Do you support restrictions on when alcohol can be sold?

[MODU]

I'm a supporter of ABC stores. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As an additional warning, I should point out that the problem isn't just in city centres; there are a couple of smaller towns (usually within easy driving distance of one or more large to large-ish urban areas and a sizeable rural hinterland) that are if anything even worse... just about the worst place for binge drinking (if you adjust for size and all that) in the West Midlands is Bridgnorth. It's close to Wolverhampton, it's close to Dudley, it's close to Kiddy, it's close to Telford and it's surrounded by lots and lots of agricultural villages. On the main street you have pub after pub after pub and plenty of other places that serve alcohol. In total there are 27 pubs in Bridgnorth. This is in a town with a population of about 11,000.

Did I mention that it's also full of racists who moved out of Wolverhampton in the '60's and '70's because an Indian or West Indian family moved into their street?

On the plus side, it also has the best Indian restaurant for miles.

[angus]

No.

North Carolina has Option 1, which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

How's it a clear violation of church and state?  Not clear to me that it is.

MS and MA have similar laws, no booze sold except between 9 am and midnight Monday through Saturday.  As you might imagine, this creates massive congestion on IH93 to New Hampshire on Sunday mornings during NFL season.  CA, as I recall, allows the sale of beverages 24/7.  TX and FL were in between, with hard liquor and wine sold 6 days a week, and beer only on Sundays.  I also lived briefly in New York, and it's a bit complicated.  Grocery stores sell only 5% alcohol products, so you have to go to package stores to get liquor and wine.  But, while they're not open 'round the clock, they are open seven days a week, as I recall.  So it's less fexible than CA, but more flexible than MA.  It's certainly a patchwork of laws out there, and till recently (circa 1986) a patchwork of different drinking ages.  (e.g., 18 in one state, 19 in another, and 18 for beer/21 for hard liquor in some, etc.)  Nowadays, that's all cleared up:  21 for all. 

As an aside, to add to the patchwork, bars have different opening times.  They were generally open till 2 in TX, CA, MS, and FL, till 1 in MA, and till 3 or later in parts of NY.  Also, the MS state supreme court recently overturned a state law regulating the temperature at which beer can be sold.  In some cities you could only buy room-temperature beer, not cold beer.  This was not the case in Columbus, and I've seen cold and hot beer for sale everywhere, and there's no shortage of filthy drunks in this town, but it was the law, apparently, for a long time in many counties.  The state, this summer, was challenged, and the state SC decided it was against the state constitution to place such restrictions.  Counties could either allow for the sale of beer, or not.  The result is that you can now get cold beer legally in, for example, the county in which Harry attends university.  Americans do like their beer cold, after all.  Also, the US Supreme Court recently visited the issue of interstate wine sales.  Prior to this summer, in places like MI and NY state, you could not buy wine legally on-line, as it violated state tax laws.  Now you can, legally.  Of course, it doesn't make it feasible, since paying $2.50 shipping on a seven-dollar cabernet sauvignon doesn't make much sense. 

anyway, I vote no, for practical reasons (decreases interstate driving by drunks on football season sundays) and for conservative/ideological reasons (I'd like to see a much smaller role for government vis-a-vis business transactions, and would like to see less restrictions in this area in general) and for personal reasons (when I've lived in states in which booze isn't sold on sundays, I found that I always had to remember to stock up on other days.  this is a major hassle, since Sunday would be the most convenient day to shop for booze otherwise.)  24/7 worked best for me, as I recall.  This was one thing I liked about living out west.

[patrick1]

I vote No.

To speak to the U.K. posters, I hated the old drinking laws.  You could be in a proper pub having a proper pint with  good conversation and playing some pool.  Then once 11:00pm hit you were forced to head into some subterranean hell-hole with crappy music, where you can't hear yourself think, with overpriced drinks and cover charges.  I am glad they are doing away with them before my next sojourn.

The plus side is that where I went to school in Rhode Island the bars closed at 1:00am.- here in NY they stay open to like 4:00am.  I am sure I made a lot more classes due to the holdovers of puritanism.

[Emsworth]

There is no such thing as the principle separation of church and state.  Go read your Federalist Papers and/or buy an education.

The Federalist was published before the passage of the first Amendment.

It is often asserted that the Framers "did not intend" to separate church and state, or that the First Amendment "was not understood" to separate church and state. Of course, Thomas Jefferson (the individual who came up with the phrase "wall of separation") was not a Framer of the First Amendment, and his views are of little significance. But James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, did speak often about church-state separation.

In various documents, Madison used strong phrases such as "total separation of the church from the State" and "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters." In one memorandum, he remarked, "Strongly guarded ... is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States." Thus, when the author of the First Amendment himself understood it to create a "perfect separation" or a "total separation," it would be inaccurate to dismiss the principle of church-state separation entirely.

North Carolina has Option 1, which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

A prohibition on the sale of alcohol on any particular day does not constitute a law respecting the establishment of religion. It is just as constitutional as public schools giving students Sundays off (for example). The North Carolina law is perfectly permissible.

As to my views, I do not believe that any government is entitled to limit the natural liberty of the people by placing restrictions on the time of day at which any item whatsoever can be sold.

[CheeseWhiz]

No, obviously not.  If you’re Christian and don’t want to drink on Sunday, that’s great!  But others may not share that belief, and Sunday is really their only day off, (my dad does yard work and other things most of Friday and Saturday.)

Besides, you’re not stopping people from drinking on Sunday; they can buy their beer on Saturday and enjoy it the next day.  All you’re doing is hurting business.

P.S. Dazzelman, I can see where you’re going with what you said, but I really think the first line of the last paragraph was way off.  People can be religious, without wanting it in their laws.

[dazzleman]

No, obviously not.  If you’re Christian and don’t want to drink on Sunday, that’s great!  But others may not share that belief, and Sunday is really their only day off, (my dad does yard work and other things most of Friday and Saturday.)

Besides, you’re not stopping people from drinking on Sunday; they can buy their beer on Saturday and enjoy it the next day.  All you’re doing is hurting business.

P.S. Dazzelman, I can see where you’re going with what you said, but I really think the first line of the last paragraph was way off.  People can be religious, without wanting it in their laws.

I don't think restriction of alcohol sales is really a church-state issue.  I think most of the time people raise church-state issues, it's a red herring.  Most people who complain about religion are only too happy to force their own brand of religion onto people.

At this point, at least up north, it's more a special interest issue than religious issue.  Up here, most liquor stores are privately owned, and the owners want Sundays off.  It is liquor store owners here who lobby in favor of restrictions on liquor sales.  They want to continue to control the market (liquor here can only be sold in separate liquor stores, not supermarkets, which are only allowed to sell beer) and they don't want to be forced to open on Sundays.  That's what drives the issue here, not religion.

[angus]

No, obviously not.  If you’re Christian and don’t want to drink on Sunday, that’s great!

what christian wouldn't want to drink on sunday?  after all, most practicing christians who take communion do so at high mass (sunday) and not at folk mass (saturday evening)  I'd thought, if anything, the separation to which nclib erroneously referred was the "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof..." part of that amendment, and not the establishment clause.  I'd contend that if you're the monsignor and you live in an area in which booze isn't sold on sundays (e.g., Boston) then you make sure you have a stock on saturday.  Anyway, I'd agree with anyone who wants to write his legislature asking that this law be revisited, as it certainly shouldn't sit will with the conservative (pro-free market) set, but you can't expect any legal mind to buy into the idea that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.  The blue laws only say you can't sell sacramental wine on certain days, but they do not say when you can serve them.  After all, that'd clearly be a violation.  Now, if you want to try to argue that making mescaline consumption illegal (and the government has done just that!) you'd have a case, as many indigenous religions require the consumption of peyote cactus buttons for "visions"  By the way, in those South Texas and New Mexico counties in which indigenous people do eat mescaline-laced peyote, the cops usually turn a blind eye.  Seems like a reasonable way to handle the situation.  It allows those who are so paranoid that they like to keep addictive substances illegal to have their way, but still respects the religious practices of the people.  I think it's the same when a seven-year-old goes to first communion.  No one balks that a priest is serving wine to a minor, and everyone understands that to do so is tantamount to prohibition of free exercise of religion.  Still, I disagree with the restrictions of alcohol sales on conservative ideological, practical, and personal grounds.  And those grounds make a much better legislative case than the indefensible position that it somehow interferes with religious practice.

[Jake]

That's true dazzleman. I believe you can now get some sort of Sunday permit to sell alcohol here. Some distributors that want to be open are forcing the rest to be open simply because the rest need to stay competitive. Most of them couldn't care less what day they get off.

[angus]

Most of them couldn't care less what day they get off.

haven't met many football fans have you?

[CheeseWhiz]

No, obviously not.  If you’re Christian and don’t want to drink on Sunday, that’s great!  But others may not share that belief, and Sunday is really their only day off, (my dad does yard work and other things most of Friday and Saturday.)

Besides, you’re not stopping people from drinking on Sunday; they can buy their beer on Saturday and enjoy it the next day.  All you’re doing is hurting business.

P.S. Dazzelman, I can see where you’re going with what you said, but I really think the first line of the last paragraph was way off.  People can be religious, without wanting it in their laws.

I don't think restriction of alcohol sales is really a church-state issue.  I think most of the time people raise church-state issues, it's a red herring.  Most people who complain about religion are only too happy to force their own brand of religion onto people.

At this point, at least up north, it's more a special interest issue than religious issue.  Up here, most liquor stores are privately owned, and the owners want Sundays off.  It is liquor store owners here who lobby in favor of restrictions on liquor sales.  They want to continue to control the market (liquor here can only be sold in separate liquor stores, not supermarkets, which are only allowed to sell beer) and they don't want to be forced to open on Sundays.  That's what drives the issue here, not religion.

Yes, and I agree with.  I just thought part of your post was rather harsh towards nclib.

[The Duke]

I want to respond to nclib's exceedingly ignorant comment that only religious justifications exist for restricting the sale of alcohol.  Aside from the obvious point that angus brought up, that Christianity is actually very pro-alcohol (one reason I can never be a Christian, I think drinking wine in church is deeply offensive), there are plenty of reasons to limit the sale of alcohol based on time for safety reasons.  Baseball stadiums not selling beer in the 7th inning or later, or football games not selling beer after the 3rd quarter for example.

The idea that drunken people are dangerous and unruly is not some religious delusion.

[MODU]

Christianity is actually very pro-alcohol (one reason I can never be a Christian, I think drinking wine in church is deeply offensive)

The only church I've been in where wine was actually consumed was in a Jewish synagogue, and that was during the bar mitzvah and not the normal service.  All the other churches I have been to have used grape juice except for one Catholic church I visited, but I couldn't tell exactly what it was.  hahaha

[angus]

I'll vouch that every catholic mass I've ever attended used wine.  nasty wine.  I'll also vouch that Jewish congretations that I've attended used no wine.  (no surprise there)  And that the only mormon church I've attended used grape juice.  I've also been inside Buddhist houses of worship but don't recall anything that was supposed to represent the "blood of christ" inside them either (no surprise there).  I've also been to some prot services but didn't take communion with them so I can't comment on it.  Walked up to the door of a mosque and peered in, but out of respect for the worshippers inside did not go in.  (My impression is that mosques are places for true monotheists, and not necessarily for curious folks with cameras.  Kind of like a native american Kiva, which I've never been inside either.)

but this is far beyond the point of the thread.  the point is that these laws rub me the wrong way as well.  If I thought they didn't suck I wouldn't give a damn about nclib's confusion.  But precisely because I disagree with laws putting restrictions on private businesses, particularly those that sell products I consume, nclib's total brainfart becomes important.  If I pinned my hopes on someone to make the case for me that these laws should be changed, I'd want someone with a clue to make that case.  I can't imagine that any lawyer or judge in the known universe would buy that temporal restrictions on alcohol sales violates the establishment clause.  But I can imagine that state legislators could be convinced, either by moralizing, personal reasons, conservative ideological reasons, or practical reasons, that they should revisit these laws.  After all, it's clearly a matter that the US constitution leaves up to the states, so your job is to convince state legislators.  And most of them are lawyers, so trying to blow smoke up their asses by saying it's a matter of church/state separation is a poor strategy.

[dazzleman]

Yes, and I agree with.  I just thought part of your post was rather harsh towards nclib.

Maybe it was harsh, but I get sick of seeing the meaning of the constitutional clause against the establishment of a state religion misused and distorted by people for their own agenda.

[The Constitarian]

Option 3.

North Carolina has Option 1, which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

It is not necessarily a separation of church and state unless the North Carolina law states that it is done because of religious reasons.

If they pass a law that says we must pray every day or be arrested, is it not unconstitutional because it doesn't say why according to your reasoning?

[The Constitarian]

No
   There is no reason for the government to restrict capitolism in this country. 

   I'm not positive, but the government controlling when you can and can't work almost sounds like communism to me.

[Emsworth]

If they pass a law that says we must pray every day or be arrested, is it not unconstitutional because it doesn't say why according to your reasoning?

Prayer is a religious activity, and may not be regulated by the government. Buying alcohol on a Sunday is not a religious activity.

[opebo]

If they pass a law that says we must pray every day or be arrested, is it not unconstitutional because it doesn't say why according to your reasoning?

Prayer is a religious activity, and may not be regulated by the government. Buying alcohol on a Sunday is not a religious activity.

But not buying alcohol on Sunday is.

[Emsworth]

But not buying alcohol on Sunday is.

It is not inherently religious. Just because someone does not buy alcohol on a Sunday, it does not follow that he does so for religious reasons.

Prayer, on the other hand, is a purely religious activity.

[Ebowed]

Option 3.

North Carolina has Option 1, which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

It is not necessarily a separation of church and state unless the North Carolina law states that it is done because of religious reasons.

If they pass a law that says we must pray every day or be arrested, is it not unconstitutional because it doesn't say why according to your reasoning?

That's a laughably invalid comparison.

[opebo]

But not buying alcohol on Sunday is.

It is not inherently religious. Just because someone does not buy alcohol on a Sunday, it does not follow that he does so for religious reasons.

Prayer, on the other hand, is a purely religious activity.

Banning the sale of alcohol on sunday is the imposition of a religious stricture.  If individuals choose not to purchase alcohol on Sunday, that is merely a personal preference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aside from the obvious point that angus brought up, that Christianity is actually very pro-alcohol (one reason I can never be a Christian, I think drinking wine in church is deeply offensive)

This joke doesn't work that well outside a U.K context, but I like it anyway:

"A man ran through a crowded train looking very agitated, calling out, "Is there a Catholic priest on board?"

When he got no reply, he ran back up the train shouting, "Is there an Anglican priest on board?" Still no reply.

By now becoming more desparate, he ran down the train shouting, "Is there a Rabbi on board?"

Eventually, a gentleman stood up and said, "Can I be of any assistance, my friend? I'm a Methodist minister."

The man looked at him and said, "No, you're no bloody good. I need a corkscrew!"

[MODU]

Aside from the obvious point that angus brought up, that Christianity is actually very pro-alcohol (one reason I can never be a Christian, I think drinking wine in church is deeply offensive)

This joke doesn't work that well outside a U.K context, but I like it anyway:

"A man ran through a crowded train looking very agitated, calling out, "Is there a Catholic priest on board?"

When he got no reply, he ran back up the train shouting, "Is there an Anglican priest on board?" Still no reply.

By now becoming more desparate, he ran down the train shouting, "Is there a Rabbi on board?"

Eventually, a gentleman stood up and said, "Can I be of any assistance, my friend? I'm a Methodist minister."

The man looked at him and said, "No, you're no bloody good. I need a corkscrew!"

hahaha . . . that's cute.   

[MODU]

Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm in favor of ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) stores.  The states set up the limitations on the alcohol sold in the state (not quantity, but type) and let it go from there.  It makes cities and towns more appealing to begin with, since you don't come up on a street corner, seeing 3 of the 4 corners with huge "Alcohol" or "Beverage" signs pointing down at their front door.  Grocery stores would still be able to sell your beer and cheaper wine off the shelf, but everything else goes through the ABC.

Additionally, the state would get direct tax benefits from alcohol sales which, if the state was smart enough, would put into a separate pool of funds to run ads against drunk driving, pay for highway safety patrols, and other expenses usually caused by drunks having accidents.