It's hard for me to imagine what good reasons there could be for keeping wine out of grocery stores. But doesn't it seem like there should be some?
Usually, when someone proposes doing something, there are legitimate concerns that need to be weighed. But the anti-wine-in-grocery-stores folks have so far made two arguments this legislative session. Surely, you remember how Knoxville Police Chief David Rausch promised that wine in grocery stores would inevitably lead to more incidents of butt-chugging?
Well, Rep. Ryan Haynes (R-Knoxville) is opposed for a reason that's not quite as stupid — but it's still pretty darn silly. According to Erik Schelzig from the AP:
Republican Rep. Ryan Haynes of Knoxville says liquor store owners should be given three to five years to get out of their existing leases or to change their business models if they no longer have the exclusive right to sell wine.
Three to five years to get out of their leases?! This is the best argument that they've got? We can't have wine in grocery stores because of villainous landlords?
I have really mixed feelings about this level of doofusness. On the one hand, yes, I support wine in grocery stores, so I'm kind of glad to see that the opposition's best reasons to oppose it are butt-chugging and "but things will change."
On the other hand, though, I was really hoping that a benefit to having such a solid one-party majority would be that the dynamic of "one group tries to get things done, the other group throws up random roadblocks" would be somewhat subverted. But it seems like that's still not the case. And that's too bad.
If there are real, good reasons to oppose wine in grocery stores, it'd be nice to hear them.