When it comes to alcohol, North Carolina's laws and policies read like they were authored by a drunk.
Tuesday, I was at Harris Teeter buying some groceries. When I reached the automated checkout--the smartest addition to grocery stores since shopping carts--the placard read something akin to:
"When purchasing alcohol we reserve the right to check ID of all members of your party. Thanks for your cooperation."
Well, you spoke too soon on thanking me because I am not going to cooperate. Pardon?
I don't remember that part of the law--the part that presumed guilt by association. If you are 21, you get to buy and consume alcohol. If you are not 21, you do not get to buy or consume alcohol. Is there a law on the books barring the sale of alcohol to 21-year-olds when a 19-year-old is watching?
The reality is when you have your Booze-mitzvah, there is an implicit feeling of trust that the government is placing in you; when you reach 21, the government trusts you to consume and purchase alcohol responsibly. Even if the ideal is seldom realistic (note how many frat boys will have a case of beer on their 21st or how many people will do something as ignorant as trying to down 21 shots of tequila), the law is clear--21-year-olds have a right to buy alcohol. No grocery chain has the right to stand in the way.
This trampling on the rights of 21-year-olds is quite egregious. The store has no liability for selling alcohol to a 21-year-old purchaser, even if he was accompanied by a crowd of unruly infants. When the store checks the purchaser's ID, it has has fulfilled its legal obligation. Why the extra stipulation? The answer is private moralizing in a (thankfully) secular state.
Harris Teeter is not alone in carrying out this war against underage watching. Some Food Lion stores use the same silly policy. Drop the excessive moralizing--North Carolinians receive plenty.
Then again, that change would remove less than half of the state's foolishness when it comes to mixing alcohol laws and common sense.
In nearly every North Carolina county, there are archaic statutes on the books prohibiting the sale of alcohol in some way on Sunday. In Durham County, alcohol cannot be purchased before noon on Sunday. You can buy it up until 2 a.m. Saturday night, which is technically Sunday, but that little distinction does not affect the culture police. In other counties, you cannot buy hard liquor on Sundays, but you can buy enough beer and wine to render hapless the effects of hard liquor. I wonder if this might be viewed as religious discrimination--shouldn't Orthodox Jews be incensed at the sale of alcohol on Saturday, their holy day of the week?
Granted, North Carolina is not alone when it comes to Sunday restrictions; near my home county in Michigan, a strange provision bars the sale of beer and wine on Sunday, but permits the trafficking of hard liquor on the Sabbath. That's my kind of county!
And even if North Carolina trimmed down the moralizing laws, there still would be the issue of North Carolina's most ridiculous law--the ban on direct importation of beer and wine from other states. Ordering beer or wine directly over the Internet is a Class I felony in this state.
This law may seem like another misguided attempt at moralizing, but it really is more like a guided attempt to protect in-state wholesale liquor distributors from being cut out of the mark-up equation. A chief proponent of the law was State Rep. Leo Daughtry, a co-owner of one of the state's largest alcohol distributors.
Duke Professor of Law Donald Beskind has filed suit against the state, asserting that this overreaching North Carolina law is a violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. According to Beskind, "North Carolina's law makes no sense. Consumers have to buy wine that has been marked up three times--once by a winery, once by a North Carolina distributor and once by the wine store. Without the protectionist law, at least the wine stores could buy directly from the wineries, cutting out the middleman's mark-up. Even better, consumers could buy directly from the winery, cutting out two mark-ups."
Not surprisingly, the state has rebutted Beskind's argument, saying that the 21st Amendment--the repeal of prohibition--permits states to regulate alcohol. Did that amendment also permit states to stop interstate commerce for the sake of greedy state representatives?
I wish Beskind luck but worry about his chances. Debating foolish alcohol regulations with North Carolina is like being this visiting team at Cameron Indoor Stadium. Idiotic alcohol laws are the state's home court.
Martin Barna is a Trinity senior, film editor of Recess and projects editor of The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.