UPDATED: I think I am still a bit undecided on this, more because I am finding myself too easily swayed whenever someone gives me a counter argument. I guess maybe I don’t really care either way on this one.
—-
Kieth over at Volcanoboy has an interesting take on this.
So, yeah, Shaw’s won’t be selling bombers of oak-aged Arrogant Bastard anytime soon, but it’s a fact that sales catering to the.. er.. average alcohol palate (…not so good stuff) gives stores like Austin and Julio’s the breathing room to stock the good stuff on the shelves and to take chances with new products. A lot of states let grocery stores sell booze, and smaller stores don’t survive because of it. Visit those “liberated” states and you’ll find that selection has suffered to benefit availability.
I personally was already planning on giving this one the “no” vote, as I just didn’t see the real benefit here to me, the consumer, but I thought this was a pretty well thought out view on why this prop deserves a “no” vote, and made me feel better about my decision. And please, spare me the “it’s more convenient” argument. There is a liquor store every 13 feet in this state, and a bar between each one of those. That argument holds about as much water as the “selling booze at Stop And Shop will cause us all to die in drunk driving accidents” counter argument. Cut through the BS and scare tactics, and vote with your brain….
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Thoughtlets
(Jul 18 ) - Why doesn’t MySpace offer RSS feeds of their status updates?
(Jul 17 ) - Alyssa Milano writes an MLB blog. And it’s actually ok.
2 Responses
Eric
October 18th, 2006 at 9:52 am
I’m voting “yes” based on principle. The attack adds from the “no” party are so riddled with non-sequiturs, that they deserve to lose. Is there a direct correlation between selling wine in grocery stores and drunk driving fatalities? Fuck no.
And, no, I honestly don’t believe that our beer selection will dwindle as a result. When I went to school in Ithaca, NY, there was a plenty good beer selection at Wegmens — a super market. The market will support good beer if there is demand.
Austin’s will still have the best beer selection in Worcester because people are buying it. Hell, Austin even turned off the florescent lights in the beer isle because the buying public demanded it — they wouldn’t have done that if no one cared about the beer. Prop one will make no difference. More consumer choice is good.
Tracy
October 19th, 2006 at 8:15 am
I love how the debate is centered around what Shaws and Stop and Shop may or may not do. There are more grocery stores around than those two. I would love it if all Trader Joes and Whole Foods locations could carry wine. And that’s not for some false idea of convenience but rather a real one. When I lived in NH, we would do our grocery shopping at the Hanover Co-op, which sold some pretty decent stuff. We could talk to the workers there who helped us pick some pretty good pairings with the stuff in our grocery cart. I wish we could do that here, and in fact, if we lived closer to the three stores of each chain which can carry wine, we could. Instead, we’re left running another errand and getting sub par dinner pairings because it involves two stores instead of one.
And what really pisses me off about the whole matter is that the local convenience store about a block or two from my office sells both wine and beer. Apparently, it’s ok to give them a liquor license but not most grocery stores.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Archives
Friends
Categories