Blue Law repeal: increasing rights or demoralizing Colorado?

By: Jason De Thomas, Adam Jones, and Kristen Johnson UNC Connection Feb 18, 2008 Once again, Colorados Blue Laws are under scrutiny. A Blue Law is a type of regulation designed to enforce moral standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest. They are a collection of restrictive statutes implemented and inspired by New England's devout early inhabitants. The first usage of the term Blue Law may have been by the Reverend Samuel Peters in his 1781 book General History of Connecticut. He used it to describe various laws first enacted by Puritan colonies in the 17th century, prohibiting certain business activities on specific days of the week--usually Sundays. Although such legislation had its origins in European Sabbatarian laws, the term Blue Laws is usually applied only to American legislation. Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence to support the claim that the Blue Laws were originally printed on blue paper. Rather, the word blue was commonly used in the 18th century as a disapproving reference to rigid moral codes and those who observed them. Although Reverend Peters asserted that the term Blue Law was first used by Puritan colonists, his work has since been found to be unreliable, and it is more likely that he simply invented the term himself. Blue Laws were incorporated into American law from the English common law. The first regulation was enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Gates, deputy governor of Virginia, as part of the colony's laws. Most seventeenth-and eighteenth-century versions look a lot like the 1676 Sunday law of Charles II, prohibiting "worldly labour" and "ordinary callings" such as travel, recreation and trade. Traditionally, penalties were financial, though provisions for corporal punishment were not uncommon. Blue Laws were originally motivated by religious goals. Although religion continued to drive sabbatarian politics after the founding-especially among evangelical Protestants during the Second Great Awakening-- Blue Laws were increasingly supported to promote secular goods such as temperance, labor efficiency and public order after the 1840s. Since then, enforcement has veered from strenuous to indifferent. After the Civil War, Blue Laws were regularly violated and un-enforced, and through the twentieth century they proved no match for the pressures of commercialization. They remain relevant, in reduced form, on a regionally varying basis. Today, American courts have considered these laws to be part of the state and local police power to promote health, safety and morality. As such, they have generally been upheld against

constitutional challenges; however, they have always been fiercely disputed by the public. But recent economic pressures on states have encouraged lawmakers to reconsider such provisions. Although Blue Laws requiring Sunday church attendance disappeared in the nineteenth century because they violated citizens right to religious freedom, other Blue Laws continue to exist today. In Texas, for example, Blue Laws prohibited selling house wares such as pots, pans and washing machines on Sunday until 1985, and car dealerships in the state, as well as in Colorado, continue to operate under Blue Law prohibitions. According to an article in the Washington Post, the Puritans wanted almost a theocratic state, with no clear separation between the church and government, but the world began to change a long time ago," said Peter Drummey, a librarian at the Massachusetts Historical Society. "Now you see what's left of the traditional Blue Laws slowly fading away." In all but sixteen states, Colorado being one, these laws have been repealed, declared unconstitutional or are simply un-enforced. However, bans on the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sundays are still imposed in many areas. This may seem like a contradiction when considering the supposed separation of church and state that the United States claims to uphold. In some places, Blue Laws may be enforced due to religious principles, but others are retained as a matter of tradition or out of convenience. Advocates of the Colorado reform argue that repeal of the prohibition expands consumer choice on the second-busiest shopping day of the week. Additionally, many supporters think that the law is restrictive and unconstitutional; limiting the entire populations rights and forcing citizens to live by a law based on the religious beliefs and practices of the devout few. Advocates for repealing the laws also bring up the point that the laws are too inconvenient to justify any positive moral action they promote. Those opposing the repeal believe that passing such legislation would make alcohol more available to minors, increase DUIs, and generally contribute to declining morals in Colorado. In just the past 6 years, twelve states have revised their legislature to allow the sales of liquor on Sundays. The legislature revision, upon first glance, appears tempting. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States estimated that by allowing liquor sales just one more day, retail revenue could see an increase of up to $32 million. On top of that, the state would be receiving about $2.6 million in tax revenue. Plus, come the day of a big football game, Northern Colorado residents would no longer have to make the morning beer run to Wyoming.

Despite the potential benefits presented in passing the legislature, the prospect of allowing Sunday liquor sales has many in the business concerned. In fact, a vast portion of Colorado liquor store owners are doing everything they can to not let the bill pass. To many, the benefits simply wouldnt be worth it. Leonard Gonzales, owner of East Bourbon Street Spirits in Greeley, is one of many who oppose the issue. Im not in agreement with opening on Sundays. The way the system is now people have ample time to pick up what they need. All it will do is cost the stores more money in labor. The profit wouldnt outweigh the costs, says Gonzalez. Some consumers share similar opinions on the matter. Matt Cook, a senior at UNC, sees the legislation as unnecessary, People have six days out of the week to buy their alcohol. Besides, if not being able to get alcohol that one day is such a hassle, they have bigger problems to worry about. There are currently more than 1,600 liquor stores operating in Colorado. Many of these stores support the legislation, along with the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association, the Korean Retail Liquor Association, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Colorado, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States liquor store giants Argonaut Liquors and Daveco Liquors. Though opinion on the matter is split within the industry, favor for Sunday sales got a boost recently from yet another alcohol legislation to be introduced in the state capitol. This second bill calls for allowing grocery and convenience stores to acquire liquor licenses another ban thats been in effect since the end of prohibition in 1933. If this bill was to pass, liquor stores would all but have to stay open every day in order to keep up with large supermarkets which would be, under the new legislation, permitted to sell harder alcohol in addition the 3.2% beer they currently sell. Two of the biggest supporters of the supermarket bill are King Soopers and Safeway. Needless to say, liquor store owners arent divided on the prospects of new conglomerate competition. That would pretty much destroy liquor stores in Colorado. It would destroy that small business, says Gonzalez. Not only that, but if more stores were to provide more liquor, the consequences of drinking would almost certainly worsen. Youd go from having eighteen licenses in Greeley and Evans, which is too many already, to 2,000 if every convenience store and supermarket suddenly got one, says Gonzalez. The city and the state would suddenly have such a problem in trying to control underage drinking. Imagine how many liquor stores and how much liquor would be sold in a place like Colfax. How much there would be on that one block. Youd have a problem.

Last Thursday, Colorado legislature shot down the supermarket proposal. This doesnt surprise Gonzalez however, as stores like King Soopers and Safeway have been trying unsuccessfully for years to pass the legislation. Ive been in the business for 30 years, and for at least 20 years I can remember there being a threat of grocery stores getting a license, says Gonzalez. On the other hand, the Sunday sales bill was not dismissed. In fact, efforts to do away with the Sunday sales ban have also been circulating the state legislature for years. But, following the lead of the twelve states to drop their own Sunday ban in the past few years, this years stage of the proposal has cleared more hurdles than any other, and it seems Colorado is closer to selling alcohol on Sundays than ever. Not surprisingly, the UNC Police were also against the selling of alcohol on Sundays. Sergeant Chris Krause said that they have two teams patrolling the streets each week, and on Wednesdays they overlap. That means more cops on Wednesdays, most likely due to Wasted Wednesdays. But alcohol on Sundays wouldnt mean more patrols, because they would maintain the same staffit would just mean more work. Sgt. Krause mentioned that they crack down on alcohol-related offenses during the beginning of each semester. As part of a zerotolerance policy, the UNC PD aims to show students that they will not allow drinking and driving or underage drinking. Sgt. Krause estimated that there are anywhere between 0-3 DUIs on a weekly basis, but told stated that he thinks that would increase if Sundays were alcoholfriendly. Not a big drinker himself, he would rather see it stay the same, and not have alcohol readily available either on Sundays or in convenience and grocery stores. I dont think its a good idea, he continued, and from a Police standpoint, that makes perfect sense. Based on the fact that the Police target alcohol offenders, another day of alcohol means trouble. It also means more MIPs, MICs and DUIs for people caught by the UNC PD, which means students and non-students both have stakes in the outcome of the bills. Some people are impulse buyers, said Sgt. Krause about having alcohol in grocery or convenience stores, if they see it they might just buy it, and if its sitting around the house, they might just drink it. He was also against the passage of the law for other reasons, such as the monster known as Wal-Mart. Look at what Wal-Marts already doing to other stores, he explained, noting, like others, that many small businesses might lose sales to the massive buying power of conglomerates. And that brings us full circle back to the concern of the economic impact of such a change. Would local liquor stores drown under the

river of alcohol flowing from bigger chains? Luke Afewrki, the owner and operator of Liquor Plus, located on 11th Avenue, thinks not, but still opposes the bill, especially since he is located right next door to one of the major supporters of the legislation, Safeway. Having been there for 1 year, and having some of the best prices in town, he doesnt think his store will fold under the pressure. Like Leonard Gonzalez, when asked if he would want to sell alcohol on Sundays, he said no. I would rather have it closed, he said matter-of-factly, but knowing me, Id probably be here anyway. Unfortunately for him and other small business owners, the one day a week he can relax may someday disappear. He also agreed with the general opinion that the impact would be hardest for small liquor stores and maybe bars, but probably not restaurants. Others, however, think that bars would be just fine. Those others? The students. Students were polled to discover what they thought, and there were some interesting responses. Not a single student thought that bars would go out of business. Social wateringholes will always be needed, said one student, and another noted that bars have a social aspect you cant buy in a store. A third stated No, Wal-Mart doesnt have seats, friends, and beers, in reply to a question of if places like Wal-Mart selling alcohol would impact bars. There was also a wide range of drinking habits among the students in the survey. When asked how often he drank, one person wrote Twice a daymany drinks each time, but another wrote Never. One person put At least one drink 365 days of the year, and someone else wrote Once a month or so. Clearly, students vary in their drinking habits, and even their favorite drinks. The drinks in the favorites column were some strange bedfellows, ranging from Wine, red, Italian dry to Blueberry Stolli, to our own local Crabtree Twisted Creek Wheat. There were also the usuals, such as Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, Vodka, Tequila, Captain Morgan, and Sunshine Wheat. And some Fat Tire. However, despite the differences in taste, many students think that being allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays is a good thing. Only two people stated that drinking on Sundays would impact their school or work attendance negatively, and even they rode the fence on the issue. One student said they attended work/school even if hung-over, another said it depends, and a third said Its no different than any other day. So the student body is confident that alcohol being available on Sundays is no biggie. After all, as one student wrote, I bet people buy it in advance if they want it for a Sunday party. In any event, with all the hub-bub surrounding the bills, the city of Greeley is looking at some major changes if the legislation is passed. Undoubtedly, no matter what happens, half the people debating the

issue will be disappointed in the result, while the other half might just be drunk with joy. Or beer.