hburgnews.com

Comment from The Valley Progressive
Time: January 30, 2009, 11:13 pm

I now have faith in senate committees. Has this man ever put forth anything that actually makes sense and benefits the PEOPLE of Rockingham county?

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 30, 2009, 11:21 pm

Hey Senator, when you come back with your new bill, include provisions to extract revenues from the alcohol industry sufficient to off-set the cost to the Commonwealth for the increased availability of hard liquor. Be prepared to show your worksheets.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 7:26 am

13 to 2 is some rejection. Crushing actually.

As writes Bubby above, show us the data.

Comment from republitarian
Time: January 31, 2009, 8:11 am

“Fast-forward seventy-five years. Control states don’t seem to be in a greater state of decay than their thirty-two non-control counterparts. In fact, the opposite is true, at least when underage drinking, driving under the influence, and alcoholism are your metrics. To many of us, moreover, it is far from clear why government should be in the liquor business, especially with the $115 million in operating and administrative costs incurred in the last fiscal year and the surprisingly low profits achieved in what should be an extremely lucrative business. On gross sales of $641 million, the state netted $103 million in store profits compared to a further $179 million it raised in liquor taxes.”

I love coming over to “hburgdemocraticnews”.

I realize it’s certain peoples’ JOBS to hammer everything a republican tries to do….but no reasonable case can be made that the state running ABC stores is a necessary government function.

I’m just curious why states who let private businesses sell liquor….aren’t passing legislation to have the state sell it, since it’s so great and all?

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 31, 2009, 8:29 am

“hburgdemocraticnews”

In what way is the original post “hammering” the bill? If you’d look at the Facebook group, you’d see that Gene Hart, David Miller and I are members.

I hope that Sen. Obenshain takes comments like Bubby’s seriously, because I’d personally like to see phase II of Prohibition end in Virginia. Finally.

Comment from David Miller
Time: January 31, 2009, 9:58 am

“I realize it’s certain peoples’ JOBS to hammer everything a republican tries to do….but no reasonable case can be made that the state running ABC stores is a necessary government function.”

So everyone who has expressed opinion to the contrary to the dairy has no reasonable case.

Anywho, I also hope that our Sen. will more thoroughly present his next bill to the public and address the concerns raised during this “process”.

I’d also like to add that it should be a higher priority to lift restrictions on ABC licensees to ensure that our restaurant industry does not fail during this economic crisis. This should be a higher priority.

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:13 am

To paraphrase Harry Truman – I don’t hammer Republicans, I just tell the truth and they call it a hammerin’.

BTW, a 15% return on gross revenue is what we in the private sector call a pretty good profit.

More math: Alcohol lobby greases Obenshain with $10K of fundage, leverages a $100 Mil deal to sell liquor. Nice ROI.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:20 am

To steal a line from Shannon Dove:

“To paraphrase Harry Truman – I don’t hammer Republicans, I just tell the truth and they call it a hammerin’. ”

Bore repeating, yada, yada…

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:23 am

On another part of this topic, it seems like one original claims was of bringing in some $700,000,000.00 per year of new revenue for the state. On gross sales of $641,000,000.00?

This is the kind of figuring what be got us in this mess to start with…

Comment from republitarian
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:35 am

So the state should run it ….as long as it’s profitable?

Let’s just make it easy and let the state run EVERYTHING!

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:47 am

Lets get a good deal for the franchise, and not give it away to the biggest donor.

Why stop with retail? Open the doors to alcohol manufacture and distribution for every vintner and still master in the Commonwealth. Let the mom and pops have a slice of the demon liquor bonanza! Virginia has some real entrepreneurs in that regard! Wait a minute that would endanger the monopoly held by Senator Obenshain’s well oiled friends…

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:55 am

Imagine the doomsday scenarios if brewers could distribute their own beer! Surely the world would end if wineries could market their own wines! And if all Virginians could sip the dew that Uncle Earl squeezes they would have little use for that fancy Russian vodka. Freedom!

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 11:23 am

With just enough regulation to make sure Uncle Earl isn’t using an old Buick radiator as a condensing unit.

Comment from K J
Time: January 31, 2009, 11:34 am

Let Freedom ring! It would be wise if Virginia would look at other state’s data on many things we don’t currently do now.
They should check into how privately owned liquer stores fair in other states. Get all the pro’s and con’s on the bussiness end of it.
How about toll roads?

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 31, 2009, 12:16 pm

republitarian,

Not sure if you were around for the first round of this, but there were quite a few of us who were generally in favor of Obenshain’s bill. I was one of those, but ultimately said that right now it came down to a matter of which made more money given the current budget crisis situation. In case you have not noticed, revenues are down thanks to the state of the economy. Are you for raising tuitions through the roof at the state universities, or maybe throwing lots of people off medicaid as a solution? Of course, the federal stimulus bill will help in terms of giving money to the state, but will not solve all of the problems.

As it is, I am curious why the vote was so lopsided. It may well be that the numbers that were being touted in terms of costs and revenues by Obenshain were not accurate. In any case, Republitarian, you are making too much of a partisan thing about this and making yourself look silly, although I realize that some here are willing to play the game with you.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: January 31, 2009, 1:19 pm

This was Mark’s single piece of “good legislation”…shows you were Virginia’s going if it was killed 13-2.

Mark, here’s an idea for legislation:

Why not introduce legislation so the people, instead of the General Assembly and other bar card holders, elect Virginia’s judges?

Recognizing how great a power that is, you people just appear to really fail at electing competent judges who can’t even read, let alone, interpret Virginia statutes.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 31, 2009, 2:16 pm

Republitarian,

Indeed, regarding the matter of partisanship, if the vote was 13-2, it certainly means that some Republicans voted against it. So, this does not look very much like a partisan issue, much as perhaps you want to turn it into one.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: January 31, 2009, 2:41 pm

Sorry, Professor. You have me confused with Myron.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 31, 2009, 2:51 pm

Dave,

Are you referring to me? Unless you are Republitarian, I was not addressing you at all in this. I addressed “Republitarian,” whoever it is that goes by that moniker.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 3:42 pm

Barkley,

What are your thoughts on Bubby’s idea of eliminating the Virginia restrictions on sale and distribution on alcohol products outright?
Manufacture and sales could still be regulated, but the market could be opened up.

And David Miller,

I like your idea, “I’d also like to add that it should be a higher priority to lift restrictions on ABC licensees to ensure that our restaurant industry does not fail during this economic crisis. This should be a higher priority.”

What would be the result of reducing the percentage of food sales necessary to sell alcohol? I’ve never really heard that issue discussed.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 3:45 pm

I’m not trying to co-opt your blog Brent, but I wonder if your readers would mind voting in my poll about predatory lending and overdraft fees?

Comment from Jamie Smith
Time: January 31, 2009, 4:11 pm

Lowell, your poll is awfully narrow. If we are going to regulate what banks can charge then do we regulate what they can pay on interest bearing accounts, CDs, etc. That might be ok for many bankers who remember, or have heard about the old days of 3-6-3 banking. Pay 3% for deposits, loan it out @6% and be on the golf course at 3 p.m.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 31, 2009, 4:27 pm

Thanks for the feedback Jamie.

I wanted to keep the focus pretty narrow. Primarily relating to the opinion column also linked from the same post. Certainly a broader discussion must take place, but again I meant to keep this specific.

Kind of a “one piece at a time” development of the conversation and better understanding of people’s opinion.

And you’re right, banking has certainly changed…

Comment from David Miller
Time: January 31, 2009, 6:13 pm

Legislation currently mandates 40% food sales at all establishments that sell spirits. If the establishment cannot sustain that percentage of sales in the food category their license is revoked (or they get caught lying and go to jail). This law negatively affects all businesses that sell alcohol and punishes those that sell more, ie bad for business.

Comment from MF
Time: January 31, 2009, 7:19 pm

Dave is right. And this problem will only get worse as the economy goes south. People will stay home to eat because they can’t afford to dine out, but still want to be social when they drink. The 40% regulation is what Obenshain should be focusing on if he wants to help local business.

Comment from Gene Hart
Time: January 31, 2009, 7:48 pm

Have I stumbled back into sync with Bubby and Lowell (or they back into sync with me)?

Beer brewers, vineyards/vintners, and small distillers should be licensed, regulated for safety, but allowed to operate and market without the state telling them how they can and cannot do so.

The 55/45 food/alcohol limitation should be ended or modified. Perhaps a license for no ratio for on-site consumption should only be issued in conjunction with a required minimum insurance policy and imposition of Dram Shop liability for those licensees (with businesses desiring to have a 55/45 license not subject to those provisions). After all, it should be easier for a bar to tell if its patrons are too drunk to drive than it is for a restaurant whose primary goal is to sell food.

The state should get out of the alcohol retail business and just license sellers. Localities, not the General Assembly, should be the ones who limit locations through zoning.

Our legislators must be willing to charge enough for licenses and impose sufficient taxes on alcohol products to make sure that revenue to the general fund increases rather than decreases. If they aren’t willing to do that openly by their vote then they should acknowledge that they prefer the hidden “taxation” that is happening now. After all, if a bottle of Jack costs $2 and the state store raises the cost to $3, isn’t that really a tax by another name on that particular consumer?

Of course, I was speaking with a Republican friend of mine the other day about this issue. I tried to emphasize the concern that many people have that privatization/deregulation would cost the state money. He incredulously asked something to the effect of “who possibly could/would oppose raising taxes on alcohol in order to raise revenue?” I laughed and suggested “those same people who declared the proposed 30 cent increase on a pack of cigarettees to be ‘dead on arrival.’”

Comment from Gene Hart
Time: January 31, 2009, 7:56 pm

So, Bubby and Lowell, how do we make sure that ABC privatization/deregulation moves forward in a fiscally prudent manner in the 2010 General Assembly session?

Hint, it involves November 2009.

Comment from The Valley Progressive
Time: January 31, 2009, 8:49 pm

Gene,
While “ABC privatization/deregulation moves forward in a fiscally prudent manner” may be a good start, what do you propose to do about the current monopoly on distribution of said ETOH products? If we’re going to address the issue of state run ABC stores, then lets fix the whole thing to support the industry as a whole, not just the corps, and give the little guy a chance.

It is currently against the law for independent brewers/wineries to distribute their products on their own. This law is significantly hurting the smaller operations because they must get the blessing from the distributor gods (of which there are only 2 or 3) at significant cost to the vintner.
If the distributor refuses to carry the independent brewer’s product (maybe under pressure from a larger competitor) then essentially the upstart brewer is out of business.

Not surprisingly Obenshain’s bill serves to protect that monopoly, or at least not diminish it, while increasing the profits of a select few. If you really want to help the industry, create jobs and support the american spirit on entrepreneurship then you need to address this issue.

full disclosure: I didn’t realize the monopoly angle on my own. It was presented to me by a new friend at lunch today.

Like the guys in the Guinness Ale commercial say, “Brilliant!”

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 31, 2009, 8:50 pm

Delegate Hart?

Comment from Gene Hart
Time: January 31, 2009, 9:54 pm

Bubby, you are a winner! First (several) drinks on me at the JJ Dinner. You will be there, won’t you?

VP, I agree that the currently closed markets must be opened up to the small producer/marketer. We can’t get rid of a governmental monopoly only to replace it with a big-business oligarchy. For me, that would be as important a goal for privatization/deregulation as the goals of getting the state out of a non-core function and increasing revenue.

Comment from The Valley Progressive
Time: January 31, 2009, 10:15 pm

Gene,
Thanks for the response. As for the answer to your riddle, I too guessed Delegate Hart, I just didn’t post it. Can I get in on the free drinks? :-)

Comment from Gene Hart
Time: February 1, 2009, 6:17 am

Anytime, just stop by.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 1, 2009, 9:36 am

Lowell,

I just googled “state alcohol stores and alcohol use.” Nothing came up, a big fat zero. I think that Bubby’s concerns in particular are basically baseless. I think there should be limits perhaps on having alcohol sold near schools or certain other locations, and maybe some other restrictions, but basically I think VA should be like most other states on this. Again, I might be open to certain other details of restrictions and would like to make sure the move makes money, but otherwise, I think it should not be too limited. As Brent put it, this has been some sort of holdover of prohibition, but a pretty ridiculous one.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 10:33 am

Barkley,

Bubby was (I’m pretty sure) being tongue in cheek when referencing the “doomsday” scenario.

What he suggests is more an open market for production and sale which would allow for more competition, innovation, and opportunity for Virginia’s citizens.

Rather than funnel everything by law through a few distributors as is currently the case, he proposes allowing folks to produce, market and sell their products themselves. He recommends that we not replace a state monopoly with a state sanctioned quasi corporate monopoly.

This would allow for new and small distillers, vintners and brewers to develop and grow home based businesses. Mom and Pop Wine Shop, or Three Guys Jedi Brew Masters etc…

I think you and Bubby and Brent and Gene are more on the same page by no small measure than you are apart.

Correct me on any misconception Bubby?

Comment from Bubby
Time: February 1, 2009, 10:50 am

Somebody has been skipping classes! Obenshain’s facilitation of the externalization of civil costs related to increased availability of alcohol was last week’s discussion. I was pointing out the frayed hem of his soiled Conservative vestments. This week we are delving deeper into the possible motivations (contributions), and his limited commitment to opening the alcohol industry to free markets. This isn’t about correcting prohibition, it is about serving, protecting, and strengthening monopolies. Same as it ever was.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 11:21 am

Imagine this scenario in Virginia.
Think about the opportunity for innovators, investors, farmers(this direction could help save Virginia’s Family farms!), and customers!

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 11:26 am

Check this search’s results

Comment from Bubby
Time: February 1, 2009, 1:03 pm

In 2005, the alcohol beverage distributors/brokers contributed in excess of $900,000 to Virginia political campaigns, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

In 2006 a Virginia Senate subcommittee (hello Obenshain) torpedoed the ability of Virginia Farm Wineries to self distribute. It never saw the floor of the Senate.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 1, 2009, 1:52 pm

I certainly oppose replacing the state’s monopoly with a private one, and I have not read the details of Obenshain’s bill. It may well be that elements of it relating to private monopoly may be why it apparently faced bipartisan opposition.

Regarding Bubby’s reassertion of the “externalization of civil costs of related increased availability of alcohol” is what I am differing with. Not much evidence out there, if any at all, of such costs, and Bubby has been quite eloquent and long-winded on the topic. I note that if he is right, then increasing the rights of farmers and others to innovate in producing more and different alcoholic beverages will add to this “problem,” as Bubby sees it, and which I do not see as a problem, or much of one, although as I noted I am OK with some limits on distribution and so forth.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 2:53 pm

Riddle:
Why is October 14, 1978 important to this discussion?

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 2:57 pm

There were fewer than 60 of these as of 1993, but now more than 1,400. What does this statistic reference?

Comment from David Miller
Time: February 1, 2009, 3:03 pm

What I find wonderful about our current state of affairs is that Midtowne Market sells case after case of Stone Brewing Co.’s beer (see article link by Lowell, ie shipped across the country). It’s amazing, and yet legally to buy and sell Cally’s excellent brews they would have to hire on a distributor, ship it to said distributor and then that distributor would have to ship it back to me. Major middle men, major money to be bypassed and Cally’s is all of two blocks from Midtowne. Does this make sense to anyone?

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 1, 2009, 3:42 pm

Lowell:

“On October 14, 1978, President Carter signed House Resolution 1337. Senate Amendment 3534 to that resolution called for equal treatment of home beer brewers and home winemakers. This law allowed for brewing up to 100 gallons per adult or up to 200 gallons per household per year. The amendment was proposed by Senator Cranston of California, Senator Schmitt of New Mexico, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas and Senator Gravel of Alaska.”

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 3:59 pm

Outstanding Brian M.!

Buy you a bottle of Newcastle as prize I will.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 4:01 pm

How will you do,
on question two?

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 1, 2009, 4:57 pm

Well, my good man Lowell…

I may have to give up on that one. I need another crumb of a hint.

I can say, at least, that in American adults ages 18-24, there were 1400 unintentional alcohol-related deaths in 1998 (or as recently as 2002 from what I read). But that’s about all I can offer.

There is some debate as to whether that number is accurate or not, but I don’t feel like getting into that one. lol

I will continue to scour the www

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 5:19 pm

I think I’m being too generous here Brian.
2007 stats:
53 Regional
392 MBs
975 BPs
1,420 Total CBs

20 LBs
23 Other NCBs

1,463 Total U.S. Bs

Comment from Jason M
Time: February 1, 2009, 5:39 pm

This should not necessarily be a deciding factor on the issue, and it may or may not play well with my other free-market beliefs.

However…

I have to say it is a pleasure to live in VA where there is NOT a liquor store on every corner. Unlike MD where I grew up. Its refreshing not to have all that gaudy signage and advertising. I can’t imagine it helps boost property values :)

Also, FYI, in MD you can not buy beer or wine in a grocery, so this may explain the quantity of liquor stores. That may not be an issue down here since I’m sure the profit margin may be a little less if the liquor stores are in price competition with Krogers for beer sales.

I agree that the distributorship laws are silly and outdated, if they ever had a point in the first place. I also agree that the ABC in general treats restaurants as an adversary and not a partner in protecting the general public.

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 1, 2009, 5:48 pm

Ahhh… breweries. That was my second thought after rereading the post. So to expand your very generous hint:

2007 stats:
53 Regional Craft Breweries
392 Microbreweries
975 Brewpubs
1,420 Total Craft Breweries

20 Lare Breweries
23 Other Non-Craft Breweries

1,463 Total U.S. Breweries

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 1, 2009, 10:30 pm

I guess I owe you several micro brews of your choice Brian.

But just think about what stripping the constraints off of people’s access to REAL free trade amongst each other could do. David Miller is on to something. So is Bubby, and Gene, and Barkley, and Brent…

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 2, 2009, 12:44 pm

In Wisconsin and in a lot of other states it is legal to sell any of it in grocery stores. This reduces the “liquor store on every corner” phenomenon big time.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 2, 2009, 1:00 pm

I wonder Barkley, whether such thinking will ever gain any support among the current folks who are elected to represent us?

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 2, 2009, 3:11 pm

Lowell,

Well, heck, we already let wine and beer be sold in grocery stores. What is all that big of a deal about adding hard stuff?

Comment from Bubby
Time: February 3, 2009, 9:30 am

The big deal is that while good-old Wisconsin has some of the lowest liquor prices in the U.S. and alcohol outlets everywhere it also has the nations highest binge drinking rates, nearly twice the teen alcohol arrest rate of Virginia, and the highest drunk driving rate in the nation – 26% of all drivers over the age of 18. 42,000 cheese heads were arrested for drunk driving in 2007.

So when Senator Obenshain tells you that opening up the retail alcohol market to the private sector will make the Commonwealth of Virginia lots of money, ask him about the costs. Ask him about Wisconsin.

Comment from seth
Time: February 3, 2009, 10:15 am

i think that’s perhaps a good point, but i also think it would be helpful to ask whether the culture in wisconnsin drives the prevalence of cheap alcohol or if it’s the cheap alcohol that compels people to be drunks in and of itself. i have a feeling that if you look at other factors (unemployment being one that jumps to mind right away) you’d likely gain some addtional insight into why the culture in wisconnsin (with respect to alcohol) is so much different than it is here.

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 3, 2009, 12:11 pm

Whenever I have presented the issue of easier access of alcohol to those under 21 if the Commonwealth no longer controlled sales, I have been lambasted. Generally I am told that since it is still against the law to sell to someone under 21, then there would be no increase. That always seemed so ignorant to me.

I don’t actually feel that there should be a legal drinking age in the United States. I haven’t done all the research, but if a 17 year old learned how to drink responsibly before he left home then he would be much less likely to binge drink when he went to school.

Why is America so stuck on Victorian ideals for the masses? (but I digress)

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 3, 2009, 1:15 pm

Brian,

When I was a young man, the drinking age was 18. The thinking at the time the age was raised was that it would reduce alcohol related teen highway deaths. States had a choice as to whether to raise the drinking age, or in effect lose all federal highway funding.

A number of measures were taken around the same time so it’s rather hard to pin down what caused the reduction in said highway deaths.

This is a good conversation folks, thank you.

One thought I’d like to toss into the mix, is that if you are eighteen in the United States, you are old enough to fight and perhaps die for your country in war, but you are not considered mature enough to drink a beer…

Comment from Bubby
Time: February 3, 2009, 1:40 pm

Our state budget is already stretched thin, so as Gene Hart has noted we don’t even have the State Troopers we should have, and the teachers we need, but we do have $140,000,000/yr. for inheritance tax relief for the 800 richest Virginians…thanks to guys like Sen. Mark Obenshain.

Until proven otherwise, any revenues realized by handing over the state alcohol franchise to his contributors should reasonably be assumed to be earmarked for the wealthiest and best connected Virginians. You know, the real Virginians.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: February 3, 2009, 2:39 pm

Bubby, explain to me why my estate should give more money to the government (which had already been taxed, by the way) simply because I die?

What possible sense does that make?

I would be very willing to bet that a majority of those “800 people” you refer to were, or are, employers.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 3, 2009, 2:47 pm

Bubby,

Yes, Wisconsin has the highest drinking rate in the country. Do you know what it is that they drink? The same thing that the highest percentage of German-descended population of any state in the nation produces (and particularly in the state’s biggest city, Milwaukee), beer. We are not talking hard liquor here, but lots and lots of brau. Much of this is in the bars, although hard liquor comes into the bar scene as an old tradition among “real” Wisconsinites (the Norwegians are the second largest ethnic group in the state) are boilermakers, with brandy being the favored sort of hard liquor to go along with lots of beer.

When I was mentioning Wisconsin was to point out that when it is allowed in the grocery stores, you do not get the “liqour store on every corner,” and indeed you do not have it there.

What you need to show us, Bubby, is that more broadly across the country, the states with ABC store type setups have less drinking and alcoholism than those that do not. I checked and found no such studies, although maybe there are some somewhere. In the case of Wisconsin, we are talking culture, and the problem is just good old plain beer, not the hard stuff, except for maybe brandy a little bit.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 3, 2009, 2:52 pm

This conversation is making me thirsty…

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: February 3, 2009, 3:43 pm

Keep a thread alive? madd.org has statistics. Boy, do they have statistics.

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 3, 2009, 4:48 pm

I don’t blame you, Lowell. A nice hearty brew sounds awfully good right now. Darn work.

What do you all think about either dropping the drinking age or removing it all together like many other countries do?

Comment from Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh
Time: February 3, 2009, 5:17 pm

The most important finding from the economics literature is that consumers tend to drink less ethanol, and have fewer alcohol-related problems, when alcoholic beverage prices are increased or alcohol availability is restricted. That set of findings is relevant for policy purposes because alcohol abuse imposes large “external” costs on others.

The Social and Revenue Effects of State Alcoholic Beverage Control, Spellman and Jorgenson

Abstract. The operation of a state monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages is often viewed as an outdated relic of Prohibition. However, the control states have a significantly lower consumption rate per capita and the price level is lower than in open or competitive states. The alcoholism rate is also lower in the control states than in the open states. The alcoholism and consumption conclusions are valid even given regional socioeconomic differences….

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 3, 2009, 5:32 pm

Bubby,

Fair enough, although the study was published in 1982 on data from the 1970s. Also, there is a bit of a contradiction in that control states supposedly have lower prices, but higher prices are correlated with less consumption. I could not access the whole paper, but there are some loose ends there. I note this (old) paper claims that the control states raise more revenue, and I continue to argue that at this time the revenue question is very important.

Comment from Josh
Time: February 3, 2009, 5:40 pm

Lowell, Brian M: We really need to establish a regular hburgnews happy hour.

Comment from Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh
Time: February 3, 2009, 6:03 pm

Alcohol Availability and the Formal Power and Resources of State Alcohol Beverage Control Agencies; Paul J. Gruenewald, Pat Madden, Kathy Janes, Prevention Research Center, Berkeley, California. 2006

In a cross-sectional analysis of data available from 44 alcohol beverage control (ABC) jurisdictions in the United States, it was shown that states with greater restrictions on retail sales had greater resources for the conduct of ABC activities and lower densities of spirit outlets. These states, however, had greater densities of wine and beer outlets. States with greater marketplace restrictions had more resources for ABC enforcement activities and lower outlet densities across all beverage types. Further, supporting the suggestion that availability and demand may be simultaneously related, greater outlet densities were related to greater alcohol consumption (for beer) and greater levels of consumption were related to greater outlet densities (for wine).

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 3, 2009, 6:31 pm

Josh,

Tell me when and where! Could we develop a circuit?

Comment from zen
Time: February 3, 2009, 8:01 pm

Circuit that happiness to the fine queen city to the south!

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 4, 2009, 1:59 am

I’m in, Josh. I do prefer the Friendly City over the Queen City though, Zen. Sorry, dude. =o)

Comment from Barnabas
Time: February 4, 2009, 9:14 am

I’ll join the STauNToNNeWS happy hour team.
We don’t have any bars in Brands Flat.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 4, 2009, 9:40 am

Okay, we seem to be up to four for this traveling circus!
Building the network…

Any suggestions about the first historic event?

Comment from Josh
Time: February 4, 2009, 9:54 am

How about Thursday before the Rocktown documentary? The screening starts at 6:30 (music), 7:00 (film). We could meet up at Cally’s starting a bit after 5pm. Sound good?

Comment from Brian M
Time: February 4, 2009, 11:14 am

Would love to do it then, but alas I have a reoccurring meeting on Thursdays. Don’t let that stop you guys though. Just be sure to drink an extra for me. =o)

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 4, 2009, 11:43 am

Friday?

Comment from TM
Time: February 4, 2009, 1:14 pm

I know I’m not as frequent a contributor as I used to be, but if the invitation is open, wherever two or more are gathered [for drinks] I am there…

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 4, 2009, 2:24 pm

Our numbers grow!

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: February 4, 2009, 5:29 pm

I think there should be a monthly meetup. Like every first or third Wednesday somewhere downtown.

Worth a try for a few months, anyway.

Comment from TM
Time: February 4, 2009, 7:14 pm

Yes, Wednesdays work well for me.

Comment from JohnLL
Time: February 4, 2009, 7:35 pm

Is this a bloggers’ meeting, or a hburgnews meeting, or whoever wishes to show up meeting?

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 4, 2009, 8:05 pm

This is Josh’s idea and I don’t mean to seem out of place, but I think it’d be cool if you’d care to join us to share conversation JohnLL. I followed the link associated with your screen name, and wow! You have a mind for data!

Comment from Josh
Time: February 4, 2009, 9:06 pm

Everyone is welcome! :) I suggested tomorrow at Cally’s because I figure some hburgnews readers might be attending the Rocktown documentary at Court Square Theater. I can’t make this Friday. I like Brent’s idea of a once a month deal. Any takers for tomorrow?

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: February 4, 2009, 11:20 pm

If I can make it to Cally’s tomorrow between 5 and 6, I will.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 5, 2009, 12:33 am

So will I.

Comment from Andy Perrine
Time: February 5, 2009, 7:30 am

Me, too.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: February 5, 2009, 4:53 pm

Regrettably, I won’t be able to make the meet-up, but I do plan to attend the screening.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: February 5, 2009, 5:16 pm

Sorry, will not make due to prior commitment.

Comment from Lowell
Time: February 5, 2009, 9:27 pm

Those who made it had a very productive and enjoyable evening. We missed those of you who didn’t, and hope you can join us next time. Progress is being made…

Pingback from hburgnews.com » ABC History?
Time: November 7, 2009, 7:38 pm

[...] column in this weekend’s Washington Post makes reference to Sen. Obenshain’s (rejected) bill to privatize Virginia’s ABC, and hints that the push might have more momentum after [...]

Pingback from Obenshain Shelves ABC Bill | hburgnews.com
Time: February 10, 2010, 12:29 pm

[...] ABC bill was rejected last year. There was speculation that the bill had a better chance this session, with McDonnell in the [...]