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….
