I Just Bought Wine In a Grocery Store
That’s right, and I lived to tell about it.
I’m here in Las Vegas, Nevada finishing my book with my coauthor Mark Noonan, and we’ve just returned from grocery shopping for dinner. While shopping I noticed the wine section and thought about getting some wine for dinner. Without giving it much thought I went up and down the short wine aisles looking for a good bottle of wine to go with dinner.
All of sudden it clicked that I could not do this back at home. At home, we can’t shop for dinner and pick up a bottle wine without making a second stop. I couldn’t help appreciating the convenience. A few other people were in the wine aisles, all adults.
It’s also worth noting that when we checked out, we used one of those automated check-out aisles. I wondered at first how this would work, because one could assume this would be an easy way to bypass being carded when purchasing alcohol. Well, when the bottle of wine was scanned, the machine prompted us to show ID to the attendant, who was also alerted to the intended purchase of alcohol.
Did I mention the alcohol was also inexpensive? About $2.00 cheaper than I’ve seen it sold for in Massachusetts.
This experience purchasing wine at a grocery store affirms my belief that Massachusetts should vote ‘Yes’ on Question 1.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: corruption, IRS, Mark Noonan.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
They do sell wine at grocery stores. Each company has 3 liquor licenses. I suggest you find one.
Vote yes, so all the locally owned small liquor stores will lose out to the large foreign owned companies. The owners will not be able to compete and possibly have to go out of business. Just so you can buy a bottle of wine at Shaws.
Is it really that much trouble? I am sure you know where you can find a liquor store.
Please think of the liquor store owners when going to the polls on Tuesday.
I agree with TJ. The core issue of this initiative is big business vs. small business. The bigsupermarket and convenience store chains will be able to undercut small local businesses.
And this is a problem, why? Creative destruction, pal. Cry for the buggy whip makers.
Yes, it sucks if your business cannot compete. I’ve been there in the high-tech industry when the Prime’s and Digitals got eaten by the Sun’s of the world. Did you cry for us then?
Times change. Businesses change or die. That’s how capitalism works, and if you throw in government as an anchor we all go down with the ship as the next county/state/country changes and moves onward.
Mahk my words. It’ll staaht with wine, then it’ll be beah, then… jello shots in kindergarten at recess!!!
I’m now leaning yes on question 1. Not because of Matt’s post (although it was well written). I also personally don’t particularly buy the price thing – because that probably has a lot more to do with local economy, shipping, etc.
And I do agree its primarily a big vs. small business issue, but I’ve lived in Ct and NY as well, both of which allow sales of alcohol in grocery stores, and both of which have plenty of specialty wine/liquor stores, who can offer a greater variety and more personalized service.
The only reasons I’d vote no are 1) I think its silly this is a ballot question, this should be a legislative issue. Of the 3 questions this year, only 2 really deserves to be a ballot question.
And 2, for my own wallet. Because if wine is available easier I’ll probably buy more. I’m not saying its a bad thing in general, just for my net worth
But I don’t think those two are enough (certainly 2 isn’t), and I’m leaning yes.
Agreed. The whole small business argument sounds silly to me. If that is what our state government is for, why not ban huge international corporations altogether? Why not specify that eggs, for example, have to be sold in an “eggs only” store and no one can own more than three locations. Then we will have lots of new small businesses! Doesnt work that way. And frankly, it would make more sense coming from Grace Ross than from the readers of a conservative blog.
Besides the generic free market arguments though, I doubt that the liquor industry will disappear. I dont even think specialty wine stores will vanish. If you want to get a really nice bottle from someone who knows what they are selling, you will still have to go to a mom and pop shop. More people may drink wine with dinner than before, but recent studies suggest that thats not such a bad thing.
Sorry Ted, it will never be beer. The only reason this is wine, and wine only, is because the huge markup on wine. Stores do not make any money off beer and booze, so the grocery stores do not care to sell them.
Yet they tell us it is all about the shopper’s convenience. If that were true they would sell Natural Light at McDonalds drive-thrus. I would vote for that.
> Sorry Ted, it will never be beer. The only
> reason this is wine, and wine only, is because
> the huge markup on wine. Stores do not make
> any money off beer and booze, so the grocery
> stores do not care to sell them.
I’m not so sure. They sell beer (as well as every other bottled alcoholic drink, like hard lemonade, wine coolers, Smirnoff Ice and the like, etc) in every supermarket I was ever in in New York State. They seem to turn a profit, so I don’t know why the market would be different here.
The ‘only wine’ thing is just a ploy to make it more palatable to consumers/voters. I think if you’re voting yes, you need to to also be okay if its eventually expanded to beer and other ~5% alcohol bottled beverages, because its probably fairly likely to happen. If that really makes a difference to you, I’d vote no (this coming from someone whos leaning yes, with the full knowledge that the next push will be beer).
Then why do all of the supermarket chains sell beer and wine in the maximum number of stores (3) that the law currently allows to do so? The only reason this is wine, and wine only, is because they thought that they could get it passed easier because of the whole snob appeal aspect of wine. Hopefully once wine is allowed to get sold in stores and there isn’t mass carnage in the streets then they’ll come to their senses and allow beer sales, too. Either that or the liquor cartel will have to boost the amount of graft they pay to the solons to keep the status quo on beer.
i’m voting yes on 1. there are plenty of locally owned liquor stores in other states.
Did you buy wine coolers at the mini-mart staffed by the 18 year old, too?
No on 1.
No on Question #1!!
Look at New Hampshire. They have beer and wine in the supermarkets but for everything else you must go to the state run liquor store. It closes at some God-awful hour in the early evening (4pm?6pm?) and you can’t get anything else there. I don’t drink beer or wine….I drink Cape Codders. When visiting New Hampshire I have had to leave the beach to get to the stupid state liquor store to get my Ketel One. That doesn’t happen in Massachusetts. I get to work on my melanoma until the sun goes down and still obtain substances to damage my liver with until 2300 hours. That’s the American way! No on Question 1!
Why will liquor stores have to close at 4pm just because grocery stores can sell wine? That sounds like a completely different ballot initiative – and I agree, it sounds un-American!
Yes on Question 1!
There has been a lot of money poured into the campaign in favor of Question #1—the sale of wine in supermarkets and convenience stores—by these stores and their allies that has been spent on misleading advertisements meant to deceive the voters.
What these ads do not tell you is that should this ballot question be approved, the number licenses to sell wine will double. The majority of responsible wine enjoyers will not take advantage of the new “convenience” of having wine in corner stores or super markets because these places will only offer more “cookie cutter” wines. Therefore, it will be the underage and irresponsible consumers of alcohol that will be enjoying this new “convenience.” It will be easy for the 16 year old employees in Stop & Shop to pass bottles out the back door of the store or simply look the other way when their friends are in the store late at night.
Along these same lines, the availability of more garbage wines will do nothing to increase competition and lower prices for consumers. Since the wine that will be available in the supermarkets and convenience stores will be of the cookie cutter variety, prices for actual “good” wines will be unaffected.
Remember, this is not just about supermarkets. The new law would require stores to carry “fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items” in order to apply for the license. Does anyone doubt that the convenience stores will add these items to their shelves just so that they can secure a license?
One must also not be fooled into thinking that the supermarkets and convenience stores will stop at wine. If they are successful in putting wine on their shelves, it is just a matter of time before they add beer and eventually liquor. This is a slippery slope that we do not need to travel down.
Finally, the package stores around Massachusetts are an important part of the local economy. Too often this state punishes people just for trying to make an honest living. We should do everything to support and reward the small businesses in our state for staying here.
The liquor stores are also important players in the community. They are serious about age restriction enforcement and they consider stopping underage drinking as their top priority. If they are caught selling to minors, they risk losing their entire livelihood. They are responsible members of our community; let’s not punish them for their commitment to safety.
Join me in voting NO on Ballot Question #1. This is no time to make alcohol sales more convenient.
The people behind this proposal is Ahold Corporation, from Holland, which owns Stop & Shop. There is no reason good enough to change the law for the benefit of the big-box retailers. It really isn’t that inconvenient to buy wine as the law stands now. I agree that the law is silly, but not oppressive. It would do more damage than good to change it.
Vote NO on question one, for these grocery store retailers cannot keep their current inventory from walking-out of the store even with current loss prevention techniques and methods. You think wine will not be a ‘hot item’ for teenagers who have EVERY reason to enter a grocery store, but obviously do NOT have every reason to enter a liquor store? There does not need to be more liquor out there on the streets; and large FOREIGN companies do not need to put out and hurt large businesses and try to change the laws here for their own financial profit. Let’s not mix ADULT alcohol with FAMILY places (i.e. grocery stores). Vote NO!
JL
http://www.myspace.com/worcester_state_democrats