Voting and Alcohol

Let's revisit the days of bathtub gin, speakeasies, and Satchmo. The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (establishing Prohibition) was ratified on January 16, 1919. The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition and was ratified on December 5, 1933. Oddly, during one of the most affluent times our country has ever seen, no one was legally allowed to sell or drink any alcohol--beer, wine, or spirits--publicly. Of course, in the late nineteenth century, whiskey created a lot of problems in the wild west, where women were imported from points east to provide "entertainment" for the giddy "speculators" that perched themselves on speculative lands throughout the Rocky Mountain and Pacific territories, and whiskey was provided to tribes as a tonic "for what ails you." Clearly, the social impacts of unmitigated alcoholism caused a backlash by others who wanted to put a stop to alcohol-induced anti-social behavior, which led to the outlawing of alcohol nationwide.

Then there's the whole bathtub gin culture that sprang up as a backlash to the backlash. I've never taken a bath in gin, and probably never will. It sounds really unsanitary. But that wasn't what was meant by bathtub gin. It wasn't about taking a bath in gin--oh well. Bathtub gin was a term that referred to a juniper berry alcohol that was manufactured in bathtubs or other large containers during Prohibition hidden away in bootleggers' digs. The bathtub gin, often of unreliable quality, was frequently bottled and sold to legitimate purchasers or medical suppliers. The manufacture and use of bathtub gin declined radically after the 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933.

Other than repeal, the primary operative clause of the 21st amendment states that: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." So that meant that states must quickly enact laws that regulated the "transportation or importation" of intoxicating liquors into their state, which they promptly did.

The Supreme Court occasionally had the opportunity to rule on 21st Amendment issues, most recently in Granholm v. Heald (2005), which held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not overrule the Dormant Commerce Clause with respect to alcohol sales, and therefore states must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries equally. The Court criticized its earliest rulings on the issue, (including State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co.) and promulgated its most limited interpretation to date:
"The aim of the Twenty-first Amendment was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. The Amendment did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they had not enjoyed at any earlier time."

The state of Washington will be asked to vote on an initiative, I-1100, the Washington Privatize State Liquor Stores Act, on November 2, 2010 in the general election. Right now, as it stands, all hard liquor (not beer and wine) is controlled by the state and only sold in state-run or state-contracted liquor stores. This law traces its roots back to the 21st Amendment authorizing states to regulate the transportation and importation of liquor into their state, and the first version of RCW Title 66 was enacted in 1933, with amendments in 1937, 1939, 2003, and 2005. I-1100 would close state liquor stores, authorize the sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties, and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributors and producers. Stores that held contracts to sell spirits could convert to liquor retailer licenses. The legislation would not change the amount that liquor, wine and beer are taxed by the state, and would not change the drinking age or any parts of the law that regulate bars and stores selling alcohol to those under the legal drinking age. It is almost a foregone conclusion that the state will make more money by allowing retailers to sell liquor, as is allowed in many other states. A state monopoly on liquor sales does not ab initio imply that the state will take in more revenue because it controls the sale of liquor. This seems to me to be a grown-up law for the 21st century.