Revisiting an issue that has come up repeatedly in Colorado, the legislature is once again debating a change in the state’s liquor laws. House Bill 1284 would allow the sale of full-strength beer in convenience and grocery stores.
Sunday’s Denver Post Perspective section featured an exchange of opinions on this subject from four contributors. Favoring the bill was the president of the Colorado Retail Council. The other three, including a spokesman for a liquor store, an owner of a craft brewery and a consumer, opposed it. They would preserve the status quo, which restricts the sale of wine, spirits and full-strength beer to state-licensed liquor stores. Under current law, the only alcoholic beverage that can be sold in groceries or convenience stores is 3.2 beer.
It’s understandable that the Colorado Retail Council would like to see liquor sales expanded to major retail chains. And it’s equally understandable that liquor store owners and some craft breweries would defend the current restrictions, which they believe benefit them. The one consumer “expert” was an odd choice. She’s the owner of a pet care center in Estes Park who’s also an activist Democrat and blogger on a left-wing website. I’m a consumer, too, and she sure doesn’t speak for me.
When it comes to business regulation in the name of “consumer protection,” I’m a minimalist. Yes, I believe there’s a legitimate role for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, and I give no quarter to businesses that defraud consumers. However, in general terms, I place more trust in the workings and efficiency of the imperfect (relatively) free market than I do in the far-more-imperfect meddling of government bureaucrats. The underlying principle is that the first duty of a market economy is to serve consumers. Not businesses or stockholders — they can take care of themselves. Not “fairness” — that’s the last refuge of inferior competitors and the devil’s playpen for politicians and bureaucrats. And certainly not government.
As for consumers, I believe they should be treated as responsible adults, not children. I leave them to do their own horse trading and to make their own choices, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Short of outright fraud, the principle of caveat emptor — let the buyer beware — should prevail.
In addition to full-strength beer, I’d also allow the sale of wine and spirits in grocery stores in the interest of consumer convenience. Opponents argue that some smaller liquor stores may close. Perhaps they would, just as mom-and-pop grocery stores have given way to supermarkets because that’s what the great majority of consumers prefer.
Given finite demand for alcohol sales, the market will determine how many stores are needed. If there are too many, it’s an inefficient way to distribute the product. Liquor stores are not a government jobs program and the legislature has no duty to protect those that can’t compete with the ones consumers prefer.
The best traditional stores that offer personal service, variety and higher quality that enough consumers value will survive and flourish. Good microbrews will also survive. If supermarkets with limited shelf space decline to carry them all, that will be another opportunity for liquor specialty stores. I doubt 7-Elevens will be selling expensive French champagnes.
Liquor store protectionists rail against out-of-state supermarket and convenience- store “corporations” sucking profits out of Colorado. But supermarket profits are less than 2 cents on the dollar, and I don’t base my buying decisions on the address of corporate headquarters. The same argument could be used to oppose sales of Lexus and Mercedes automobiles or whiskey made in Scotland. Florida protectionists could discourage their residents from skiing in Colorado or buying Colorado’s Coors beer at their liquor stores. The bottom line is which policy best benefits consumers.
Freelance columnist Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.
