Walmart and wine. Will Mississippians one day say the two words in a single sentence? The Krogers and Walmarts want to sell wine. The idea isn't going over too well with wine store owners and other small businessmen. The Sun-Herald reported on the fight that is brewing in the legislature:
The effort to put wine in grocery stores has some of the trappings of a grass-roots movement: website, Facebook community with more than 900 members, a newsletter and a Twitter feed. But the real fight will take place in the legislature in Jackson with powerful lobbyists on both sides of the issue.
The fine print at the bottom of the Looking for Wine website points to Cornerstone Governmental Affairs, a firm with offices in Washington, Chicago, Jackson and across the Southeast.....
She said Wal-Mart and Kroger are the corporate members of the coalition that includes hundreds of Mississippi residents. She said other companies are considering joining.
The Mississippi Hospitality Beverage Association opposes such changes to the way wine reaches consumers. In fact, longtime lobbyist Buddy Medlin said, that's the reason liquor store owners brought him in 25 or 30 years ago -- to keep wine out of grocery stores....
He said there has never been a serious effort to expand the wine market to grocery stores until the past couple of years. Liquor stores, he said, are mostly mom-and-pop operations. In fact, a person in Mississippi can own only one liquor store. Kroger and Wal-Mart own dozens of stores across the state....
"If the big-box distributors, Wal-Mart and what-not, take it over, it would diminish the livelihood" of the liquor store owners, he said. "They would lose that business.
"It's a real battle of us versus them. They have some real capable and respectable lobbyists."
But Young said putting wines in grocery store should expand the market.
"We really expect it to have a high economic impact," she said. "All of our neighbors have it."
She said people living near the state line are shopping at stores in Louisiana and Alabama.
"It's because of the convenience," she said.
Medlin is skeptical of claims the expansion would bring more money.
"I haven't seen any evidence of that," he said. "I don't think the state would realize the profits they're talking about."
Medlin said Mississippi's method, known in the industry as a control system, isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed.
"There's never been anything discolored about the system," he said. "Obey the laws or get kicked to the side."....
State Rep. Scott DeLano, R-Biloxi, introduced a bill last year that would have allowed stronger wine in grocery stores had it not died in committee. This year, he hopes the legislature takes an even broader look at the ABC.
"I just want to have a conversation about: Is the ABC model we're using today, the Alcohol Beverage Control model, what we need and are there some improvements we need to make to the system?" he said. "I'm looking at it from a holistic perspective. Let's just take it from the top. Let's ask a lot of questions and let's get input from as many people as we can."....
"It's ridiculous a liquor store can't sell food items like cheese or bread or meat, salami," he said. He also said he would like to look at the reporting requirements for liquor stores, which he says gives rivals an unfair advantage.
"Do you know liquor stores have to submit all their sales to the state and there's a report that anybody can run that shows all the sales from every single liquor store in the state?" DeLano said. "I can see what my competitor is doing."....
Some consumers say it's not just the convenience of grocery shopping they want; it's also a larger selection. But Medlin and an ABC spokesman both said wine drinkers have access to virtually any wine.
"I've heard them say they cannot get this wine, cannot get that wine," Medlin said. "ABC does have special order. You can order any that's available in the US."
Kathy Waterbury, spokeswoman for the state Department of Revenue, said ABC had more than 8,000 wines "typically always available from the warehouse." She said if a store or restaurant orders from that list of wines by 11 a.m., that order should arrive the next day, except in the busiest holidays. The ABC also fulfilled 5,000 special orders last year, she said.
"If we have a product that's not listed, they can go to their package store and order that and we'll order it for them from a winery or distillery and then we'll ship that to them as soon as we receive it if we're able to get it," she said. "We also have items we call select wine list where we purchase items that do not meet the quota for being listed but we do have some customers in the state ask for it from time to time. It's pretty much the high-end stuff but we are selling it, so we carry some. There are about 175 wines on that list." Rest of article
Other stories:
WLBT story
Clarion-Ledger story.
133 comments:
I know one thing for sure - If I buy any wine at a grocery store in another state, i always pay significantly less than here in mississippi liquor stores.
Grocery store sales will shift market share, not grow the market, and cost jobs. This would be a small business disaster in Mississippi's wet counties. An absolute unmitigated disaster. Any net sales increases from the border regions will be negligible.
BUT this would be typical for Republicans to fuck over the little guy in exchange for lobbyist largesse and campaign contributions. Haley Barbour has built an empire fucking over the commoner to fatten the pockets of his corporate cronies.
Follow the money.
Dollar stores sell wine now. If you don't want it don't buy it.
same lame arguments were heard in the 1970's when WalMart started moving into multiple small towns: it will destroy downtown, it will put the local stores out of business, yada yada yada. Well, downtowns did change, but people wanted the bigger selections and the convenience the bigger stores offered. guess what? downtowns adapted and get different kinds of businesses and attractions. times will always change and savvy business people will always be ready to change and adapt. I thought Medlin was in prison...
I seriously doubt this will hurt the monopoly liquor stores currently enjoy. If I want wine recommendations or something specific, I will go to my usual liquor store and ask the experts. There is no valid or logical reason as to why I can't grab a bottle of wine or liquor at a grocery store while I'm already there. Then again, I'm the fool looking for logic. A change in the existing system is much needed and can only benefit the state.
its time for Mississippi to move into the 20th century - after all, we are now in the 21st so we have to start catching up sometime! The ABC model we are still operating under is a dinosaur created in the 60's when the worry was to try to control the graft and corruption related to the liquor business. Why should the state be in the wholesale business? Why should the only source for these 'mom and pop stores' Mr. Medlin talks about be one place located in Madison County?
This isn't just about WalMart. It would allow wine purchased at McDade's, or Vowell's - which could also be called 'mom and pops' when compared to the Krogers and other large chains.
DeLano is onto something - its time to look at the whole system and revamp it; not just whether a grocery store could sell wine like they do at that progressive state to our west.
No, we don't have access to "virtually any wine" since wineries limit the distribution of many of their better vintages to wine club members (and on-site purchases). Because we're ABC-controlled, we're on the excluded list for wine club memberships. Buddy Medlin: keeping Mississippi wine drinkers in the dark ages for "25 or 30 years."
"It's a real battle of us versus them. They have some real capable and respectable lobbyists."
I can't think of a better sentence that sums up just how f'ed up this nation has become.
DUI cases in states that have allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores have risen.
Alexa
Rank in the United States as of January 18th, 2016
Jackson Jambalaya = 39,233
Jackson Free Press = 63,144
Mississippi Business Journal = 101,108
MSGOPe Radio, aka, SuperTalkMS = 180,180
Madison County Journal = 220,316
Slabbed = 332,413
Mississippi Litigation Review = 417,923
Mississippi Link = 588,473
Jane's Law Blog = 623,429
Y'allPolitics = 644,383
Mississippi Gun News = 692,024
Mississippi Conservative Daily = 1,227,813
Bigger Pie Forum = Not Available
Cottonmouth = Not Available
Dark Horse Mississippi = Not Available
Deep South Daily = Not Available
Desoto County Reform = Not Available
Hattiesburg Patriot = Not Available
Jackson Advocate = Not Available
Magnolia Report = Not Available
Mississippi PEP = Not Available
Mississippi Political Pulse = Not Available
Northside Sun = Not Available
Weidie Report = Not Available
Thus Blogged Anderson = Defunct
The rank is calculated using a combination of average daily visitors to the site and pageviews on the site from users in the United States over the past month. Updated daily.
and while they are at it--how about opening up MS for powerball. NO doubt plenty of beer, wine, gas, food was bought in Delhi, LA in the last few weeks. business that could have stayed in the state.
and yes, some little 'mom and pop' liquor stores will be hurt-the ones that service drunks that need a quick bottle of ripple to keep a buzz. (looking at you, ward 3..) but a good wine/spirits store will be fine-they have experts and know their stuff.
The only but very real problem:
If you own a liquor/wine store in MS, you likely went to a bank with a business plan based the current system of alcohol distribution. Now, I'll be the first to agree it's a dumbass system, but it's the one you were forced to work with when you laid the plan and sought financing. Tough nuts....Life changes, so plans have to change, right?
But...wine is how these people are able to stay open in the current environment. Spirits turn very little profit (except a few items, as I'm sure some wise ass will chime in regardless some overpriced Pappy Van Winkle type item, or any other $30 bourbon sold for $100's).
Also, Most owners of nice shops try to pay their people as well as they can. Very unlike their hope to be competitors.
If pains me to type something so regressive as to defend the status quo, but if you're for this change, just stop by your local wine shop and go kick the manager in the nuts. At least you'll be straight up about how much you care about their well being.
I'd rather Mississippi legalize MJ than start having a lottery. The lottery is a sucker's tax and we don't need any more wards of the state p*ssing away their children's food and clothing money than we do now.
You think Mississippi casinos are bad? Just visit a Louisiana liquor store on a Friday and multiply it times 10.
I do think we shout get rid of the ABC, though. It's way out of date.
Thus Blogged Anderson is defunct?
Wow.
I'll really miss not reading it.
Those that fell this will increase selection in MS are sorely mistaken. The big box stores will be focusing solely on wines under the $15 price level. Private stores use that money to generate the cash flow to carry more expensive, hard to get wines. If that cashflow is interrupted, the selection goes down and more consumers are forced to go out of state for wine purchases thus further eroding tax revenue and local economy.
Spot on. Mississippi needs to jump on the cannabis market ahead of the other states. But Feel and his band of merrymen ain't that smart.
Groceries can sell wine and liquor under the current system. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. That's why McDades, Whole Foods and Sam's have all been selling wine and spirits for years. The other states that have wine in groceries and private stores have been operating under that business model from the beginning. To change our laws this late in the game swings the advantage very much in favor of big corporations.
Why not sell at neighborhood cstores. Why not let them sell booze.
Doing away with the ABC makes absolutely no sense at all. The tax revenue generated by the ABC accounts for 98 MILLION dollars annually to the general fund. We're already the poorest state in the nation. Giving up that kind of revenue is the last thing MS should do.
The laws setting up liquor stores, like them or not, exist.
Think about the consequences on current owners.
You take from them the benefit of their bargain with the state, i.e., we get to sell X and in exchange we agree to a litany of reporting and confine ourselves to one store each.
Now these businesses, mom and pop usually, have bank loans. If the current liquor store owners have their inventory taken away (wine is most profitable) then these loans go into default. Home loans go bad.
Livlihoods are stolen by changing the rules.
Why not make Kroger pay into a fund over say 30 years to buy liquor store owners out. After 30 years then nobody will suffer immediate harm.
Now....an argument can be made that this law change is a taking exposing the state to liability....so maybe we can all share in paying damages to law abiding liquor store owners.
Theres a better way to do this.
ust a couple of points I'd like to address. First, under current regulations, groceries can already sell wine/spirits as long as there is a separate entrance next to the grocery. That's how Whole Foods and SAMs in the Jxn metro area have been selling. The other stores that don't sell alcohol, both locally owned and corporate, CHOOSE not to do so. That choice is very much part of the free enterprise model that everyone seems to bring up. The other common argument I see is, "well in FL, TX and LA they sell in groceries and I still see private stores in business." Yes it's true, the difference is that they have been operating in that business model since the beginning. We, as privately owned stores, have been operating under the regulations and laws that MS put in place in '66 when we repealed prohibition. To suddenly change those laws now would be unethical and quite frankly unlawful as we enter into a binding contract with the state each year when we renew our permits. That contract is that we will abide by the regulations set forth by MS law. It is literally no different than buying an item with a lifetime warranty only to have the manufacturer decide one day that there is no longer coverage. The government regulations that are in place are not there as a way to control or suppress the decisions of the consumer, they are there strictly to control the taxation and distribution of a regulated product. Speaking of taxation, the ABC currently accounts for 98 million dollars annually to the general fund. We are already the poorest state in the Nation so privatizing or eliminating the ABC shouldn't even be brought up if you give one flip about progress in MS. Tax dollars are exactly what this state needs to afford the resources required to move forward. By allowing wine in grocery chains, those tax dollars that have historically been generated locally and reinvested in the community will immediately go to out of state corporate offices in AR and OH. Which brings me to my final point. The selection of wines over the $15 price point will absolutely plummet if this were to pass. That's due to the fact that we (local,specialized stores) use the cash flow generated by lower priced, higher volume wines to buy and regularly stock more expensive, desirable and harder to find products. If that is taken away then your ability as a consumer to source those locally will be GREATLY diminished if not totally eradicated. Guess what that means? It means that consumers will be going out of state to buy those items, which brings us full circle back to the loss of tax revenue in a state that is floundering to keep its head above water with infrastructure, education and other vital services that rely on tax revenue. Look, I totally understand the "convenience " side of this issue, but it's so much bigger than that. It's not a partisan argument between free enterprise, government control, republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever. Those are just quick and easy explanations to throw out that prevent deeper consideration about the long term effects this issue could have on consumers and more importantly on the ability of MS to effectively use the tax resources we have in place. Not selling wine in groceries does not mean MS is behind the times, it simply means that we are using our existing tax systems as efficiently and effectively as we can to continue to try and move forward
Travel outside of MS and you can get wine in the grocery stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas.
to 12:54. TN doesnt go into effect until July of this year. The other states you mentioned have been operating that way since the beginning. Changing the laws at this point is just as bad for the consumers in the long run as it is the retailer. Your selection of good wine will deteriorate rapidly and you'll start paying more for spirits as private stores try to balance the revenue loss. This isn't good for anyone. Changing a law just for convenience is extremely short sighte if you really want whats nest for your local community and MS as a state.
Yes, the only current revenue stream that is viable enough to contribute usable dollars to the state is legalization and taxation of cannabis. I'm sure we'll be last, just like alcohol prohibition. But, cannabis should seriously be considered.
Look at all the liquor store owners who've joined us today! The Jackson cab drivers weren't able to find their way here when we were discussing the possible breakup of their cartel. Y'all should unite in your efforts to preserve limited competition in your respective markets.
Incidentally, @11:44 has the best post so far. The political class is a problem in this state and certainly in DC. And the backlash is fueling Sanders, Cruz, and Trump.
Free the wine!!!
Those surrounding states have a completely different system of distribution and all kinds of different laws, not to mention, they have been that way for the most part since the repeal of prohibition. You cannot compare MS to them for an example of what wine in grocery stores would do. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Package store owners have invested their entire livelihoods, in many instances MILLIONS of their hard-earned dollars based on the current laws in MS. Laws that are EQUALLY applied to all grocery stores in the state as well, I might add (if Kroger wants to sell wine and liquor in MS right NOW they CAN, just like Sam's in Madison, Whole Foods, McDade's, etc.). What Walmart and Kroger are really asking for here is for the lawmakers in MS to give them a HUGE, unfair advantage over the local Mississippians who have put all of their money into a business based on the laws. Rip the rug out from under their feet. This will lead to vacant store fronts statewide, banks holding the bag for business loans that package store owners won't be able to pay, foreclosures on houses of owners and employees, etc.
@ 11:38. Everything in your post is incorrect. Except for the last line.
I didn't realize we owe liquor store owners special protection in the market place? We should also stop walmart and kroger from selling gasoline, office supplies, flowers, sushi, plate lunches, sandwiches, etc. to protect other small businesses.
Anyone trying to defend the control state system (e.g. the ABC) simply has a vested interest in its existence. (Those tax dollars are needed but can be generated independently without the ABC, and it is less than honest to pretend otherwise.)
This is a separate issue of business owners who had no choice but to rely on a system when making their business plans and now having that system potentially changed to advantage much larger competitors.
I don't see how anyone would think that this change would create more revenue for the state. Do you think suddenly more people will start drinking wine? Maybe if the groceries sell it the current drinkers will consume more of it? Those are both ludicrous thoughts. The folks that want to drink wine are already drinking wine. All this will do is shift the market share in favor of giant stores and negatively effect our ability as consumers to get things nicer than yellow tail and barefoot.
12:02, actually the exact opposite will happen. The good wine and liquor stores will close. The little hole in the wall stores that already sell mostly liquor will be all that's left.
12:40 and 12:48 hit the nail on the head. Drug stores like Walgreens and grocery stores like Kroger and WalMart in other states sell mostly low-end $20 and under boxes and bottles. Remember when Sam's Club in North Jackson had its liquor store? Mostly cheap stuff and not a great selection of that. Store owners have invested around regulations that are in place. The Legislature shond't jerk the rug.
Every state in which I've bought liquor or wine ins grocery store has had better prices and selection than most liquor stores in Mississippi.
That's not to say that some liquor stores that try to cater to a better clientele than the pint of Seagrams crowd won't always offer better selection than the big stores. I'm sure they will. It's part of their business model.
I don't care if the poor "mom and pop" places go under if it means that 1) I get better prices on mid level or bottom shelf stuff, 2) the higher end liquor stores are forced to become specialty shops and carry more hugger end stuff, like craft beer stores, 3) it is a start toward ending the ridiculous three tiered distributor model of regulation. Anything that brings us closer to manufacturers selling straight to retailers is a good thing. And those poor mom and pops and the distributors have been benefitting from a state enforced free lunch at the consumer's expense.
Competition is a bitch....ain't it?
Get the state out of the alcohol business, please! It is disgusting that the state of Mississippi spends more money on alcohol than the budgets of all the state universities combined. More money is spent on Ernest and Julio Gallo alone than Delta State. And I guarantee you that by the time you calculate the overhead associated with "managing" alcohol within the state, we are losing money...and I'm sure these six sigma wunderkinds in the legislature will never give up all that "revenue"...hey, a budget involves looking at both sides of the ledger, we are not net positive in the ABC system!...if Tater is so worried about tax burden in this state, here is a completely unnecessary bureaucracy that costs taxpayers and the state coffers money
@12:48 nice post from Briarwood Liquors. You would think they would at least change some words up. These are the exact comments they are posting under members of the legislature facebook pages. Why post as anonymous here?
Liquor stores are afraid they will loose out on the high prices they change. I read quite a few excuses for the high prices but it is all just greed. Not a bit of difference in the liquor stores and the cab companies. If you can't compete find something else to do. You do not have a special right to screw your customers.
Package stores don't have a monopoly. Literally anyone can sell wine and liquor in the state if they follow the laws and rules, just the same as package stores. That means separate entrance, and you can only sell wine, liquor, corkscrews, mixers, and wine glasses in that store. This includes any grocery store who wants to get in the business (as many have mentioned, Sam's, Whole Foods, McDade's, any other grocery store.) Mom and pop package stores are competing right now with those big corporations. What Walmart and Kroger want are unfair, unlevel laws that heavily favor them. Right now, the laws favor no one. Package store owners have only been able to hold one license for 50 years, 1 location. On top of that, they've been severely restricted in what they can sell to the items listed above. In those same 50 years, grocery stores have been able to open as many locations as they want and have been able to sell beer, tobacco, gasoline, food, cookware, clothing, electronics, baby care items...basically whatever they can dream up. Literally thousands upon thousands of items. As icing on the cake, they can sell liquor and wine in one of their stores as long as they have a separate entrance. Under the current laws, competition is level and healthy. Sams is one of the top sellers in the state. What Kroger and Walmart want is for lawmakers to change those laws and eliminate their competition, the local mom and pop stores, by allowing the corporate giants to roll out wine (and eventually liquor) in every store statewide. When the mom and pops are all gone due to this unfair sudden change in law all to benefit the CEOs at Walmart and Kroger, there will be no competiton left in town. All you will be left with are the boxed wines and $15-and-under wines at Walmart and a handful of dirty, scary package stores that have been able to hike the prices of their liquor as high as the sky.
Anonymous at 1:09, This isn't Briarwood, but since you're so interested in names, what's yours?
Mother's Against Drunk Driving is against this legislation.
Knob Creek runs $30-$35 a fifth here. Bought a fifth in Martin's in NOLA for $24. Let's not stop at wine in Walmart!
Leave it to the MSGOP to focus on the really important stuff.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving lost all credibility when they went absolutely, totally dead silent when the Irby issue was front and center. Who cares what they're against?
@12:43; How can you be so damned stupid as to actually type out a claim that grocery stores in Mississippi have been selling 'spirits' for years. Prove that insane claim or get the hell outa here.
The only argument I see here for keeping the current system is that it IS the current system. If that is the logic we are going to have for running our state we deserve to stay last in most every metric.
Yes - this law change will hurt some mom/pop liquor stores. Yes, they are operating under the laws that were in existence at the time they opened. (That has nothing to do with whether those laws were good or not.) Hell, if we use the logic that we should keep operating as we have been these mom/pop stores need to close up and lets go back to the local bootlegger, cause they were operating under the laws as they were pre 1966. When we legalized liquor then, it put a lot of good follks that had been operating under the laws as they were at the time the invested in their drive thru windows, their used school buses that were used for storage in the woods, etc.
All the rest of Medlin's clients posts here are only argumentative to protect the current monopoly. Those that want to have a 'better selection' will go to their favorite wine and liquor shop. Those that want more convenience will pick up their bottle of wine while they pick up their steak or seafood that they are fixing for supper.
The purpose of our laws are not to protect monopoly operations but to provide what's best for the citizens of the state. There is little argument that opening up this market would not be better all around for the state - except for those poor moms or pops and their bank loans.
Why would I change the words? The message is the same. When posting from my phone it's faster to do so as anonymous vs. an account and copying and pasting the message shouldn't matter if I feel the same way. Yeah, I'm Briarwood Wine & Spirits and I'm fighting for the well being of my family and business. We based an entire business model and loan structure on the laws that MS has been operating under since 1966. We're located at 4949 Old Canton rd. in Jackson, where we've been for 50 years. Our phone number is 601-956-5108. Feel free to drop by or call if anyone would like to discuss further. Yes, those with a vested interest in the ABC are the ones fighting against this change. Can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise.
Mr\Mrs Pinther. Whole Foods, McDades and Sam's club have all been selling wine and spirits. They just choose to do so under the current regulations that apply to all businesses. Please don't call me stupid. You don't know me like that. Would you like me to post a pic of the Whole Foods or Sam's club stores?
2:50, he means that stores like McDades has a liquor store near or next door to the grocery store, but its not connected, it has a separate door. its not insane. check the mirror tho...
We definetly need lower prices for the finer grades of wine. I almost wasn't able to make the. Monthly lease on my BEW last month because of the price of Opus. Never mind that the ABC returns money to the state if it will lower the cost of wine and liquor I'm for it
What's wrong with the current law, where a big-box corporate grocery stores and locally owned grocery stores can get a permit and own a liquor store located next door to their grocery store? Why shouldn't the public demand that a grocery store have a separate premise with mature adults in charge of selling sell wine and liquor to adults over 21? If these Goliath lobbyists manage to sell the legislature on this proposal, will Walmart and Kroger be restricted from hiring people under 21? And required to only hire adults over 21 that are the capable of selling these products in a responsible manner? How would grocery stores with employees who are under 21, manage their inventory? And speaking of inventory, what essential products are they going to discontinue selling to make room for wine and liquor?
To sum up: "mom & pop stores" are whining at the prospect of an artificial, government-created monopoly disappearing.
Stupid redneck statists.
Dang... I feel cheep.
We definetly need lower prices for the finer grades of wine. I almost wasn't able to make the. Monthly lease on my BEW last month because of the price of Opus. Never mind that the ABC returns money to the state if it will lower the cost of wine and liquor I'm for it
Sounds like someone needs to lay off the Mad Dog.
A grocery store cannot sell liquor. A grocery chain may own a liquor store and may own one next door. A grocery chain may own a tire store or gas station, but there are no regulations that one of their stores can't sell the same (as with liquor/wine).
Anyone who supports the current ABC system deserves the overreaching government they have. There is no sound basis for the government to be in the liquor business and those commenting should learn about the MS ABC. The consumer AND the store are bound by the liquor/wine that a state government agency chooses, not the free market. It is distributed by the state and the stores order their items through this government agency.
If liquor/wine can be "regulated" in such a manner, there is no reason why guns and ammunition couldn't be. Be careful of the government programs and regulations you support. Those can be the foundation for the ones that you wouldn't. Just because it doesn't affect you now, doesn't mean it's derivative won't down the road.
Some people clearly don't know the meaning of the word monopoly. Let me help you out: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Mom and Pop stores don't have the exclusive right to sell wine. That right is available for any and all who are willing to invest in the sale of wine and liquor and abide by the laws surrounding the sale of wine and liquor. If YOU want to sell it, you can. Go get a bank loan, apply for your liquor license, and open a store. If a grocery store wants to sell it, they can. If the local clothing boutique wants to sell it, they can. As long as they follow the laws surrounding the sale of booze in MS. That means Walmart and Kroger have the same exact rights to sell wine and liquor in the state of MS as the mom and pops...but what Walmart and Kroger want is to have the law changed in order to get rid of competition so they can be the sole source of wine in the state. Walmart and Kroger want the lawmakers to unfairly give them more rights than the thousands of local Mississippians who have been complying with the laws of this state for fifty years.
Would the grocery stores be bound by the hours of operation that liquor stores in MS are? In Louisiana (I know, I know, it's Louisiana) you can go into Rouse's grocery and buy anytime they are open. And, yes, they have an excellent selection and the prices are lower than here.
The current state (tax) protection regulatory model is out of date and creates an artificially inflated market of a limited universe of products. If approved, the market will moderate and those seeking an "experience" when buying wine and spirits will gravitate toward specialty shops, those who want a box 'o pinot will head to wally world.
And who gives a shit what MADD thinks, even their founder bailed when they lost their focus and morphed into a neo-prohibitionist money grubbing bunch of bullies.
I'm pretty familiar with how the ABC works but thanks. The ABC does NOT decide what we are able to sell, they are a warehouse with shipping capabilities . The National distributors introduce products just like they do in non ABC controlled states. One of the benefits of a single distributor is just that, a single distributor. If suddenly that was put on the individual rep companies, they would have to buy trucks etc to build the infrastructure necessary to deliver and house their products. The cost of doing so would be reflected to the stores/restaurants which would then be reflected to the consumer. Comparing liquor and wine sales to tires and gasoline doesn't even deserve a response. Please don't try to introduce partisan arguments and gun control here. That's a clear example of fear mongering and assumptions to partisan affiliation strictly based on the type of business someone chooses. By the way, which lobby firm do you work for?
4:08 is spot on. The authoritarian hicks continue to ruin this state.
Let's leave monopolies in place. Public schools, cable tv, electricity, and so forth. Is Mississippi really conservative? Let the market make tha decision. Anyone fighting to retain the current government controlled liquor sales is for big government.
Are Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker and Gregg Harper remotely conservative?
As pointed out, grocery stores can currently sell alcohol with some restrictions. However, a chain can only have one store in the state. That's why Sam's, McDade's, etc. can do it. Kroger could probably do it, but under current law, at only one of their stores.
Tell you what, Goober....for the fellow who claims he buys spirits at McDade's grocery store....I'll go along with him to McDades and not only will pay for the spirits he finds on the grocery shelf, I'll give him $500 to boot and give him forty minutes to raise a crowd to watch the payout if they stock spirits.
What a stupid scoundrel. And we don't have to 'know you like that'. We recognize an idiot when he enters the room here.
No one has said grocery stores sell wine and liquor inside their stores...they've said grocery stores can sell wine and liquor. Which is a 100% true fact. They can and DO. Next door. Hell, Whole Foods is separated by nothing more than a clear pane of glass. The point is grocery stores get the financial benefit of being able to sell wine and liquor here in MS, just the same as wine and liquor stores. Kroger and Walmart and any other grocery store who wants to can fairly compete in the liquor and wine market. Package stores can't sell groceries inside their stores. They can't sell anything except wine, liquor, mixers, wine glasses, and corkscrews. Period. The end. When Kroger and Walmart and any other grocery store came to MS and opened for business, they knew what the laws were. When local Mississippians invested in their package stores and presented their banks with business plans, they knew what the laws were. Now, Kroger and Walmart want to change the laws, and they're throwing a lot of money around to try to make it happen. Letting businesses open as many stores as they want throughout the state and sell whatever they want without limitation and then changing the law so they can sell wine inside their stores at each and every one of those locations is unfairly and quite possibly illegally skewing the laws in the favor of the big grocers over the package store owners when you've prevented the package store owners from expanding for fifty years. Oh - and doing it and saying at the same time, "By the way, single location package store owner, you can now sell cheese at your store!" is not going to save the package stores and does not a fair, competitive law make.
P.S. Anyone who resorts to name calling clearly has no valid argument to make.
I lived in Alabama for a while. If I wanted liquor, I had to go to a sterile, unfriendly ABC store or a way sketchy package store. If I wanted wine, I went to the grocery store. Publix sold the Barefoot and other low end wines you would expect, but it was a convenient way to grab a bottle that would end up being used mostly for cooking. Whole Foods and Fresh Market had ok selections but no one on staff who knew anything about wine. The Western Market in Mountain Brook had arguably the best wine selection in the state--better even than the best wine stores I've been in in Mississippi.
I don't know yet how I feel about this proposal, but I do know that I seriously doubt the likelihood that any grocery store in South Mississippi will sell much that is worth drinking if this proposal passes.
Once again: if you favor keeping current, stupid restrictions the way they are, you are NOT a conservative. You're an authoritarian, big-government statist who favors external, governmental interference with the free market.
You're stupid and shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. In fact, I'll trade a permanent injunction on whiskey- and wine-selling in grocery stores for the forced sterilization of you, your relatives and all Democrats. Because you're all brainless retards incapable of critical thinking.
Grocery stores can sell wine only if it is of a very low alcohol level (5-6%) - something that real wines do not qualify. These are almost in the cooking wine category.
Yes, they can open ANOTHER, SEPARATE store that sells nothing but wine and liquor - like the so called mom and pops. But that is not what is being proposed which is to put wine on the shelf in the store. Hell. It might even be next door to the beer!! Satan on its way if this ever would happen.
All this crap about mom and pops being established under the laws like they were at the time. So were the buggy whip manufacturers. Or the carbon copy paper people. Used to you couldn't sell self serve gasoline in Mississippi. Times change and shit happens. A successful business rolls with the punches as things change.
As to the idiots above that talk about the loss of income to the state with any change to the ABC model. BS. The state collects its money as a tax that shows up in the 'markup' put on by the warehouse. Eliminate the warehouse. Eliminate the state building. Eliminate the state trucks, the employees, the PERS for the employees, etc. Let the state continue to collect the tax. State wins. Private industry wins. Consumer wins. Less state government as a side benefit.
Maybe we could even begin to do some good stuff for a change if we quit doing it like we always have. Next, maybe, we could try charter schools.
Get rid of the ABC so that a group of politically connected lawyers can sue the alcohol industry for hurting your health. If they can sue big tobacco why not Anheuser Busch.
@1:16, thanks for correcting me. Next time I'm in Napa or Sonoma, I'll be sure to explain to the good folks at the wineries that their list of states where wine can be shipped is wrong and that Mississippi is not, in fact supposed to be grouped with Utah (and a shrinking handful of other backwards states). I've been stupid to take their word for it -- even when it's printed in black and white on the nicely laminated tasting room reference sheet at every winery -- 1-2 times per year for the last 9 years. Yes, I'll insist -- nay, demand -- that they let me join their wine clubs and ship directly to me. (That is, without the upcharge of third-party shippers who are willing to take a chance on sending me the contraband vino.) While I'm at it, I'll cite you to help enlighten the dumbass proprietors of Wine.com and all the other online wine retailers who stupidly believe that they can't ship to our fair state. Thanks for your help. You're the best.
So, really . . . what happened to Anderson?
No 8:02, there were no distribution laws on who could sell buggy whips or carbon paper.
Your analogy fails.
"No one has said grocery stores sell wine and liquor inside their stores...they've said grocery stores can sell wine and liquor. Which is a 100% true fact."
Actually, no, it's not. Actually a liquor store next door to a grocery store is not a grocery store. It's a separate business with a separate and distinct tax I.D. number.
Just about everywhere you see a Chinese restaurant nowadays, next door you see a Chinese food market. Same scenario. But, the Chinese restaurant is not selling 'off the shelf' uncooked food for your kitchen use. Sum Ting Wong may own them both, but they're two separate businesses.
11:50am, you're a troll who contributes nothing, redundantly.
Anderson is dead.
Mississippi debating whether to buy wine in a grocery store is like debating whether satellite dishes detract from the appearance of trailer parks. Good God. The fattest, stupidest, and poorest state in the nation is embroiled in the life changing question of can I get drunk at Kroger instead of Billy Bob's Fish Bait and Fine Wine Shoppe.
Wrong, 3:23 a.m. Who makes the money off the sale of everything in the Sam's package store? Sam's. Whole Foods package store? Whole Foods. McDade's package store? McDade's. Those grocery stores own the package stores, which are conveniently located right next door, and they get the full financial benefit of owning those stores while the consumers get the full financial benefit of having grocery stores equally compete with mom and pop package stores. That's fair market competition.
Republicans for more booze! Love it. Notice how this bill does not come from Brandon or Hernando. It comes from a guy on the coast who is sure to draw an opponent now. A real true conservative who knows booze is the devil's tool used to destroy families.
Its time for Chris McDaniel to find the coast drunkards a viable conservative opponent.
8:02 is absolutely correct... on all points.
I did not know until yesterday that no Sam's card is needed to shop in the package store. Will pay them a visit soon.
P.S. to 5:37 - not dead. Resting.
8:02 is wrong...on all points. And they know it, and you know it, but you're under the huge misunderstanding that this is going to make you able to buy stuff cheaper and have more to choose from. The exact opposite will happen. Be careful what you ask for. By the way, do you know what a state does to try to keep the millions in revenue if ABC is eliminated? They increase the taxes on every bottle of booze you buy...by a LOT. Why don't you do a little digging and see what happened in Washington state when they privatized in 2013. See how much a bottle of your favorite booze went up. While you're at it, see what happened there when it went in grocery stores with regards to theft and in particular, theft by teenagers. HUGE theft rings. Grocery stores not doing a single thing to stop it. Ask the sheriffs and police departments throughout that state what happened and what it's done.
5:06
"Don't try to"...
how about this. Don't try to lie about something and obfuscate the fact that a store can not purchase something on the open market for sale. They are bound by what the government provides through it's "single distributorship."
If I, as a business owner, want to sell XYZ wine or liquor and it's not available through the government, I can't sell it, can I? It's ludicrous to think that anyone in business would support this model and can't draw the realizations that liquor is no different than tires, guns, or ammunition.... or toilet paper.
Now, if you espouse the notion that government is our keeper and we live by the government's leave, then you have lost the battle for the logic of life and liberty from the start.
You don't have rights without responsibilities. When you remove the responsibility, you remove the right.
8:02 is correct...on all points. And they know it, and you know it, but you're under the huge misunderstanding that no one cares anymore about liberty, individualism and freedom anymore.
@January 19, 2016 at 5:37 AM
You are a troll who contributes EVERYTHING redundantly.
We may have the most feeble-minded group of legislators in the entire country. They will get on board with anything that a lobbyist in a fancy suit tells them. Just look at how many of them are on Facebook promoting this legislation. The lobbyist in charge of the effort said that they wanted to create a social media campaign to promote this, and here you have numerous legislators doing the lobbyists job. Mississippi Legislature - For the people and small business, until a lobbyist tells them otherwise.
Senators McDaniel and Blutarsky are sponsoring a bill which will authorize the sale of fine wine, malt liquor, and Newt Knight Koozies at the drive through Beer Barn in Laurel. It is incumbent upon all Patriots to support the right to consume fine wine free of the onerous regulation of Big GubMint and the 'Stablishmint RINOs.
WINOs, not RINOs! Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to thank all of the liquor store owners who posted here just for the reason to protect us and save us money. Where would the world be without caring and thoughtful people like you who see fit to save us from ourselves?
I know keeping competition down has nothing to do with it. Being able to set the price couldn't be part of it.
Thank you for caring for us and making the decisions we are not intelligent enough to make. You are all heart.
12:15 PM
I don't know what you do for a living. I hope it requires a permit that cost you about $500,000. And next I hope that the state allows anyone to have a permit for free....thereby costing you $500,000.
When I see you at the bankruptcy court all swolt up in tears holding on to your fat sarcastic wife and 2 fat sarcastic children begging the judge not to throw all your fat asses on the street....I will remind you of what a terrible person you really are.
Wow! There is so much ignorance on this topic and the most ignorant seem to be stamping their feet the hardest and refusing to look at the facts. Here are the facts:
1) Selection will not improve if wine goes in grocery. The opposite, in fact, will happen. The large grocery stores only do business with mass producers (inferior wines). As mom and pops go out of business and not all of them will, the consumer will have to look harder to find small-production wines (the better wines regardless of price).
2) Prices will not go down nearly as much as you think. The grocery giants will have to pay the same as the mom and pops do, but they will get money back at their corporate offices in Ohio and Arkansas, so they will sell the mass-produced wines at a slightly lower price probably. However, the price you pay for liquor and the better wines will go up as the mom and pops try to offset the losses of the cheap stuff.
3) MS liquor stores are not bound by what the ABC "says they can sell". This is the biggest myth in this industry here! Many of the better stores sell lots and lots of products that aren't stocked at the MS ABC warehouse. And some finer stores here actually seek out their own products and somtimes will go to "market" or industry events around the country looking for new products to sell. The ABC doesn't care what they sell as long as the taxes are paid on the products when they come in.
4) MS actually has a very good selection of the finer, "boutique" wines especially and sells wines that can't be found in many other states. The truth is that there is a sea of wine made in the world every year and no two states or regions have exactly the same products. You can find wine in Texas that is not sold in Louisiana and wine in Florida that is not sold in Georgia and wine in Mississippi that is not sold in Tennessee, Louisiana or Alabama!
If you don't believe me ask any producer or purveyor of small-production wines from anywhere in the world and they will tell you this same thing. Ask any producer or purveyor of mass-produced wines and they will probably lie to you!
11:20, I'm not 5:06 but he/she is right. You obviously know nothing. Please see number 3 from the post at 12:24 pm to learn how it actually works here.
12:21 PM, Damn man, can't you take a compliment?
Here I am trying to let the world know how much of a favor you are doing for them and you insult me.
7:53 - your argument that a grocery store can sell wine/liquor by having a separate store next door may be true, but it applies just as well to your liquor store. You can open a store next door and sell whatever it is that you want to add to your selection - cheese, meat trays, etc. But of course, that doesn't make sense for your business and I don't think you should be required to do so. There have been bills in the legislature to remove this restriction from liquor stores and I, for one, think they should be passed. You ought not have to open a separate store, with a separate entrance, to sell those items that liquor store owners have been pushing for over the past few years.
But likewise, there is no sense in the grocery store reference you and others keep mentioning here should have to do the same to sell wine/liquor. They have to have a separate store, separate employees, separate entrance. Remember - there is a goose and gander theory here.
10:55 - your argument fails about the prices being raised under a revision or dissolution of the ABC. The state currently sets a 'tax rate' for liquor which is added to the cost of the product from the producer. The state has to pay the cost of warehousing, delivery, etc. If this antiquated system was done away with and private industry came into play competition would determine prices with the state charging their 'tax' onto the product. Just as they do for cigs and other tobacco. Yes, the tax rate could be changed, just like any other tax rates can be changed - but it would take an act of the legislature. The price of the product at the liquor store or at the grocery store would be determined by the owner of the store, based on the cost to put it on the shelf and whatever profit the store chose to add to it.
Some items may go up in price - others may go down. Go study your economics textbooks again and learn about the free enterprise system.
I haven't read a compelling argument yet from the liquor store owners. The state isn't in the business of supporting local liquor store owners in perpetuity, and if the current antiquated system can be changed, it should be. It will be tough, but current owners will simply have to compete through selection, service, etc.
Same issues are found in healthcare. The state issues CONs for hospitals and other healthcare services giving providers mini monopolies. Every year there's a bill seeking to kill CONs. Hospital lobby kills it every year because they don't want competition, and the public loses.
1:02, re: your 3rd paragraph on privatization and cost increases. You're exactly right, which is why prices will shoot to the sky for consumers.
Come on. You don't really believe that more business getting to sell liquor would raise the price? You are smarter than that. Having a monopoly is what keeps the price high. Keeping out competition keeps the price high.
More competition will lower the price. That is just common sense.
This thread is like watching Foster Brooks debate the various weights of paper bags to wrap his bottle in. Wine-Dixie, Foster? Nope, nope, nope. Kuh Kuh Kuh Kuh Kuh Kuh R-R-R-R-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O uhh uhh uhh uhh uhh uhh Guh Guh Guh Guh Guh E-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R. Why, Foster? Cuz it's right next to the DUI lawyer. Saves a t-t-t-t-t-t-t-trip.
The grocery stores mentioned in Louisiana as examples of it working are Dorignac's, Calandro's, and Rouses. All privately and family owned. Rarely hear the chains mentioned at ever. Then there is Martin's in Metairie but comparing that place to anything in Mississippi now or after a law is changed is ludicrous.
Yes, Whole Foods has a wine store and if Whole Foods was in charge of selection for the whole state, we would all be sober.
Kingfish, you are spot on, but I beg to differ with you about Martin Wine Cellar. There is a reason why Cedric Martin comes in my store in Madison and pokes around for about an hour once or twice a year without buying anything, I might add. I stock 1700 wines from all over the world including more French wines than does Martin! You don't have to go to New Orleans to buy great wine. He does have an excellent shop, though.
Gino Marino has all of y'all beat. ;-)
Scott's store would make it even if the laws change. He's super involved in getting his customers what they want. He sold me a bottle of Pappy 20 a few years ago he had put back. He's also hosted several wine and whiskey tastings for different groups I've been lucky enough to participate in. Great, great host and all around great proprietor of a fantastic liquor store.
What I find funny is all the Conservative Capitalists supporting regulation as a restriction to economic growth.
Nobody...democrat or republican or tea party or whatever should ever stand for a rule change that deprives law abiding citizens of a livelihood.
Its that simple.
If you are for this change, you are for screwing someone who followed the rules.
You want to change it?
Make it effective 30 years from today.
Should Mississippi have delayed the introduction of cell phones for 30 years to protect the manufacturers and owners of pay phones?
5:03, using your failed analogy, did the government tell pay phone manufacturers and owners (package store owners) they couldn't participate in anything relating to cell phones (grocery stores) and keep laws on the books for 50 years legally preventing them from it?
1:02 - Local Mississippians made investments and opened PACKAGE stores according to the law and based on their good faith belief that the market could sustain a PACKAGE store in their proposed locations. Banks made big loans based on these same laws, beliefs, and business plans. Investments never would have been made nor loans approved if these 650 or so package stores had been proposing to open 650 GROCERY stores where they opened their PACKAGE stores. The market could not have sustained that many GROCERY stores which is why people opened PACKAGE stores instead.
The market cannot sustain the sudden addition of hundreds or thousands of new wannabe package stores (aka grocery stores suddenly being given the right to sell wine). Package store owners and the banks providing their business loans would never have invested in the 650 give or take locations where the package stores are today if what had been proposed were GROCERY stores with a package store next door because there are already enough GROCERY stores to fulfill the market need. This is why your argument fails. Kroger and walmart know the MS market cannot sustain WIGS and package stores. This is nothing more than their attempt to strangle out the local competition and put them out of business so they can have the monopoly on wine sales in MS.
When a person or bank makes an investment there isn't any guarantee it will be a good one.
Some on here threaten the prices will go up. This should be good for the liquor stores already in business.
Part of the free market is the chance someone will decide to open a business just like yours and will sell at a lower price. Your choice is to either match their price of find some other way to attract customers.
Just because a person or bank makes an investment in something does not give them the right to keep others from doing the same.
Ms. is a backward state but even the people here should be able to understand what an investment is.
5:03 and 6:29 PM
Lets get a few concepts down you do not seem to understand.
1) State law regulating the sale of liquor happened a long time ago. We cannot go back in time and change it no matter how much you want to believe Marty and Back to the Future.
2) Those laws were crafted in a compromise (that is another word probably foreign to your bean (which means head or brain...keep up)) to the Baptists in the state because alcohol was pure poison. Compromise was that alcohol would be contained and controlled (thats the "C" in ABC).
3) Special rules applied to those who dared sell the devil's brew and they were strict.....one owner, one store, only alcohol, no other items for sale like tobacco or even cups.
Here is a key point you seem to fail to understand.
NOBODY WOULD DO IT THAT WAY NOW.....EVER...EVER!
BUT THEY DID IT THAT WAY. THATS THE LAW.
Now do not read any further if you cannot understand the above. Just stop right here and go watch cartoons or whatever retarded slow learners watch at this hour.
So if you change the law you will be punishing those who kept their end of the bargain.
Doesn't it make sense to change both parts of the law...something like...since alcohol is more widely accepted now we hereby allow anybody to be able to sell liquor or wine AND we hereby agree to compensate those who stand to lose money as a result of this law to the tune of 100 million dollars? (or whatever can be shown as lost profits to these legal entities?)
IF you are unable to comprehend this.....you are an abject idiot.
Lets allow grocery stores to sell wine and provide government subsidies to liquor stores. Sound familiar?
9:02
Let's get you to comprehend that government is not about giving money to people who don't earn it.... wait.. nevermind. That's exactly what you and millions of others think government is.
Those businesses made their money. Their future money is not guaranteed and no one entered into a contract or a bargain with that understanding. If so, then they should be punished along with losing "future profits."
All of those mom and pop stores should be compensated because Wal-Mart was able to come in and drive them out of business. Newspapers should be compensated for lost profits due to the internet. blah blah blah should be compensated because blah blah blah.
The issue is that government meddled to begin with. More government meddling is not the answer. Backing out red tape and unnecessary government regulation should be every American's goal. Using laws and the government to fight your own personal moral battle is not what Liberty and Freedom means.
If you cannot understand that, and you want to fall on your sword of "they did it that way", then just leave everyone else out of your idiocy.
9:02
Many of those "Baptists" also felt protected by blue LAWS... but ultimately had to make a decision.
Walmart and Kroger are not trying to drive the mom and pops out with fair competition...the laws as they are right now provide fair, equitable competition. If you know the liquor laws in MS, you know that is true. Walmart and Kroger want UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. They're trying to have the law changed (and not just a slight little change or amendment, we're talking about a complete 180 to the established business model and industry) to put themselves (Walmart and Kroger) in an immediate unfair advantage and unlevel position to gain a monopoly on the wine sales in this state.
When people make investments and banks make loans, they are not guaranteed success...but they damn sure should have a reasonable guarantee the state won't drastically change laws to intentionally cause harm to them and put them out of business, all just because Walmart and Kroger are paying a lot of money to try to make that happen.
Open up competition. Maintaining a objectively bad system because some people are afraid of competition is foolhardy.
Sure sounds like the liquor store owners are worried. Won't be long before they demand reparations. Quit squeeling like a pig caught under a gate and either keep up or get out of the way.
You were not guaranteed a monopoly.
Maybe you can get the moon shiners to join up with you except for the fact you helped put them out of business.
Ever heard of karma?
You aren't independant businesses. You're government created monopolies. I invested my citizenship & future on the U.S. constitution growing up. That didn't bother people like Trent Lott heralding the dawn of the patriot act ( possibly the most unpatriotic act passed in my lifetime).
Do you care? Hell no. So, whatever Your number is up. Corporations are now "people". Suck it up like the rest of us.
8:47
You are so blind.
Small mom and pop business owners in small downtowns did not have to abide by a special law letting them sell dry goods. Everyone was free to open a dry goods store. When Walmart came in and opened another dry goods store for less...the mom and pops closed.
Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, then lets do so.
Mom and pop liquor store owners were granted special rights to sell liquor ONLY IF they agreed to sell nothing else. That was the bargain the state made with liquor store owners. It is an agreement despite what you say.
Equity demands that law abiding citizens be treated justly. If you alter the bargain...the entire bargain must be changed...not just half of it.
The route being suggested by Kroger et al is actually tantamount to an unconstitutional taking and 650 liquor store owners will likely prevail on this theory should the state callously and blindly follow this path suggested.
I visited the Sam's liquor store last night. Some of the prices are close to what package stores are charging, which strongly suggests to me that where the prices diverge more, it's the package stores marking up stuff like Knob Creek and Maker's Mark that the affluent rubes will pay more for.
The inventory is too limited for me to shop there exclusively, but no reason to pay $35 for Knob Creek when it's $28.50 (+/-) at Sam's.
10:37 thank you for proving my point that fair competition exists NOW under the current laws.
I will have to stop by Sam's. I will need to find some other place to buy liquor. I won't be going to any liquor store again. Rather stay sober.
Love all the arguments that the government regulation that was started fifty years ago should be continued because that was the rule when these 'mom and pops' went into business.
You feel the same way about Taxi service in Jackson, the Coast, Oxford, etc - and Uber? The 'mom and pop' taxi businesses opened up under the regulations that existed decades ago, with the government awarding licenses and requiring some very specific rules and setting rates. Uber - today's new system that provides good service and convenience - wants to come into Mississippi cities and towns and start a new system that today's technology helps make available.
Guess all the 'mom and pop' liquor store owners and their lobbyists want to keep Uber out of Jackson so that these poor taxi companies don't get hurt since they invested in the process of the 50's.
Bet if truth were told that many of you that are posting here in favor of protecting the status quo and existing laws were on the opposite side of the Uber postings last month. Any takers?
(Post made to combat the dislike of the buggy whips and carbon paper. Try to make the argument fit against taxi licensing and Uber. Good luck.)
Not even remotely the same thing as Uber v. cab companies. First, Package stores aren't the ones who decide whether grocery stores or any other entity or business get a license or not. All they need do is apply, meet the qualifications and comply with the law, and ABC grants the license. Package stores have zero control or influence over that. Second, package stores aren't trying to prevent grocery stores from competing...we couldn't even if we tried, because under the current laws, the grocery stores are equally free to compete and they already do (Sam's, Whole Foods, Kroger, McDade's, etc.).
11:33 - we're not talking about a ride in a car here, we're talking about something that should be competitively and conveniently available to legal drinking adults while at the same time not convenient and easily available for teenagers and those who are already intoxicated. The current law satisfies all of those needs in a fair, competitive, and safe manner; a change in the law would not.
I don't know why you people keep saying the grocery store(s) are free to compete, that is simply not true. One Kroger, one Sams, one mcdades, etc is free to compete statewide. Open up the law for everyone.
11:33
I will give you credit that is the best argument yet regarding abiding by existing liquor licensing law.
And I think to be consistent, yes, I would have to argue that taxi companies who comply with regulations and statutes should be given preference over Uber....a service I very much like.
The difference is that the State does not license cabs or cab companies, city governments do. And cab regulations, while they do deal with safety issues, do not contend with alcohol...a separate (poisonous) substance.
And cab companies have taken cities and Uber to court across the country with varying degrees of success (mainly none).
Interesting point though.
1:53 Yes, just exactly the same like ONE package store allowed per package store owner. You see there...EQUAL. FAIR. COMPETITION.
In Texas grocery stores, SAMs, Costco etc, all have rather large wine sections no hard liguor. In my area a large liquor store Twin Liquor is almost next door to a large grocery that also sells wine. Evidently both are doing well. The liquor does have a broader selection of wines. If it passes the good will survive the rest will go away just like in any business.
3:33 PM
On Mars...where the laws are nothing like in MS they have green juice for green people and everyone seems to get along.
Here in MS where people banked on existing liquor laws...well...its a different story...complete with different facts....and laws....so....thanks for your Texas story.
There has been more pissing and moaning on this thread than any lately. One thing I have leaned, the liquor stores have been screwing their customers for a long time. The bad thing is they want us to believe they are doing it for our own good and want to continue screwing us.
I didn't know Stokes owned so many liquor stores.
All a taxi company has to do is apply, meet the requirements and get a permit. a permit issued by the local government. Liquor store permit is issued by the state. Either way - the government decides and controls who can either provide transportation or decides who can provide liquid refreshment. So yes - 11:33 has a similar argument.
And the argument from the taxi companies has been the same as the argument provided here from the current liquor store owners. "We have an existing business that was created under the laws and regulations that existed at the time we started our business." "If Uber/Grocery stores are allowed to enter the market, it is unfair to our business that was started under laws created decades ago". "Changing the laws now will cause financial hardship on us because ...... (insert here bank loans, business plan, etc.)"
Same arguments. The red herrings about the need to control the sale of liquor to minors is b/s. The grocery stores would have to meet the same restrictions - just like Uber drivers must have insurance, etc. The question is the same in both cases - the government created laws allowing who could do business and how - be it liquor sales or taxi companies.
And you could also go to landline telephones. Check out the regulations that were on MaBell between local and long distance. And see what happened to those companies as new processes (particularly cell service and later internet) killed the Bells that were established under the regs then.
Time change. Things happen. And nobody likes change except for a wet baby.
if Kroger and Walmart are allowed one license like the rest of the liquor store owners then it's no big deal. if they are allowed multiple licenses then it becomes a matter of unfair business practice. All us owners ask for is a level playing field.
ESPN
SCORES
NBA
Now
Scores
More
;l
Major flaws in your arguments comparing this to Uber and taxis. Taxis control their competition by having 2 members of the current 5 cab companies sit on the 5-member board which decides who gets licenses. As stated @1:10, package owners have no input or decision-making ability on whether or not a competitor is granted a license or not. Also, control of sales of alcohol to minors is one of the strongest arguments against changing the law with regards to wine in grocery stores. Selling high-proof alcohol is so obviously not even remotely in the same realm as a ride across town in a car. Grocery stores do not have anywhere near the same level of ability or incentive to prevent illegal sales and alcohol theft as package stores. Package stores sell one thing: alcohol. Someone walks in a package store, everyone knows why they're there and they are immediately scrutinized for age, intoxication, and theft. Someone walks in a grocery store or big box store, who the heck knows why they're there...they could be there for candy, toys, toilet paper, baby furniture, for literally thousands and thousands and thousands of things. In addition, the mere size and layout of a superstore makes it 100% easier to steal without being noticed; this has happened in other states where they sell in grocery stores and has actually been a really huge problem.
Major difference: uber, lyft, etc. did not exist at the time laws were made regarding the regulation of cabs. Grocery stores were in full existence when the laws were made regarding the sale of wine and alcohol. Grocery stores knew the laws as they apply to their business model when they decided to do business in the state. Wine in grocery stores is not some new, exciting, innovative idea that would improve the industry (and in fact, if you have any real knowledge and understanding of the system/industry, you know it would do the opposite.)
Now the liquor store owners are blaming the stores for people robbing or shop lifting. Isn't that sort of strange coming from a liquor store owner. Are you to blame for people who rob a liquor store? You need to wake up.
In Jackson there might be taxi companies on the board, but that is not true in every city where the taxi companies are fighting Uber. I would agree that Jackson's board is a ridiculous arrangement, but that does not change the Uber/Taxi argument statewide or nationwide.
Your other argument that the grocery stores would take a chance on imprisonment and not enforce the laws is also ridiculous. Just like a liquor store might decide to take a chance and sell to a minor a grocery store could as well. But the penalties are steep, and one could argue that the grocery stores have a lot more to lose by ignoring the law - their total investment is much higher.
Liquor was being sold in the state when the laws were created (check out the black market tax that preceded the legalization of liquor in 1966 - along with the numerous illegal sales). And 1:53, I do have some 'real knowledge and understanding' of the system/industry and I know exactly the opposite. BTW, I prefer Fiji apples - do you prefer Gala? Everybody has an opinion and just because the differ does not mean one is wrong and the other is correct.
I don't have a horse in this race. I don't own a liquor store or a grocery store. Nobody is paying me to have my opinion. But I have long promoted the idea that the state should get out of the liquor wholesale business, and that our liquor laws need revision - just as they did in the 60's.
great
Typical bible thumping BS and politicians influence from lobbyists. What about all of the independently owned stores besides Walmart and Kroger? Does this take money from them; No, it enhances their income any way that you look at it.
The same ignorance can be applied to dry counties, damp counties, mediacal marijuana, lottery, etc, etc., ignorance, religious extremism and politicians getting kickbacks from lobbyists will fight this to their death.
Post a Comment