IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Indiana's Sunday booze ban should be tossed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
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 Many states, including Indiana, continued to ban Sunday liquor sales even after Prohibition was repealed in 1933.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on Alcoholic Beverages will meet at the Indiana Statehouse to discuss the ban on Sunday alcohol sales and another outdated law that prohibits grocery stores from selling cold beer.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 Thirteen other states have repealed laws restricting Sunday liquor sales since 2002, leaving Indiana as one of only 15 states with such an outdated prohibition on the books.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. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT