IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Indiana's Sunday booze ban should be tossed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Sunday is the second-busiest grocery-shopping day of the week in Indiana, but there’s one product Hoosiers aren’t allowed to put in their shopping carts that day even though it’s perfectly legal the rest of the week.

That’s because an archaic blue law prohibits carryout liquor sales on Sundays. It’s a regulation that makes little sense and one that is long overdue for elimination.

Blue laws in the United States date back to the 17th century, when Puritan colonists banned many “immoral” activities, such as alcohol consumption on Sundays. Many states, including Indiana, continued to ban Sunday liquor sales even after Prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Today, however, the moral argument for banning such sales no longer holds water. For one thing, alcohol sales are already allowed in Indiana on Sundays as long as they take place by the drink in taverns, restaurants or at certain sports and entertainment events.

In other words, if a Hoosier wants to chug several brews at the Indianapolis Colts game on Sunday, that’s OK. But if he or she wants to buy a bottle of cooking wine at the grocery store to prepare a Sunday dinner, that’s a no-no. It also seems a bit incongruous that Indiana wants to be a moral arbiter of alcohol consumption, but has little problem sanctioning widespread 24-hour-a-day gambling (including on Sundays).

On Sept. 15, the Interim Study Committee on Alcoholic Beverages will meet at the Indiana Statehouse to discuss the ban on Sunday alcohol sales and another outdated law that prohibits grocery stores from selling cold beer. (Indiana is the only state to limit cold beer sales to package liquor stores.) The bipartisan panel will take public testimony on the issues and report findings to the General Assembly when it reconvenes in January.

The panel is likely to find a groundswell of support for overturning the Sunday alcohol ban. Thirteen other states have repealed laws restricting Sunday liquor sales since 2002, leaving Indiana as one of only 15 states with such an outdated prohibition on the books. An unscientific poll at ibj.com finds 82-percent support for overturning the ban.

There are also economic reasons for changing the law. None of our neighboring states has such a prohibition, leaving Indiana liquor retailers near state lines at a disadvantage 52 days a year.

The bottom line in this issue comes down to choice and convenience for consumers, and freedom of competition for businesses. Indiana citizens should have the right to buy alcoholic beverages—warm or cold—from the seller of their choosing on the day that works for them. And businesses that have earned their liquor licenses should be able to sell their products any day of the week.•

__________

To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT