Once again proposals have surfaced in Concord to “overhaul” the State’s liquor laws. Unfortunately, the headlines which seduce us into believing real change is afoot turn out to be little more than overblown rhetoric. Both legislators and lobbyists, alike, are quick to point out that the proposed changes are primarily housekeeping in nature, augmented with schedules of increased fees and fines . . . sounds like the Massachusetts model for closing its budget deficit.
It can be easily and reasonably argued that the government should not be involved in things the private sector can do on its own. However, New Hampshire’s growing fiscal crisis combined with the vested interests of many state employees and the liquor industry lobby will quickly silence any attempts to get the State out of the liquor business.
Upon even cursory scrutiny of some of the proposed changes, one gets the uneasy feeling they were crafted by self-interested individuals who were being economically impacted by private-sector initiatives of businessmen trying to eke out a living. What business is it of the State whether an establishment sells only beer? And, what right does the State have to mandate a grocery store must have an inventory of food products worth at least $3,000 at any one time? Such matters should be left to the discretion of the management of such private sector businesses!
Meantime, several weighty issues which should be addressed have been conspicuously omitted. Many of these matters have been suggested by the public during hearings before legislative committees as recently as this past year. Two come to mind quickly.
While the Governor and more than a few legislative leaders have called for a policy lowering the blood-alcohol content for implied consent, it is still legal to drink and drive in New Hampshire. This is pure insanity! At what moment does a beer-guzzling driver pass over the threshold of intoxication? When does he/she become a threat to the lives of those sharing the road with them? Why was there no attempt to close this loophole and outlaw drinking while driving?
The proposed legislation will also levy heavier fines on individuals under twenty-one who attempt to buy liquor illegally. That’s akin to trying to solve the drug problem by lengthening the sentences of cocaine users . . . a policy which has been an unmitigated failure.
Why is our Legislature so afraid of getting tough with the suppliers of alcohol to underage drinkers . . . after all, most of these same lawmakers are quick to call for stiffer penalties for individuals who supply drugs to our youth?
If the Legislature was really serious about the problem, proposals for much stiffer liquor license revocations for those establishments or businesses caught selling to minors would have been a included in the legislation . . . 90 days on the first offense, one year on the second, and a lifetime revocation for a third offenses. Faced with such disincentives threatening their economic livelihoods, store and restaurant owners would quickly become their own policemen, rather than looking the other way . . . which today represents the greater economic risk/reward alternative for many of them.
The State Legislature, the Governor and his staff should stop it constant meddling in areas best left to the private sector (such as whether a Bed and Breakfast with fewer than four rooms sells a couple of beers to their guests) and instead begin to demonstrate some real courage and take leadership roles in addressing some of the real tough issues.
