA. though. Also I hate to use the word fair because life/business isn't but that is where I stand on this issue.

  • February 1, 2008

    11:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sam80241 writes:

    Hi all:

    I own a liquor store, so here is my prospect. Some of the prices of wine and beer will go down especially big packages (suit cases) and popular wine such as Sutter home etc.... (They will have more buying power than us).

    In our last meeting we have estimated 30-40 % of liquor store that they are within Safeway or king sooper lots will shut down. Do to the high rent and cost of doing business and the lost revenue from beer and wine sales, Many of this stores they have loans by small business admin. So be ready tax payer to cover the cost on these loans not to mention the economic impact on the unemployment in the state.

    Most stores sells about 35-45% in beer, the margin is not that great but that what pay the rent, Employee’s etc.... The remain are divided between wine and liquor. With the big stores selling wine that will drop our share again? With that in mind we have to be more selective of the wine we carry and raise more prices to offset the lose we will have from losing the sale of many popular brand of wine.

    There is no magic wand it’s not about customer saving money its not about convenient
    It’s about the money that big company would like to add to the bottom line follow the money line (The truth is out there)
    Many people want us to sell super market items (milk, Banana, Hustler magazine, Video rental, apple, etc...) please people most of us is next to Kingsooper or Safeway. That will not help our bottom line or do we have the space to do it.

    The economic impact will be great on us. So you make the call, It’s not about competitions it’s about small vs. big

    My two Cents

  • February 3, 2008

    11:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    Say howdy folks.. I am currently living in Arizona. Guess what?? You can buy all of the wine and liquor you want in the grocery stores. It has been that way for many years in Arizona and many other states also. Now I read a group of people arguing over letting grocery stores selling wine and liquor in Colorado. Get over it everyone....it works just fine letting them do it. My wine that would cost you 10-12 dollars in Colorado goes for $3 bucks here, same brand and year!! Plus, there are wine and liquor stores only still in business. Doe everyone think that a grocery store wants to carry every type of spirits or the very fine and expensive types of wine and liquor. No wonder Denver is known as cowtown. While I am at it. Hardly anyone out side of Colorado knows Denver as the MILE HIGH CITY! What a worthless fight you had over your new stadium name!! Suggest the next time anyone of you are out of state, ask someone where the mile high city is!! Hmmm, maybe Mexico City!!

    Nuff Said

  • February 3, 2008

    11:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    To sam80241...there are private liquor stores within two blocks of the grocery store in the Phoenix area. Some of them have drive thru windows and are in the same retail center as the grocery stores. Suggest you contact some of the major suppliers that sell you your stock and ask them about independent liquor stores still doing business in Arizona. Maybe your two cents will turn into a nickel!

  • February 3, 2008

    4:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    And how long has Arizona been that way? I have been to Arizona 3 times recently and the beer prices were virtually the same; don't drink wine. Arizona is one of the states that I found to have a lot less liquor stores than here which made it less convenient from my perspective being from a "cowtown".

  • February 3, 2008

    5:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    gary; About the Mile High City; "Hmmm, maybe Mexico City!!"
    you live where? Oh yeah Arizona.

    Nuff Said!

  • February 5, 2008

    5:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    glowrock writes:

    Comments like those of Gary only reinforce the fact that the majority of humans are a bunch of THF's (toothless horse f*cks).

    Pathetic.

  • February 6, 2008

    5:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rosettastoneus writes:

    "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
    I'm glad to see that we (the consumer) have evolved to the point that alcohol no longer has any negative social impacts. Now we can discuss important issues. Like, creating the cheapest and most efficient alcohol delivery system. I like my alcohol cheap and quick, and even quicker when I'm already buzzed. I's sure there are some other unfair laws......
    How come Grocery Stores can serve fat people, and the neighborhood Liquor stores can't serve drunks? That's unfair...
    Food and alcohol are seperated for a reason. They are totally different products. Dealing with them seperately allows for better control of alcohol ( e.g. no kids allowed unless with parent). Smaller stores, more eyes on the customer etc..
    Rose

  • February 6, 2008

    6:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rosettastoneus writes:

    DDMervin,
    I believe you should be able to build a better car in your basement and knock General Motors of their high horse. Free Market Society???? This market is driven by Capital and Big Business has more of it.
    The previous lawmakers were sensitive to the desire of Big Business to get consumers to overconsume and Big Gov't's desire for consumers to underconsume The balance they created is a "homegrown" population of small businessmen that are individually accountable for the constomers' purchase and consumption of intoxicating products. Which store owner is more concerned with the control and sale of their product? Mom and Pop or Big Box? The small business model is better for the consumer of these products.
    The Sunday law may be religion based and antiquated. Don't throw the Baby out with the Bathwater.
    Rose