Quicker liquor at grocery stores?
By GARRY RAYNO
State House Bureau
Published Feb 22, 2012 at 3:00 am
(Updated Feb 21, 2012)
CONCORD — A bill that would allow grocery and convenience stores to sell hard liquor would water down the state's reputation for selling cheap alcohol, one lawmaker says.
“Do we really want to muck around with this?” Rep. Donna Schlachman, D-Exeter, said, during a House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee session on House Bill 1251 Tuesday. “I would argue it is not in the best interest of the state to do anything other than what we do, because it is really profitable.”
But Chairman John Hunt, R-Rindge, said the ability to buy liquor in a supermarket “is a service those of us who live in the hinterlands would appreciate when the liquor store closes at 6.”
The Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee toyed with several amendments to the bill Tuesday. Hunt said work would continue on the bill after a 9:30 a.m. Thursday public hearing, with a vote planned for that afternoon.
The bill is opposed by the State Liquor Commission as well as police organizations, the hospitality association, beer and wine brokers, beer manufacturers and distributors and anti-drunk driving groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The New Hampshire Grocers Association is backing House Bill 1251.
According to the Liquor Commission, the bill would require additional enforcement and licensing officers to the tune of about $1 million a year.
One version of the bill distributed Tuesday would have required the grocery or convenience stores to purchase the hard liquor from the state Liquor Commission at retail price.
The original bill would have provided a 10 to 20 percent discount to the grocers and convenience stores.
Committee Vice Chair Jennifer Coffey, R-Andover, said the current version removes any discount for the stores and they would be required to purchase the product directly from the Liquor Commission's warehouse.
Schlachman said the price in the grocery stores would have to be higher if the merchants are buying the liquor at retail price.
That would harm the state's image as a low-cost, no-tax liquor seller, she said.
“This will water down our branding of selling cheap alcohol,” Schlachman said. “This is not a necessity you have to have in the middle of the night.”
Comments
To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
- Identify yourself. Accounts using fake or incomplete names are suspended regardless of the quality of posts.
- Say something new, stay on topic, keep it short.
- Links to outside URLs are discouraged, if used they should be on topic.
- Avoid comments in bad taste, write well, avoid using all capital letters
- Don't cite facts about individuals or businesses without providing a means to verify the claim
- If you see an objectionable comment please click the "Report Abuse" button and be sure to tell us why.
Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.
Jack Alex said:
I can see it know at wally world, ammo in sporting goods, cans of beans in grocery, and whiskey in liqours. Should make for a one stop shop for hunting season.
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 2:14 am
Brian St. Onge said:
Gee, we wouldn't want New Hampshire to lose its reputation for a place to buy cheap booze now, would we??
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 5:55 am
Spike said:
The only reason to continue the status quo is to preserve the state's coercive monopoly--and supermarkets would have to buy their wares from the State Liquor Stores. This is a racket that needs to end, though our Tea Party legislature has repeatedly wilted on this front.
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 6:54 am
Donald Armstrong said:
I wonder what the state budget is for all the state liquor stores? They wanted several hundred thousand dollars just to repave one parking lot at one of the outlet stores. Why not just sell off all the state liquor stores and instead mandate that all the hard stuff has to be bought from a state distribution location and then let the free market sell the product. Let the free market compete and set the prices. You would eliminate a boat load of currently state owned properties along with a bunch of state employees. It will all become private commercial properties giving local taxes and local jobs that require no state pensions or insurance. Sounds like a win win proposition in a state that keeps saying it wants a smaller more cost effective government or are our politicians back to speaking two different things out of both sides of their mouth "again".
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 10:37 am
Paul Lundwall said:
Anyone have real numbers that show the profit margin that the state pulls in? And how is the profit spent?
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 10:54 am
Jeff Green said:
Has anyone looked up where the profits from the liquor stores go? Will getting rid of them take away revenue from a valuable service like that disgraceful reduction in the cigarette tax which only led to higher profits for tobacco companies and millions in loses to the transportation department?this article is terrible. There are no numbers here, just a call for more private ventures and free market. I predict higher liquor prices and potentially raised taxes due to a loss of state revenues if this were to go through.
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 7:05 pm
Bill Hubbard said:
Fund Type Amount PercentFederal Funds $1,590,743,146 30.33%Other Funds $866,104,513 16.51%Other Funds - Educational Trust $955,754,968 18.22%General Funds $1,339,623,076 25.54%Highway Funds $306,763,056 5.85%Turnpike Funds $116,181,674 2.22%Liquor Funds $46,553,961 0.89%Fish and Game Funds $13,795,778 0.26%Sweepstakes Funds $9,330,793 0.18%Total $5,244,850,965 100.00%
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 7:46 pm
Jeff Green said:
so am i looking at a potential loss of 46 million if we get rid of it?
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 8:03 pm
Post a comment
© Union Leader Corp.
