Jim Rosica
The Florida Legislature has voted to tear down the booze ‘wall.’
The House, on a by-a-nose vote of 58-57, Wednesday passed the Senate’s bill (SB 106) to allow retailers, at least those who choose to do so, to remove the ‘wall of separation’ between hard liquor and other goods.
The legislation now heads to Gov. Rick Scott. If signed into law, the state will end 82 years of mandating that retailers sell distilled spirits in a separate store from other items. Beer and wine now can be sold in grocery aisles in Florida.
But opponents said their veto campaign has already begun, starting with an argument that the bill will be a “job killer”—a term sure to catch in the jobs governor’s ear. Dozens of independent owner-operators sat in the gallery for the debate, wearing T-shirts saying, “Save Jobs & Small Businesses: Vote No.”
“I’m devastated,” said Amit Dashondi, who owns three liquor stores in Brevard County. “I invested eight years of my life into my business … The governor needs to stand up for us. We’re job creators too.”
The bill also requires miniature bottles to be sold behind a counter and allows for a 5-year phase-in. It further calls for employees over 18 to check customers’ ID and approve sales of spirits by cashiers under 18.
The issue, which was filed for the last four years, has broken down the usual party-line divisions. Republicans joined with Democrats Wednesday to support and to oppose what’s called the “whiskey and Wheaties” measure.
Rep. Scott Plakon, a Longwood Republican, told colleagues in debate he never thought he’d be offering a defense of liquor stores.
“Yes members, we have now entered the Twilight Zone,” he joked, adding he wanted to be “honest about the genesis of this bill,” calling out Wal-Mart and Target by name.
“The big box stores wanted more money; who wouldn’t?” Plakon said. “Are we going to give it to them? I say we don’t.”
Those chains and others have said that tearing down the wall separating liquor is a “pro-consumer” move toward added convenience. But Rep. Julio Gonzalez, a Sarasota Republican and orthopedic surgeon, warned of making alcohol even more accessible.
He told of a patient who died in her forties after years of alcohol abuse, leaving a young son. “Kill this bill before this bill kills your neighbor,” Gonzalez said.
Rep. Joe Geller, an Aventura Democrat, warned that if the bill becomes law, “more alcohol will get in the hands of minors and no good will come of that.”
And Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando Democrat, said the change will “steamroll small business owners.”
Alcoholic beverage retailers, such as ABC Fine Wines & Spirits and small, independently-owned liquor stores, have said the measure will be a death knell to pure-play retailers who sell booze.
Publix, the Florida supermarket chain, also opposes the measure because of its investment in its many separate liquor stores.
“This is an industry fight,” Smith said. “This is about Wal-Mart coming to the Legislature, and saying, ‘can you please help us get more market dominance in liquor.’ … Well, I’m not here to make life easier for Wal-Mart.”
Rep. Wengay Newton, a St. Petersburg Democrat, compared the debate to the restaurant scene from Brian DePalma‘s “Scarface,” in which a drunken Tony Montana tells fellow diners, “You need people like me so you can point your fingers and say, ‘That’s the bad guy.’ “
“Wal-Mart’s the bad guy,” said Newton, who supports the measure.
Rep. Bryan Avila, the Hialeah Republican who sponsored the House measure, said he expected a “tense and contentious” debate on the bill.
“The only thing it does is repeal a law created in the 1930s that has outlived its time,” he said in debate. “It just gives a business an option … (but) I understand that any topic related to alcohol is very difficult.”
3 comments
Kendra
April 26, 2017 at 3:36 pm
For those who have never dealt with individuals or a family member with a drinking problem, this bill probably seems like no big deal. This could not possibly be further from the truth; even this moderate increase in access to liquor – the mere fact that it’s right down on another aisle instead of at a different store – will compel drinkers to consume more, or get hard liquor instead of wine or beer. You will see a dramatic uptick in minors consuming alcohol (and falling into alcoholism). You will see an increase in drunk driving crashes and deaths. You will see a degeneration of people’s quality of life. For people who’ve overcome a drinking problem, one of the tricks is simply staying away from it. Keeping a healthy distance. That distance is now gone.
And it’s hard to overstate just how pervasive alcoholism really is. This is an insanely bad idea. And actually, to the twit who claimed that people were just making Wal-Mart out to be the “bad guy”: Wal-Mart IS the bad guy in this case. For crying out loud.
We neither can nor should ‘ban’ liquor. But nor should we put it right next to the pancakes. It’s a really simple matter of psychology: people do what they think is acceptable. Nudging. Subtle signs that this or that behavior is okay. Putting liquor right next to other groceries leads people to grab the liquor when they might have decided otherwise, and even if we don’t think alcohol should be ‘illegal,’ I think most people can agree that alcohol by and large contributes little of value to society compared to the harm it causes, and its consumption shouldn’t be encouraged by the state.
For that matter, WHO has been harmed by the current set up, other than Wal-Mart’s CEO? Not a soul.
Lawrence Keith
April 27, 2017 at 8:49 am
There are some old adages saying, ” if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and leave well enough alone. I don’t see the logic in this bill. Making access to alcohol easier doesn’t benefit anyone.
Kendra
April 27, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Well. It benefits a small handful of big-box retailers like Target and Wal-mart, which is what this is really about. My understanding is that there will be one such license per 7500 people in the county, and these are all going to go to the above-named retailers.
The argument that this is for “consumer convenience” is entirely specious. It’s for the financial benefit of a small few, and at the expense of those who will be harmed. It’s not just that people will be more likely to go for the liquor when shopping; it’s that poorer individuals on a fixed budget will be more likely to reach for the liquor (escapism) instead of buying food. And if anyone thinks that this is not precisely what Wal-Mart had in mind, they’re lying to themselves.
I really wish people would stop talking about alcohol like it were the same as any other foodstuff or beverage, instead of it being the fourth-leading cause of preventable death and the cause of untold suffering by those who’ve been abused, maimed, injured, or killed by drunken jack*sses. The tiny inconvenience you might face in having to go to a different store is NOTHING compared to the damage that increased consumption causes.
At this point, nearly a fifth of Americans consume unhealthy levels of alcohol, and virtually everyone who drinks has driven drunk at least once. We really don’t need to be encouraging people to drink even more. People are insanely impulsive in this country, and this will undoubtedly lead to a spike in alcohol-related problems.
Comments are closed.