image by Tjeerd
A problem with many alcohol control laws is that they assume that, given the chance, every person will drink him or herself stupid. Quota licenses are one such example.
Some states (like Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Utah, to name a few) limit the number of retail (or bar licenses) available in any given location. Usually, the issuance of quota licenses is based on population. In Florida, for example, one new license (for the sale of spirits) opens up any time the population in a county grows by 7500 people. There is a complex lottery system for being awarded these coveted licenses. Otherwise, one can either purchase an existing bar and license, or, open a restaurant (which means 2500 square feet of space, equipped to serve 150 people full course meals at once, and deriving 51% of its revenue from food sales).
These kinds of restrictions keep retirees from opening that bar facing the beach they always dreamed of. The idea is to keep too much booze from being in any one place. Forget about the free market being able to adequately deal with too many alcohol purveyors. Instead, let’s assume that people cannot be responsible for their own actions, and limit the number of bars they can go to.
Presuming people can show some personal responsibility, there is a point at which an additional bar in a city or county will not be profitable. Businessmen in the alcohol industry (contrary to certain opinions) are not likely to open a bar that will not be profitable. They are not looking to corrupt their patrons.
Another fear of too many bars in one location is that they will compete on price. Again, this argument assumes that given cheep drinks, people will lack any self-control and drink themselves stupid. Legislators should not take personal responsibility away from their constituents, but allow the free market to control the number of bars in any given area.
Posts
