U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 02, 2009 10:14 PM UTC

Full-Strength Beer Battle

  • 78 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As The Colorado Independent reports:

Tom Mullen of Eagle-Vail could see 20 years of hard work in the retail liquor business evaporate if the state legislature passes a law allowing full-strength beer to be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores.

Backers of the legislation – H.B. 1192 – sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, and Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo, argue it’s time to roll back the Prohibition-era holdover mandating that only weaker, 3.2-percent-alcohol beer be sold in such stores.

But Mullen, who owns and operates West Vail Liquor Mart, argues the 1,650 independent liquor retailers in Colorado will be devastated by out-of-state corporations controlling the market.

“Creating a business environment that further reduces our choices to cookie-cutter type models is not in the collective interest of our community,” said Mullen, who points out that his company contributes to local nonprofits, provides housing for its employees and spends money locally.

“The money I make and the money I spend stays in our valley and in Colorado,” he said. “It will be better for this community, in this recessionary climate, if the law does not change, because large corporate expenditures and profits leave the community and Colorado.”

Mullen and other independent retailers and microbrewers have the backing of the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and the Colorado Coalition of Liquor Store Associations, which conducted an economic study indicating that 40 percent of independent liquor stores would be forced to close within three years after losing 70 percent of their beer sales to chain stores.

But supporters of the legislation, including 7-Eleven, Safeway and other major convenience and grocery store chains, say they are losing money because of last year’s law allowing Sunday full-strength beer sales and that the independent retailers now have an unfair monopoly.

At first glance, we’re not sure why this bill would be a good idea in a down economy – no need to hurt more local businesses than are already suffering – but what do you think?

Should All Stores Be Allowed to Sell Full-Strength Beer

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

78 thoughts on “Full-Strength Beer Battle”

  1. The argument that “since we allowed Sunday liquor store sales we should allow supermarkets to sell everything” is bogus, IMO.  Supermarkets are frequently open 24 hours, and have checkers who are under 21 themselves.

    Maybe if they kept anything over 3.2% behind a locked counter (like tobacco), but unless there are some restrictions, you will see an increase in underage drunkenness from this proposed legislation.

    1. There are many states that allow not just beer and wine, but hard liquor to be sold in grocery stores. Do those states have more underage drinking? When I was in high school and wanted to buy beer/wine, we always sought out some small, quiet, out-of-the-way liquor store.

      That said, I don’t favor this bill primarily because I think it will restrict our choices in all those little micro-brews, forcing many out of business. And I’d wager that Colorado exports a lot more micro-brew than it imports.

    2. that supermarkets should sell “everything,” just full-strength beer instead of the lower-alcohol beverages (including hard cider and other drinks under 3.2% alcohol) they already sell.

      This is anecdotal, but liquor stores are far more likely than supermarkets to fail sting operations targeted at retailers who sell to underage patrons. And every supermarket or convenience store I’ve visited lately locks up the 3.2 beverages after hours, and most lock them out from the scanner during hours when they’re not legally sold.

      So what’s your point?

    3. This is a bill for Bud, King Soopers, UFCW, etc…

      King Soopers should watchout for point of sale regulations; POS regulations will only feed the UFCWs need for complicated union contracts that cost them (and us) more money and lead to tons of state alcohol regulation.

      Funding: Say what is the fiscal note on this bill, just how are we paying for it … cash funding?

      Booze Bosses: Say will the indie store owners now be able to corporate up and control vast swaths of store licenses?

      The Hard Stuff: As a wine or hard booze drinker just how will my needs be served? Why aren’t we forcing Kings to carry 12 yr old Scotch too?

        1. Btw, that means no newly added regulations!

          Too bad the state liquor licensing people and cops will have many new beer POS locations to monitor.

          Problem solved for King’s on the regulation front; my mistake promoting the notion that the UFCW might have some weird angle with this bill to screw over Kings.

                1. That stinky fucker won’t see the light of day at 1600 Penn. cause its DOA in the Senate.

                  I am sure you have heard that Udall really doesn’t like to taste ass. So he is wiping that Sweeney-Stern turd off the side of his mouth with the help of your chamber coalition partners.

                  That leaves Bennet, swinging in the wind. Does he comply with Union Bosses to fill up the war chest or continue to battle Wadham’s for business backing? The problem is that business doesn’t have the lock down cash he needs for 2010.

                  Oh the choices one faces … at least they have choices, unlike those citizen’s living under forced unionism and forced union dues.

  2. My initial thought is that grocery stores can ditch the 3.2 beer if they want to and devote that shelf/cooler space to other products. Liquor stores do not have much freedom to taks similar action. Let the groceries and 7-11 cater to the high octane caffeine/energy drink customer base. See — there is still a niche for the convenience stores!

    1. Alcohol is largely absorbed in the stomach.  The rate of absorption is directly proportional to the alcohol concentration of the stomach contents.  You get more drunk more quickly with more concentrated alcohol drinks – hence the saying, “Wine is fine but liquor is quicker.”

      1. requiring a certain number of bags of potato chips be sold with any beverage alcohol (that’s a hat tip to John Tower, who made that phrase famous) to slow absorption.

        Twitty didn’t say anything about “quicker,” just that you can just as easily get drunk on 3.2 beer if you drink enough.

        And, again, no one’s talking about selling liquor at the 7-Eleven. The difference between 3.2 beer and regular beer isn’t so marked as your scientific analysis presumes. Drink three of the weaker beers and you’ll keep even with your friend who drinks two of the stronger ones. Well within the ability of your standard 18-year-old.

          1. Plus, 6.0 beer is measured by volume, while 3.2 beer is by weight.  When both measured by weight, it’s 3.2 and 3.6.

            If you drink 20 of anything you probably shouldn’t drive, or start a blog with “Kos” in the name.

                1. Here’s one reference:

                  In Colorado the beer sold in grocery stores has to be low alcohol “3.2” beer. It can contain no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by mass. But the beer sold in liquor stores is labeled by volume, and most beer is about 5 percent alcohol by volume. But when you convert from weight to volume you find that the “3.2” beer is really 4 percent alcohol by volume. Still a pretty big difference, but maybe not quite as big as you might think.

                  And here’s a list of beers with alcohol by volume. Bud light and Coors light are both 4.2% ABV. Might as well buy 3.2.

  4. Why should liquor store owners be protected from market forces?  In Arizona, you can buy it all–including hard liquor and wine–in the grocery store.

    Maybe Mom and Pop should have put some  money back all those years when their market protection resulted in “little gold mines”.  

    1. Yes, you can buy “it all” in AZ grocery stores, as long as you don’t want anything fancier than yellowish fizzy water. Good luck finding an unusual imported liqueur. If you are seeking quality, allow extra time to find a liquor store.

      When huge chains start selling “full strength” beer we will see the “Wal-Mart-ization” of beer in Colorado. Any where you look you’ll be able to find lowest common denominator, over-carbonated, tasteless, industrialized, piss yellow lagers. And maybe a Fat Tire or 90 Shilling.

      In short, allowing supermarket sales of beer will deprive us of one of our inalienable rights.

      RE:

      … certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Hoppiness.  –Thomas Jefferson

      (It’s true. Go ahead and look this up, sxp!)

      1. But you can walk into ANY grocery store, Fry’s (the KS family) and find any liquor high quality or not. I can get the same wine or whiskey as you can at a Colorado liquor store for a 1/4 of the price. Which is why most of my friends when heading to AZ or NV stock up the back of the SUV with liquor which they can get at any store and almost anytime (up until 2am everyday of the week).

        So if its Glenlivet you want or Yellowtail you can get it at any grocery store, Walgreens, or CVS.

        1. The stores you talk about purchasing the product from are all corporate giants.   Those moneys do not go back to our local communities the way a locally owned liquor store’s money would.

          1. I never said that the money stays or goes. What I was saying in contrast to ardy39 was that you can get high quality liquor at the local grocery store.

            Yes, you can buy “it all” in AZ grocery stores, as long as you don’t want anything fancier than yellowish fizzy water. Good luck finding an unusual imported liqueur. If you are seeking quality, allow extra time to find a liquor store.

      2. In Philadelphia there was a place that sold a beer based on Jefferson’s original recipe. And some people still occasionally try to brew old-style beers.

        It seems like the stuff they used to drink was mostly apple cider or corn-based beer, generally sweeter than the standard lagers that most people drink today. Even 100 years ago, Budweiser was issuing posters trying to convince people to give up sweet beer to drink their bitter stuff.

        Here’s one source.

        http://www.enquirer.com/editio…

        That’s right, I beerdorked up your joke, learn to live with it.

  5. One of the big problems is that local zoning has situated a lot of these stores right next to grocery stores. There’s no way they would survive the loss of beer sales. That’s an immediate hit municipal economies are going to take in sales tax when those stores evaporate (along with the jobs they provide).

    Second, will it increase jobs in grocery stores? No. It’s just an exchange of what’s stocked, so there would be a net loss in jobs.

    Third, owner Tom Mullen is exactly right, huge grocery chains take their profits out of local economies. Small retailers and suppliers create more local spending.

    This bill is a bad idea in the midst of an economic disaster. It would combine job loss, local businesses closing doors, and lower municipal revenue all at the same time. And this effect would be immediate.  

    1. Why not go ahead and pass laws requiring shoes to me sold only in shoe stores, clothes only in clothing stores, meat only in butcher shops, bread only in bakeries?  

        1. And we still have butchers and bakers?

          How about we save all the local mortgage origination companies by saying all out of state mortgage sources have to charge 1% higher rates?

          Or preserve local bike shops by requiring other retailers to only sell single speed bikes?

          Or preserve indie gasoline dealers by requiring the chains to only sell 80 octane?

          I say let the liquor retailers sell any food & beverage they choose and let the grocery retailers sell anything they can control.  If they can control the pharmacy- they can control the beer.

    3. Beer selection is usually pretty atrocious in supermarkets. If you just want Coors Light, you can already get that anywhere. But there are enough of us white people spending money on hard-to-find beer to sustain an independent liquor store. Besides, don’t underestimate the importance of hard liquor.

    4. I’m rusty on my zoning law and it has been a long day, but there is zoning control that says only a certain number of businesses providing the same service can exist in a certain area.  This is used so we don’t have 15 liquor stores (or strip joints) right next to each other (obviously hasn’t worked in regards to Starbucks).

      Can someone refresh my memory on this and if this bill were to pass, would the large retailers be able to sell 6.0 beer/wine if a liquor store was in the same strip mall?

      IMO, this bill would harm the small business owners and the last thing any municipality needs right now is more vacant real estate.

  7. Whether accidental or on purpose, the present situation supports owner-liquor stores over chains.  I don’t understand why Buffie McFayden is supporting this, though.  Is it because West Pueblo has zoned everything out except strip malls so they don’t have many liquor stores?

  8. If you own a dumpy little liquor store and mark-up on your products 50-100%, you deserve to be run out of business.  The issue is lack of innovation.  Small liquor store owners want to maintain their status quo and continually screw Colorado consumers whenever possible, to pad their bottom line.  I’m sorry but in this instance, big box competition is good.  Maybe these guys will wake-up and stop gouging their customers when the market isn’t unfairly cornered for them.

    2. Local liquor stores, and the stores that sell 3.2, get all their stuff from the same distributors. Those distributors have monopolies for their specific areas. The only break King Soopers might get is slightly better prices from distributors if they bought in huge quantities. The distributors still have the real racket…just ask your friendly local liquor store owner, particularly if you live outside of the Denver area.

  9. Like this one, and the now-repealed Sunday liquor sales ban, as well as the law mandating that auto dealers close on Sundays, were created in a different America-one where Sunday was a day of rest, and state governments functioned as benevolent protectors of small businesses. Leave things as they are-why is it in our interest to put the knife into thousands of small businesses, and help out Wal-Mart?

    1. These laws were created in a different time.  Sunday is no longer a “day of rest” in a globalized economy, no should it be.  

      No rest for the business weary.

  10. This bill would allow 18 year olds to sell full-strength beer to people who have to be 21 to buy it. I understand you can be 18 and serve alcohol in restaurants, but do you have to be 21 to serve alcohol in a bar or sell it in a liquor store?

    1. Photo ID swipes are currently used in some of the larger liquor stores in Colorado.  This would be an easy technology to implement at grocery store cash registers.  In order to complete a liquor transaction, the cashier would have to swipe your photo ID to ensure you’re of legal Colorado drinking age.

      Privacy zealots hate this idea but it seems to work for the larger liquor stores and would be an easy work-around in terms of allowing 18-year old cashiers a way to sell alcohol without getting into trouble.

      1. Do grocery stores suffer the same consequence for selling to underage drinkers as liquor stores? Liquor stores are fined and required to be closed for a number of business days if they sell to underage drinkers, right? Would that be the same for the stores?

  11. They pass the law now, but it takes effect in 8 years? This gives the store owners a chance to earn 8 years additional profit and close down their business in a measured way.

    Having it change immediately would screw most liquor stores. And in many cases that is the owners entire net worth.

    1. I like the concept but 8 years is an eternity in the business world.  I’d give liquor store owners a year’s head start to either sink or swim.  Innovation is absolutely necessary in a competitive business environment.  Protectionism should only be used in moderation, particularly in our current economic state.

      1. But many bought a liquor store from the previous owner under the assumption that they had an on-going business. The 8 years is to give those people a chance to maximize profit for the next 8 years and find a new way to earn a living.

        For them 8 years will be all too short.

  12. It is amazing how much this discussion matches the “buy American” one. It is support for market distortion in favor of particular interests.

    If it is true that local/independent liquor stores wouldn’t be able to compete, then that is an indication that they are an inefficient provider of liquor. However, to the degree that there is actual demand for craft beers and the like, and to the degree that the big box stores do not offer these (one of the concerns voiced here), then specialty stores would still be in demand. LiquorMart will still exist because they offer something Safeway wouldn’t.

    Of course, considering there is a liquor store next to every grocery store, it would probably be cheapest just to put a door connecting the two and call it one store.

    Plus, look at the bright side. Removing this protectionism would lower prices. Which would lead to higher consumption and social problems, which would lead to more state/federal excise taxes on alcohol (which should be done immediately), which would mean more tax revenues. Yay, money.

    1. On second thought, I should make clear, I am advocating an increase in the tax rate on alcohol (and it would be an even higher increase justified if the price of alcohol went down). The bright side was the benefit to revenues necessary to avoid an increase in problems, not the problems themselves.

  13. I posted about this last week on my blog and Andrew Oh-Wileke and I had a good discussion in comments,

    http://steampoweredopinions.bl…

    This legislation will destroy small independent businesses across Colorado. It absolutely should not become law. The bill’s sponsors are shockingly naive about the consequences of their actions.

    …Chains of corporate liquor stores replacing hundreds of family owned businesses is not my idea of a policy that is “working” The decimation of a unique Colorado industry (craft brews) is not my idea of a policy that is “working”.

    If 3.2 beer is “archaic” as you claim then let the 7-11’s and Safeway’s of the world stop carrying them. There’s no reason to overturn this apple cart and upset hundreds of family owned independent businesses across the state.

    1. We should shut down GM/Ford/Chrysler and instead only allow people to buy cars from small independent car manufacturers here in Colorado.

      And no buying iPhones or Blackberrys or phones made by anoy of those large companies. Only from small independent companies that design and manufacturer their phones right here in Colorado.

      This is protectionism pure & simple. And I say that as the CEO of a small company that competes with some of the largest most competitive companies in the world (Microsoft, SAP, Oracle).

      1. You suggest upsetting the status quo to achieve your protectionism.

        I propose leaving the status quo in place.

        My solution is therefore very different than your attempted analogy.

        Protectionism? Sure, I’m not going to run from that. The present situation allows for a vibrant local beer industry and for small family businesses to thrive. Those are positives for the state and our local communities. There’s no reason to change present law in order to allow Safeway to sell a product that is readily available elsewhere.

        Running mom and pop out of business so they can become clerks at Wal-Marts liquor store is a step back for Colorado. You should understand this as a business owner.

        1. Running mom and pop out of business so they can become clerks at Wal-Marts liquor store is a step back for Colorado.

          Lets say that all grocery stores must be individually owned. You can’t have it both ways, either the requirement of individual ownership is good or it isn’t. If it’s good, then you should be pushing to eliminate King Soopers, Walmart, Starbucks, etc.

          As to my company, yep it would be an advantage to me. But it would be devastating to the economy to mandate individual ownership for all stores. I’ll take a robust economy over a slight personal advantage.

          1. It’s not an either or proposition and we’re not building our state from scratch. We have an existing system that that works just fine for everyone. Everyone except the big box retail chains.

            Your logic is severely flawed David.

            I shop at independent coffee shops to support them. I wouldn’t be in favor of changing the laws of the state of Colorado to solely benefit them. You on the other hand are arguing for overturning the existing system for the sole benefit of large chains.

            I’m arguing for the status quo and you’re trying to analogize it to a radical change in the law. It’s an absurd argument.  

            1. You are not saying that we should favor individual ownership nor that we should favor big-box stores. Rather you are saying we should not change anything.

              I disagree with your claim that it “works just fine for everyone” because we all know that this makes booze more expensive to cover the higher cost of individual stores.

              So stick with the status quo. Got it. I assume you voted for McCain as that was a continuation of the status quo???

              1. Argue with him long enough, and he realizes he’s losing, and he throws a temper tantrum.

                “Really, you’re not 100% in agreement with me! Then you must be 100% opposed! Ha, take that!”

                1. Refute SXP’s points with clear logic and he reverts back to childish attacks.

                  Why not answer the point – if the argument is to just maintain the status quo, then why do you get to pick when the “status quo” is sufficient argument, and when it’s not…

                  1. then it can be kept. If it’s not, it should be changed. Now you and Steve disagree about whether the status quo is good, but it’s a big leap to get from there to the Presidential election, or to say that Steve always supports the status quo.

                    Responding to “childish” with “childish” though? Nicely done.

                    1. …of does the status quo “work.” So we return to my original point that the present system has major problems. And if so, the point that it’s the status quo become irrelevant by your argument.

                      You guys have to pick one. Either we discuss if the present system has serious drawbacks first and leave status quo out of it, or you argue that status quo trumps what works best.

                      But you can’t keep circling back to the other approach to avoid discussing.

                    2. which is a straw man position you just made up.

                      Everyone else was always arguing about the merits of the current situation vs. the new proposal. It’s just that people disagree on whether the current system is broken or not.

                    3. You suggest upsetting the status quo to achieve your protectionism.

                      I propose leaving the status quo in place.

                      My solution is therefore very different than your attempted analogy.

          2. But it would be devastating to the economy to mandate individual ownership for all stores.

            Well lucky for you then because NO ONE IS ADVOCATING FOR THAT.

            We’d just like the legislature to leave well enough alone. It’s really not that radical or difficult a concept.  

  14. I would think that if this were to happen, it would funnel money out of the hands of small local business owners and into the hands of large out-of-state business owners.  Maybe that’s the ideal of capitalism to some, but to me it just seems like a really stupid idea.  You’d have a hard time convincing me this was good for Colorado.

  15. In California, everything can be sold in the grocery store. Yet, one of the constant complaints heard from citizens, especially in Watts and South Central is too many liquor stores! Where I lived there were plenty of liquor stores peacefully coexisting with the grocery stores.  

    We all know of the quirky Colorado laws, still with that 3.2 anachronism, especially since we don’t have three-two bars anymore.  My gosh, it’s almost as strong as “real” beer, at least of the American variety.  And then there’s that drug stores selling liquor thing….  

    In Florida, grocery stores sell not 3.2 beer and wine.  Again, liquor stores right next door.  OK, 150 feet away.  The weird thing is, and I don’t know if this is law or custom, but in this sophisticated small city the stores close at 10 or 9 PM!  No hard stuff after that. Recently I wanted some pale ale.  The local downscale store had none.  Went to a somewhat upscale store and his advice was to go 150 feet over to the Publix grocery store.  They had it.

    If any of you like Trader Joe’s you will never see them until they can sell it all in one store.

    As to money staying in the community, gimme a break.  Most of the transaction monies just go the to giant distributors who then pay the uber-giant beer and liquor companies virtually all out of state.  (Yes, Coors and micros excepted.) And the local store owner probably puts his deposits into BofA, Wells Fargo, or some other caring local outfit.  

      1. means we should tear the whole fucking place down, fire all the politicians, and rebuild it from sticks and rocks. I mean, that’s just crazy. I know we’re not perfect, but I don’t think we deserve to be treated as the anus of America. Build us a Trader Joe’s!

          1. but what good is it being the whatever whatever of America if I have to pay $8 a pound for pistachios? We have six dozen natural food stores, except they’re all owned by the same damn company. It’s broken, I tells ya.

            1. Almost worth a trip to CA for another.  I think they are in some eastern states now, too.  But never ever in a place without, dare I say, liberal liquor laws.

              I remember buying Stilton cheese at literally half the price of Safeway.  So, ya think you are being ripped at the big grocery chains on such things?  Naw…….

                2. Delving further, the PDF for East Coast stores all have asteriscks in PA which has an explanation of no liquor sales.

                  So, good enough for PA but not Boulder or Denver with all the CA ex-pats? Strange.  I mean all they need to do is open a liquor store next to the main store like Sweetbay does at many locations here.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

100 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols