Aren't Blue Laws Unconstitutional?
August 16, 2010 5:34 PM Subscribe
Aren't blue laws essentially religious laws and therefore unconstitutional?
I got into a discussion with a cashier at 11:55 am yesterday (Sunday) at HEB (a supermarket) here in Texas as I was waiting for noon to roll around so I could pay for the beer in my basket. I jokingly said that I should just sue HEB since blue laws are essentially religious laws and therefore unconstitutional, and he said that states are allowed to make those kinds of laws, arguing that because they still exist, they must be constitutional. I countered that even if states can pass all kinds of laws, they can't pass unconstitutional ones, but his statement about blue laws still being on the books made me wonder.
According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court has argued that laws designed to enforce a day of rest are not unconstitutional, which is simply mind-boggling to me. 1) Since when is the government in the business of telling people when to rest? 2) Stating that the fact that blue laws fall on Sunday is just a coincidence seems a bit disingenuous. I understand that the Supreme Court can give a nod to traditions, but this seems ludicrous.
Can someone explain to me the reasoning by which the Supreme Court arrives at the conclusion that blue laws aren't unconstitutional?
I got into a discussion with a cashier at 11:55 am yesterday (Sunday) at HEB (a supermarket) here in Texas as I was waiting for noon to roll around so I could pay for the beer in my basket. I jokingly said that I should just sue HEB since blue laws are essentially religious laws and therefore unconstitutional, and he said that states are allowed to make those kinds of laws, arguing that because they still exist, they must be constitutional. I countered that even if states can pass all kinds of laws, they can't pass unconstitutional ones, but his statement about blue laws still being on the books made me wonder.
According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court has argued that laws designed to enforce a day of rest are not unconstitutional, which is simply mind-boggling to me. 1) Since when is the government in the business of telling people when to rest? 2) Stating that the fact that blue laws fall on Sunday is just a coincidence seems a bit disingenuous. I understand that the Supreme Court can give a nod to traditions, but this seems ludicrous.
Can someone explain to me the reasoning by which the Supreme Court arrives at the conclusion that blue laws aren't unconstitutional?
Can someone explain to me the reasoning by which the Supreme Court arrives at the conclusion that blue laws aren't unconstitutional?
McGowan v Maryland
posted by amro at 5:44 PM on August 16, 2010
McGowan v Maryland
posted by amro at 5:44 PM on August 16, 2010
McGowan v. Maryland: "the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose."
on preview: damn you, amro
posted by scody at 5:46 PM on August 16, 2010
on preview: damn you, amro
posted by scody at 5:46 PM on August 16, 2010
The Supreme Court resolved the constitutionality of blue laws in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961).
[...]
The Court rejected these arguments and upheld the law. Chief Justice EARL WARREN, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the law and other similar laws had originally been enacted for religious purposes. He concluded, however, that the Sunday closing laws had evolved into further secular ends and that this defeated an Establishment Clause claim. The Court, in reviewing the history of blue laws, ruled that nonreligious reasons for the laws had been propounded since the 1700s. Secular argument for blue laws included the idea that it was good for the government to encourage people to take a day off work for rest and relaxation.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/4795/Blue-Laws.html
posted by meta_eli at 5:47 PM on August 16, 2010
[...]
The Court rejected these arguments and upheld the law. Chief Justice EARL WARREN, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the law and other similar laws had originally been enacted for religious purposes. He concluded, however, that the Sunday closing laws had evolved into further secular ends and that this defeated an Establishment Clause claim. The Court, in reviewing the history of blue laws, ruled that nonreligious reasons for the laws had been propounded since the 1700s. Secular argument for blue laws included the idea that it was good for the government to encourage people to take a day off work for rest and relaxation.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/4795/Blue-Laws.html
posted by meta_eli at 5:47 PM on August 16, 2010
From what I understand (IANAL), most blue laws are still on the books simply because they haven't been challenged. Many of the ones that are challenged end up being deemed unconstitutional. For example, in Michigan, it used to be illegal to swear within 50 feet of a woman. Add a man with no sense of humor, a girl scout troop, an overzealous sherriff, and a state prosecutor from seemingly out of the 1800s, and yeah, the law was overturned. See also the current state of anti-sodomy laws.
Part of the reason, I imagine, that they are still on the books is that people actually need to fight them, because no one in any state congress is going to say something like "We need to make sodomy legal" because they'll be handing their next opponent a free and easy target. In Iowa in the late nineties, Gov. Vilsack had the unfortunate timing of getting stuck with a dispute over full nudity at strip clubs. When he didn't outright demand that they be banned, his opponent had tv ads all over, claiming that "Gov. Vilsack is for TOTALLY NUDE DANCING. When Vilsack denied that, and showed that he'd never made any comments about dancing, rather that he accepted the decision was based on constitutional grounds (freedom of expression, I believe it was), the same guy came back with ads proclaiming "No matter what Tom Vilsack says, don't believe him. He supports TOTALLY NUDE DANCING." Luckily, there were other, actually important issues, and Vilsack won the election.
Funny sidebar: The strip clubs being sued argued that they were providing a place for people to come and sketch live nude models. From what I understand, strip clubs in Iowa must furnish, on request, a pencil and sketch pad to anyone who asks for it. For sketching the models.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:51 PM on August 16, 2010 [11 favorites]
Part of the reason, I imagine, that they are still on the books is that people actually need to fight them, because no one in any state congress is going to say something like "We need to make sodomy legal" because they'll be handing their next opponent a free and easy target. In Iowa in the late nineties, Gov. Vilsack had the unfortunate timing of getting stuck with a dispute over full nudity at strip clubs. When he didn't outright demand that they be banned, his opponent had tv ads all over, claiming that "Gov. Vilsack is for TOTALLY NUDE DANCING. When Vilsack denied that, and showed that he'd never made any comments about dancing, rather that he accepted the decision was based on constitutional grounds (freedom of expression, I believe it was), the same guy came back with ads proclaiming "No matter what Tom Vilsack says, don't believe him. He supports TOTALLY NUDE DANCING." Luckily, there were other, actually important issues, and Vilsack won the election.
Funny sidebar: The strip clubs being sued argued that they were providing a place for people to come and sketch live nude models. From what I understand, strip clubs in Iowa must furnish, on request, a pencil and sketch pad to anyone who asks for it. For sketching the models.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:51 PM on August 16, 2010 [11 favorites]
There aren't many blue laws left, and the one like alcohol restrictions are always defended on other grounds (there is always a 'good reason' to regulate booze.) Also, it isn't just that the law can't be based on a religious practice; it must be shown that the law discriminates against a different religious practice.
Texas used to have a much stranger set of blue laws, and they weren't even passed until the sixties. Because there are Jews and Seventh Day Adventist in Texas (quite a few of both), and some own stores, and didn't open on Saturday even before the blue laws were passed, the Laws said that store owners could chose which weekend day they wanted to close on. Someone, it was one of those membership stores I think, or maybe a furniture store, began selling their whole stock and renting all their buildings to a wholly owned subsidiary at 11:30 every Saturday night and then buy the left overs back before six on Monday. Got kind of silly. Then car dealerships got mad (their contracts with the manufactures made the buy/un-buy way difficult) and all of that silliness disappeared.
In Louisiana the only time bars must close is at Mid night on Ash Wednesday. To me that seems like a pretty clear religious designation, it isn't even in the same month every year, but if you've ever been to Mardi Gras, you can see a pretty clear non-religious reason for the law.
posted by Some1 at 5:59 PM on August 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Texas used to have a much stranger set of blue laws, and they weren't even passed until the sixties. Because there are Jews and Seventh Day Adventist in Texas (quite a few of both), and some own stores, and didn't open on Saturday even before the blue laws were passed, the Laws said that store owners could chose which weekend day they wanted to close on. Someone, it was one of those membership stores I think, or maybe a furniture store, began selling their whole stock and renting all their buildings to a wholly owned subsidiary at 11:30 every Saturday night and then buy the left overs back before six on Monday. Got kind of silly. Then car dealerships got mad (their contracts with the manufactures made the buy/un-buy way difficult) and all of that silliness disappeared.
In Louisiana the only time bars must close is at Mid night on Ash Wednesday. To me that seems like a pretty clear religious designation, it isn't even in the same month every year, but if you've ever been to Mardi Gras, you can see a pretty clear non-religious reason for the law.
posted by Some1 at 5:59 PM on August 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mod note: few comments removed - this is AskMe not MeFi, question is fairly specific.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:14 PM on August 16, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:14 PM on August 16, 2010
Some1: I live in the New Orleans area, and most bars that stay open 24/7 do so on Ash Wednesday too. Bars in the French Quarter are asked to close at the end of Mardi Gras Day for a few hours so that the Quarter can be cleared and cleaned up.
I remember the strangest knock-down drag-out blue law fight ever in the 1980's over Louisiana's blue laws, which because of New Orleans' importance as a tourist destination specifically exempted alcohol. This meant that on Sunday you could go to a bar or liquor store and get smashing drunk, but you couldn't buy the fittings at a hardware store to fix your brooken toilet. Outfits like K-mart which sold both hardware and household wares had to rope off their hardware sections on Sunday. Those outfits wanted the law repealed; the Mom 'n Pop hardware stores wanted it to stay so they could have a day off without competition.
It was touch and go at times but the law got repealed, and now Radio Shack can open on Sunday in New Orleans.
posted by localroger at 6:35 PM on August 16, 2010
I remember the strangest knock-down drag-out blue law fight ever in the 1980's over Louisiana's blue laws, which because of New Orleans' importance as a tourist destination specifically exempted alcohol. This meant that on Sunday you could go to a bar or liquor store and get smashing drunk, but you couldn't buy the fittings at a hardware store to fix your brooken toilet. Outfits like K-mart which sold both hardware and household wares had to rope off their hardware sections on Sunday. Those outfits wanted the law repealed; the Mom 'n Pop hardware stores wanted it to stay so they could have a day off without competition.
It was touch and go at times but the law got repealed, and now Radio Shack can open on Sunday in New Orleans.
posted by localroger at 6:35 PM on August 16, 2010
In Massachusetts the purpose of blue laws is no longer religious. It is to protect small businesses from having to be open seven days a week morning to night.
posted by alms at 7:02 PM on August 16, 2010
posted by alms at 7:02 PM on August 16, 2010
. It is to protect small businesses from having to be open seven days a week morning to night.
Years ago (vague memory) there was a challenge to Connecticut's blue laws on alcohol sales (they're outlawed on Sunday). The independent package store owners were the most vocal opponents. Their argument was that it would cause them financial losses, because overall sales would not increase, (since people would buy the same amount of alcohol they currently do and just spread the purchases over more days) but that their working hours and expenses to keep the stores open would.
posted by Miko at 7:13 PM on August 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Years ago (vague memory) there was a challenge to Connecticut's blue laws on alcohol sales (they're outlawed on Sunday). The independent package store owners were the most vocal opponents. Their argument was that it would cause them financial losses, because overall sales would not increase, (since people would buy the same amount of alcohol they currently do and just spread the purchases over more days) but that their working hours and expenses to keep the stores open would.
posted by Miko at 7:13 PM on August 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Business owners love blue laws. They get to do a whole weekend of business on Saturday, and get out of paying any employees on Sunday. No one business could pull this off because they'd just lose all their customers to competitors, but enforcement through the legal system keeps any one store from cheating.
Originally the pretext was religious, now the pretext is tradition, but the underlying reason is so businesses can save a little money.
If blue laws were vigorously challenged in court, they'd probably be overturned. But who would challenge them? Stores have lots of lawyers, customers aren't an organized group and don't have any.
posted by miyabo at 7:20 PM on August 16, 2010
Originally the pretext was religious, now the pretext is tradition, but the underlying reason is so businesses can save a little money.
If blue laws were vigorously challenged in court, they'd probably be overturned. But who would challenge them? Stores have lots of lawyers, customers aren't an organized group and don't have any.
posted by miyabo at 7:20 PM on August 16, 2010
He concluded, however, that the Sunday closing laws had evolved into further secular ends and that this defeated an Establishment Clause claim.
Its the rational basis test on this one. The government need not even show that the actual purpose is to fufill these secular aims. The court merely needs to find that such reasons could be rational. Which means that if the judge can think of a single rational reason that the law might exist, then it still is constitutional.
You need this level of lax scrutiny if you want a functioning legal system.
Not to mention the damage is rather minor. you can't get beers. You ain't MLK. So you buy enough on Saturday. The damages are low. Its a state law the federal court is being asked to overturn, to vocal reaction by well-fed locals. The judge is fully aware of these facts. This type of suit is not appreciated by an overworked federal judge either. He or she does not want to be presiding over a suit where the amount in controversy is so low, but the decision is very important for large numbers of stakeholders who are not a party to the litigation. Why should he or she be called upon to rock the boat when the changes will be large for the area but not the litigants? liberal judges run as fast as conservatives to get away from a case like this.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:58 PM on August 16, 2010
Its the rational basis test on this one. The government need not even show that the actual purpose is to fufill these secular aims. The court merely needs to find that such reasons could be rational. Which means that if the judge can think of a single rational reason that the law might exist, then it still is constitutional.
You need this level of lax scrutiny if you want a functioning legal system.
Not to mention the damage is rather minor. you can't get beers. You ain't MLK. So you buy enough on Saturday. The damages are low. Its a state law the federal court is being asked to overturn, to vocal reaction by well-fed locals. The judge is fully aware of these facts. This type of suit is not appreciated by an overworked federal judge either. He or she does not want to be presiding over a suit where the amount in controversy is so low, but the decision is very important for large numbers of stakeholders who are not a party to the litigation. Why should he or she be called upon to rock the boat when the changes will be large for the area but not the litigants? liberal judges run as fast as conservatives to get away from a case like this.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:58 PM on August 16, 2010
miyabo: "Business owners love blue laws. They get to do a whole weekend of business on Saturday, and get out of paying any employees on Sunday. No one business could pull this off because they'd just lose all their customers to competitors, but enforcement through the legal system keeps any one store from cheating. "
This is exactly the reason given to me when I started asking around in my area regarding these laws. Everyone at car dealerships (from owner to car cleaner) loves the "have to close on Sunday" thing. I view it as a form of "arms control" among retail establishments that sell similar items. If one dealership was able to sell cars on Sunday, they all would have to. By making it illegal to do, they all get every Sunday off. (And, as you point out, Sunday customers will make time to go there on a Saturday.)
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:19 PM on August 16, 2010
This is exactly the reason given to me when I started asking around in my area regarding these laws. Everyone at car dealerships (from owner to car cleaner) loves the "have to close on Sunday" thing. I view it as a form of "arms control" among retail establishments that sell similar items. If one dealership was able to sell cars on Sunday, they all would have to. By making it illegal to do, they all get every Sunday off. (And, as you point out, Sunday customers will make time to go there on a Saturday.)
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:19 PM on August 16, 2010
Business owners love blue laws. They get to do a whole weekend of business on Saturday, and get out of paying any employees on Sunday. No one business could pull this off because they'd just lose all their customers to competitors, but enforcement through the legal system keeps any one store from cheating.
Until 1992, it was illegal for most stores to conduct business on Sunday in Ontario, Canada. This was a boon for border stores in the US - the parking lots of our malls here in suburban Detroit were always full of Canadian license plates. A lot of the larger retail stores in Windsor starting opening on Sundays and just paid the fines because the revenue they took in made it worth their while.
Waiting 'til noon on Sunday to buy liquor doesn't bother me that much (I'm not usually out shopping that early anyway), but I really hate the "no liquor sold on Christmas Day" (actually from 9PM Christmas Eve to 7AM Dec 26) law in Michigan. That has nothing to do with a weekly day of rest for employees or anything else, it is strictly for religious reasons (separation of church and state, anyone?).
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:00 PM on August 16, 2010
Until 1992, it was illegal for most stores to conduct business on Sunday in Ontario, Canada. This was a boon for border stores in the US - the parking lots of our malls here in suburban Detroit were always full of Canadian license plates. A lot of the larger retail stores in Windsor starting opening on Sundays and just paid the fines because the revenue they took in made it worth their while.
Waiting 'til noon on Sunday to buy liquor doesn't bother me that much (I'm not usually out shopping that early anyway), but I really hate the "no liquor sold on Christmas Day" (actually from 9PM Christmas Eve to 7AM Dec 26) law in Michigan. That has nothing to do with a weekly day of rest for employees or anything else, it is strictly for religious reasons (separation of church and state, anyone?).
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:00 PM on August 16, 2010
Business owners love blue laws. They get to do a whole weekend of business on Saturday, and get out of paying any employees on Sunday. No one business could pull this off because they'd just lose all their customers to competitors, but enforcement through the legal system keeps any one store from cheating.
In my country, I'm told there is also support for sunday trading laws from shopworkers' unions, as if everyone in a family works different retail shifts, there will still be at least one evening a week where the family will be at home at the same time.
And the unions wouldn't want to give up employee benefits without getting something in return :-)
posted by Mike1024 at 2:02 AM on August 17, 2010
In my country, I'm told there is also support for sunday trading laws from shopworkers' unions, as if everyone in a family works different retail shifts, there will still be at least one evening a week where the family will be at home at the same time.
And the unions wouldn't want to give up employee benefits without getting something in return :-)
posted by Mike1024 at 2:02 AM on August 17, 2010
Blue laws are a holdover from Prohibition. The only way the courts would be interested in overturning them is if there is some mention of Christianity in the laws themselves. It's usually not worth the effort for the federal government to get involved. Your rights aren't being violated, you're just being slightly inconvenienced.
In PA, you have to go to special distributors to buy alcohol. It still surprises me to see beer in grocery stores. Weirder: In Georgia, on Thanksgiving, liquor stores can sell beer and wine, but not hard liquor. All the stores are split with beer on one side, liquor on the other, and a wall down the middle so that it can be closed off on Thanksgiving.
The liquor store owners that I know love having the day off. Liquor store employees tend to be a bit dodgy, so the owners have to work most of the day, every day. If they changed the laws, they would never get to celebrate Super Bowl Sunday - besides New Year's Eve, the Saturday before the Super Bowl is the biggest selling day of the year. It's nice for them to sell $100K then have the day off.
posted by hedgehoagie at 4:47 AM on August 17, 2010
In PA, you have to go to special distributors to buy alcohol. It still surprises me to see beer in grocery stores. Weirder: In Georgia, on Thanksgiving, liquor stores can sell beer and wine, but not hard liquor. All the stores are split with beer on one side, liquor on the other, and a wall down the middle so that it can be closed off on Thanksgiving.
The liquor store owners that I know love having the day off. Liquor store employees tend to be a bit dodgy, so the owners have to work most of the day, every day. If they changed the laws, they would never get to celebrate Super Bowl Sunday - besides New Year's Eve, the Saturday before the Super Bowl is the biggest selling day of the year. It's nice for them to sell $100K then have the day off.
posted by hedgehoagie at 4:47 AM on August 17, 2010
There is also another way to think about this subject. You may think that the real purpose of taking Sunday off is religious, regardless of whatever other reasons are offered, but why did a day off become part of Judao-Christian religions in the first place? The reason officially given in the bible is that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, and hence taking one day off a week is a way to memorialize that event. (The odd part is, the bible does not tell us that after resting on the 7th day, God went back to work on the 8th. The universe only had to be created once. If you want to, you could imagine that God did go back to work on the 8th day, but His new occupation was to answer prayers.)
However, all of these biblical myths are created for specific reasons. The original reason for creating the tradition of taking off one day a week was not religious, it was humanitarian. Thousands of years ago, when the bible was originally composed, there were no laws to protect workers or slaves from abuse by their employers or owners. Workers could just be worked to death, with no respite ever. The only way to introduce any element of kindness toward vulnerable segments of the population was to make it part of a religion. So the non-religious motive is more fundamental than the religious motive.
The only complicating factor is that blue laws specify Sunday as the day off, when any day of the week could serve the non-religious objective. Furthermore, by choosing Sunday there seems to be an implicit endorsement of one religion over another. Jews and Seventh Day Adventists would choose Saturday, while Catholics and most other Christian denominations would choose Sunday; there are other religions which have other preferences. In this case, there is no single day that is going to make everybody happy, so we might as well make as many people happy as possible. It is a pragmatic decision. One logical alternative would be to tell people, you get to take one day off a week but it's up to you which day you choose. However, as other answers have already noted, there are greater benefits when everybody closes on the same day, and if it was entirely to individual stores to decide what day to close, competition would force them to never close.
posted by grizzled at 6:45 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
However, all of these biblical myths are created for specific reasons. The original reason for creating the tradition of taking off one day a week was not religious, it was humanitarian. Thousands of years ago, when the bible was originally composed, there were no laws to protect workers or slaves from abuse by their employers or owners. Workers could just be worked to death, with no respite ever. The only way to introduce any element of kindness toward vulnerable segments of the population was to make it part of a religion. So the non-religious motive is more fundamental than the religious motive.
The only complicating factor is that blue laws specify Sunday as the day off, when any day of the week could serve the non-religious objective. Furthermore, by choosing Sunday there seems to be an implicit endorsement of one religion over another. Jews and Seventh Day Adventists would choose Saturday, while Catholics and most other Christian denominations would choose Sunday; there are other religions which have other preferences. In this case, there is no single day that is going to make everybody happy, so we might as well make as many people happy as possible. It is a pragmatic decision. One logical alternative would be to tell people, you get to take one day off a week but it's up to you which day you choose. However, as other answers have already noted, there are greater benefits when everybody closes on the same day, and if it was entirely to individual stores to decide what day to close, competition would force them to never close.
posted by grizzled at 6:45 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
If blue laws were vigorously challenged in court, they'd probably be overturned. But who would challenge them?
In practice, it is the alcohol distributor groups like the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States who challenge them, although generally by lobbying the state legislatures rather than through the legal system. Their motivation is that any increase in gross sales is a benefit to them, even if the liquor stores make less profit by being open on Sunday.
posted by smackfu at 7:00 AM on August 17, 2010
In practice, it is the alcohol distributor groups like the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States who challenge them, although generally by lobbying the state legislatures rather than through the legal system. Their motivation is that any increase in gross sales is a benefit to them, even if the liquor stores make less profit by being open on Sunday.
posted by smackfu at 7:00 AM on August 17, 2010
Response by poster: Fascinating answers. Thanks to everyone. Very enlightening ... but not completely convincing. I'm down with people needing days off, that it's part of human nature, that there could be secular arguments for having such laws, but why should we have government-mandated days off?
posted by luke1249 at 6:03 PM on August 17, 2010
posted by luke1249 at 6:03 PM on August 17, 2010
why should we have government-mandated days off?
So now you should go back and read about the structural, law-related reasons why no one is taking on a challenge to these laws. I'm sure you'd be welcome to work with a rep to introduce a bill into your state legislature, and that might be one way to surface the practical opposition.
posted by Miko at 6:44 PM on August 17, 2010
So now you should go back and read about the structural, law-related reasons why no one is taking on a challenge to these laws. I'm sure you'd be welcome to work with a rep to introduce a bill into your state legislature, and that might be one way to surface the practical opposition.
posted by Miko at 6:44 PM on August 17, 2010
why should we have government-mandated days off?
You can argue that this is bad policy but that different from arguing that it is unconstitutional. The United States Constitution isn't a libertarian document. Communities have all sorts of leeway to regulate commercial and personal behavior and they do that in many many ways.
posted by alms at 7:43 AM on August 18, 2010
You can argue that this is bad policy but that different from arguing that it is unconstitutional. The United States Constitution isn't a libertarian document. Communities have all sorts of leeway to regulate commercial and personal behavior and they do that in many many ways.
posted by alms at 7:43 AM on August 18, 2010
« Older A date with the Supreme Court | How do I eliminate audio interference on a 5.8GHz... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Although prohibition was repealed, there is no "right to buy alcohol" enshrined in the US Constitution. There are many "dry counties," and Utah and other states place numerous restrictions on where and what kind of alcohol can be sold. In short, decisions about where and when alcohol can be sold have (besides prohibition) historically been left to local governments.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:44 PM on August 16, 2010