Jon Sanders

The research finding that alcohol-based social and public-health problems don't depend upon whether the government distributes and sells liquor might seem wrong, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

Does government control of liquor distribution and sales make us safer? Tthat idea's been around for a long time, and it's been wrong for just as long.

Research shows that social and public-health outcomes don't depend on government control. This makes sense if you consider we already have open access to beer and wine.

Freedom of religion is secured in the same First Amendment that goes on to secure freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble and petition the government. Think about that. Think about it again.

Imagine being a North Carolina distillery wanting to get your product to North Carolina consumers. Here's the system you face. Would you not call this byzantine?

North Carolina devotes over 75,000 words to regulating alcohol, placing over 1,000 restrictions on alcohol beverages.

To a monopoly, efficient and effective services are what give it the highest revenue. Not what serves the consuming public or local vendors' interests. That's why the North Carolina Constitution states that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state."

Last week I wrote about how heavily involved the State of North Carolina is in controlling the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages here. Here’s an example. This is a paragraph from Jon Guze’s Spotlight report on the “maze of alcohol rules” in North Carolina: Forty-three…