liquor

Democratic Senator James Beach introduced a set of bills earlier this month that, if passed by the New Jersey state senate, will make it easier and cheaper for restaurants and stores to obtain the necessary licenses to serve and sell liquor. Attempts like this to liberalize the sale of alcohol are certainly a step in the right direction. Though alcohol has been legally served in the US for 77 years, it should be a sobering revelation to every citizen that the impetus for restoring our right to free choice is money and not freedom. Yes, the reforms in New Jersey would be a step in the right direction, but we’ve still got a long way to go before we can really shake the hang-over regulatory policies from prohibition.

Because NJ’s licensing scheme works  much like taxi cab medallions, there is a limited number of licenses available in each municipality and no way for counties to sell their licenses to one another. Two of the bills introduced by Sen. Beach would increase the amount of liquor licenses by allowing their sale at “fair market value,” to other municipalities within the state. A third bill would create an entirely new type of license for restaurants. This new class of licenses allows for beverage sales along with food service at tables. These licenses are unlimited (unless a municipality chooses to limit the number) and the cost to purchase is capped

Wasted Time:

Getting a license to sell liquor in New Jersey is complicated, competitive, and time consuming. Because of their limited availability (each municipality is allowed to issue one tavern or bar license for every 3,000 residents, and one license for a packaged-goods store for every 7,500) they are rare and highly valued. For example, restaurant owner Ron Squillace had to wait 5 years and pay $300,000 before finally acquiring a license to distribute alcohol at his trattoria. That is five years that his BYOB had to compete with all the other restaurants in the area that could offer diners a glass of red wine with their eggplant parmesan.  Currently there are around 9,300 licenses-a decline since the 80′s as licenses have expired. Most small business owners can’t afford that kind of expense, and with a failure rate of about 50% over five years the inability to compete with well-established and chain restaurants that can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy liquor license, it makes success all that much more difficult.

Buzz-kill: Opposition to Reform:

Predictably, the major opponents to the proposed overhaul-especially reforms that make it easier for grocery stores to sell alcoholic beverages, are liquor store owners. They complain that since grocery stores can sell a greater variety of liquor, are more convenient, and cheaper, that “Mom and Pop” liquor stores will be unable to compete. They may be right. However, their business model is built on a niche created by a regulatory injustice. Nobody would have listened to mobsters or speak-easy owners had they complained that ending prohibition would put them out of business. If small liquor stores can find no other way to compete in the wake of reforms it will be sad, but it will be a small price to pay for economic liberty.

Addicted to the money: It’s only a problem if politicians admit it.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of old alcohol regulation remains in place because of the money and power they generate. Restricting the number of licenses makes them very valuable and because restaurants able to obtain them have a competitive leg up on other establishments owners are willing to spend just about whatever it takes to get them. Take for example, the fact Squillace was willing to wait 5 years and pay $300k in order to compete with other restaurants already able to serve alcohol with meals  waited 5 years and spent at least $300k to obtain the license that would allow him to compete with other restaurants already able to serve alcohol with meals. And who knows how many officials he had to bribe or incentivize to move the process along.

Drunk with Power: Abolish liquor licensing.

The bills introduced by Sen. Beach represent a significant step toward increasing the available licenses in the state and reducing the cost of purchasing a license for businesses. However, it still does no correct the real injustice, which is the government overstepping its authority. It isn’t there to take money from business owners or tell them what they can sell to their customers.

After 77 years of milking the beverage regulation cow, it is understandable that NJ lawmakers are having a tough time walking away from all that power and money.  While increasing the number of available licenses make it easier and cheaper for restaurants and less likely that they’ll fail, thereby increasing tax revenue generated in the state, the need for reform is not about money; it is about the proper role of government and correcting the sins of the past (aka prohibition).

If New Jersey politicians want a vibrant economy and a just government actually of, by, and for the people [all the people not just the politically connected and rich] it should consider abolishing licensing all together; allow all restaurant owners the ability to serve alcohol without the necessity of first paying tribute to the state in order to make a living.

As of April 6th any pub owner offering free drink specials, all you can drink deals, or drinking games could lose their liquor license, end up 20,000 pounds lighter or in jail for 6 months.

Other deals that are made unlawful are “dentists’ chairs” where drink is poured directly into the mouths of customers making it impossible for them to control the amount they are drinking.

The purpose of this new ordinance is to cut down on drink-related crime, or the “scourge of binge drinking” as Home Office minister Alan Campbell put it. The belief is that binge drinking is the result of cheaply available liquor.

uk-drinker-telegraphA few years back, leaders in the UK believed that forcing pubs to close at certain times was a contributing factor to binge drinking (people getting in those last rounds before last call) and pouring into the streets with nothing else to do but brawl. But in 2005 the licensing laws in the UK changed “at last grown-ups will be treated like grown-ups.” forcing The licensing minister of the time declared. But only 5 years later it seems grownups don’t have the ability to say no to a good deal. While leaders in the UK hope that keeping prices high will slow peoples’ drinking, it will most likely just result in bigger tabs. As pubs continue to struggle and close thanks to the increasing liquor taxes, they might not be too angry about their patrons spending more money, of course without the specials pubs may find their patron numbers drying up.

As I wrote back in November at the Objective Standard’s blog (my colleague Ivan Osorio also wrote about the topic here), Virginia’s new governor Bob McDonnell showed a very promising inclination toward free markets and privatization, though his rhetoric on the subject may have left something to be desired. Specifically, he floated the idea of privatizing the 300+ state-run liquor stores in order to pay for his transportation plan. Regardless of his stated or actual motivation, the end result could have been the long-awaited liberalization of alcohol sales in the state.
The bill SB 443 introduced by state Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) would auction off the existing licenses in a public auction (with pre-qualified bidders), sell all the real property and allow for the issuance of liquor retail licenses in the amount of 1 per ever 10,000 residents.

On the surface this seems like a definite step toward market freedom.

Unfortunately, Obenshain put the bill on the shelf this week, withdrawing it from the senate Finance committee. Obenshain said he wanted to give the governor more time to consider the bill. On the bright side Obenshain seems committed to the issues and plans to reintroduce a modified version in the special session that may occur later this year or in the following session.  According to the Senator:

“Divesting Virginia’s ABC stores is a win-win situation…Privatization offers consumers the benefits of competition: more convenient hours, wider selection, lower prices, and innovation, just to name a few. It does away with the more than $120 million the government spends each year on administrative costs while creating new revenue streams by auctioning off wholesale and retail licenses. And it gets the state out of something in which it never had any business getting involved.”

Picture via www.usbeerrunners.com

It is illegal for grocery stores to sell wine in the state of New York. Only liquor stores are allowed to sell the stuff.

This regulation, a relic of Prohibition, lives on because of one of the central concepts in public choice theory: diffused costs and concentrated benefits.

The benefits are concentrated in one constituency: liquor stores. Regulations give them get millions of dollars in free business. That means they have millions of reasons to lobby to keep the status quo.

Consumers, on the other hand, are hurt by the ban by the exact amount that liquor stores benefit. But that hurt is spread far and wide. No one consumer feels enough pain to hire a high-priced lobbyist to open up the market.

That means New York’s misguided restrictions on competition are likely to continue for some time. It’s hard to imagine an aggrieved shopper suing New York’s wine cartel because she has to make an extra trip to get the wine on her grocery list. Or because she pays a bit more than if she lived in a different state.

(Hat tip: Jonathan Moore)

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner get together to bring you Episode 75 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on Ben Bernanke’s recession theories, Canada’s struggle to provide affordable energy, the high cost of government-regulated credit cards, bringing booze to Salt Lake City and the FDA’s critics on the left.

Kahlua contains 20% alcohol in 49 states. But in Ohio, it is 21.5%. Weird, huh?

Turns out regulations are the reason. My friend Jacob Grier pointed me to an article showing that Ohio groups alcoholic beverages into two categories: wine/beer and spirits. Any beverage below 20% alcohol is in the wine/beer category and can be sold in grocery stores. Anything above 20% is classed as a spirit and can only be sold in state-run liquor stores.

Drinkers often mix Kahlua with spirits such as vodka. So the company actually changed its recipe in Ohio to ensure that Kahlua would appear in stores next to its complementary products. The benefit to consumers from this regulatory scheme is unclear.