Mail-Order Booze
200 words. Letter to the editor. Multiple versions by state.
To Publishers: There are multiple, state-specific versions of this letter because at the time of this writing there are pending alcohol-delivery bills in multiple state legislatures. If you choose to publish it in your state, be sure to check on the status of the legislation to make sure this is still a relevant topic. If you don’t find a version for your state and you want free help writing one, contact me via this blog.
Update 03/29/2021: I added a one-size-fits-all national version at the end because of recent discussion in the media and the U.S. Congress.
Update 03/30/2021: Make that two-sizes-fits-all for the national version. Some papers enforce a strict 250-word limit, so I made one of that length.
Alabama version:
I write to sound an alarm over consequences that would follow passage of HB101, allowing home delivery of beer and wine, by the Alabama legislature. The debate will focus on morality and religion and addiction, as it should. But let us not forget culture: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible: the morons are the good guys, and the easygoing scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze by mail, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal at any given moment).
-30-
This work appeared in The Anniston Star on January 8, 2021.
Arkansas version:
I write to sound an alarm over consequences that would follow passage of SB32, allowing home delivery of alcoholic beverages, by the Arkansas legislature. The debate will focus on morality and religion and addiction, as it should. But let us not forget culture: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible: the morons are the good guys, and the easygoing scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal at any given moment).
-30-
This work appeared in the Log Cabin Democrat on January 15, 2021.
Utah Variation I (400 words)
I write to sound an alarm over consequences that would follow passage of bills liberalizing rules for home delivery of alcoholic beverages, which may be considered by the Utah legislature this year. In 2020 we saw the law changed to allow consumers to purchase wine subscriptions, though rather than receiving the product at home the consumer would have to have it shipped to a state-run liquor store. That session also saw introduction of HB 203, Beer Delivery Program, which would have allowed consumers to arrange for delivery of beer from convenience stores. I suspect this bill will continue to be put forth for years to come, until it passes or until people stop wanting booze at their doorsteps, whichever comes first.
Some say that allowing delivery in limited forms, as in the recent bills, is but the thin end of the wedge which would eventually lead to full-blown direct-to-consumer mail-order alcohol. This would, among other things, allow individuals to purchase alcohol without the necessity of running the Gantlet of Shame that is involved with in-store purchasing. Is that good or bad? I don’t know. The current and proposed laws, and future extensions of them, all raise serious questions of morality and religion and addiction. It is well that these questions have come up in every debate. However, let us not forget culture: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible. The law enforcement professionals are, regrettably, morons, but they are the good guys. The apparently unemployed scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal at any given moment).
I pray that your leaders will consider all factors, including important cultural issues, when making their decisions.
Utah Variation II (342 words)
I write to sound an alarm over consequences that would follow passage of bills liberalizing rules for home delivery of alcoholic beverages, which may be considered by the Utah legislature this year. In 2020 we saw the law changed to allow consumers to purchase wine subscriptions, though not for direct-to-consumer delivery. That session also saw introduction of HB 203, Beer Delivery Program, which would have allowed consumers to arrange for delivery of beer from convenience stores. I suspect that this bill will continue to be put forth for years to come, until it passes or until people stop wanting booze at their doorsteps, whichever comes first.
Some have said that allowing delivery in limited forms, as in the recent bills, is the thin end of the wedge which would lead to full-blown direct-to-consumer mail-order alcohol. Is that good or bad? I don’t know. The current and proposed laws, and future extensions of them, all raise serious questions of morality and religion and addiction. It is well that these questions have come up in every debate. However, let us not forget culture: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible. The law enforcement professionals are, regrettably, morons, but they are the good guys. The apparently unemployed scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal at any given moment).
Utah Variation III (200 Words)
I write to sound an alarm over consequences that would follow passage of any bill similar to 2020’s HB203, allowing home delivery of beer, by the Utah legislature. If that bill is considered again, the debate will focus on morality and religion and addiction. But what about culture: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible: surprisingly, the morons are the good guys, and the easygoing scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal).
Georgia Variation (247 words)
Usage: This variation deals with an alcohol-delivery bill that already passed the legislature.
Well, HB879 went and did it in 2020: home delivery of liquor is legal in Georgia. The debate around this bill focused on morality, religion, and addiction, as was proper. It also garnered much input from opponents in the liquor wholesale and distribution business. The bill as enacted is quite limited and does not yet allow unrestricted delivery of booze by mail. But that is the inevitable outcome. I want to ask the question that everyone forgot to ask in the run-up to passage of HB879: How, in a world of mail-order booze, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit to our grandchildren?
The movie already makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, but if you focus on job function it’s possible: law enforcement are, regrettably, morons; but they are the good guys, and the easygoing scalawags are the bad guys. Frog (winsome Sally Field long before the Boniva ads) is a bad gal, an accessory to interstate transport of illegal booze.
Imagine that same story under a regime of legal delivery of booze by mail, and explaining to your descendants that no, the sheriff is not trying to stop the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds, Snowman is not the postman, and there’s a good reason for Bandit and Frog to drive around and jump that car over every creek and gully in sight (actually, that’s hard to explain no matter what is legal or illegal at any given moment).
-30-
This work appeared in The Rome News-Tribune on February 11, 2021.
U.S. National Variation (281 words)
Some economists, consumer advocates, and members of the U.S. Congress are proposing that the U.S. Postal Service get into home delivery of alcohol. The proposal is aimed at helping the USPS overcome its money woes. However, I do hope attention will be paid to important cultural issues: how, in a future where mail-order booze is legal, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit and The Dukes of Hazzard to our grandchildren?
Those movies and shows hinged on the adversarial relationship between the scalawags and the lawmen, which relationship existed only because of government restrictions on the transport of alcoholic beverages. Audiences understood this going in because it reflected the then-current reality. While the hooch-runners were appealing—especially Sally Field in her pre-Boniva heyday—it was understood that they were the baddies. The authorities were portrayed as buffoons, but they were in the right.
Now imagine watching those shows under a regime of legal delivery of booze by mail. You will have to tell your bewildered descendants that no, that sheriff has not gone rogue and he is not preventing the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds. No, kids, Snowman is not the postman. Yes, kids, there were good reasons for Bandit and Frog (Sally again) and the Duke boys to go jumping their cars over every creek and gully in sight, and it had nothing to do with meeting first-class delivery windows. Things that made sense in our day become a dystopian banjo-infused free-for-all on the freeways and backroads.
Change is inevitable, but as a public service I do hope some explanatory notes are added to the start of movies and shows that are rendered obsolete by legislation.
U.S. National Variation (250 words)
Some economists, consumer advocates, and members of the U.S. Congress are proposing that the U.S. Postal Service get into home delivery of alcohol. The proposal is aimed at helping the USPS overcome its money woes. I do hope attention will be paid to important cultural issues: how, in a future where mail-order booze is legal, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit and The Dukes of Hazzard to our grandchildren?
Those movies and shows hinged on the adversarial relationship between the scalawags and the lawmen, which relationship existed only because of government restrictions on the transport of alcoholic beverages. Audiences understood this going in because it reflected the then-current reality. While the hooch-runners were appealing—especially Sally Field in her pre-Boniva heyday—it was understood that they were the baddies. The authorities were portrayed as buffoons, but they were in the right.
Now imagine watching those shows under a regime of legal delivery of booze by mail. You will have to tell your bewildered descendants that no, that sheriff has not gone rogue and he is not preventing the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds. No, kids, Snowman is not the postman. Yes, kids, there were good reasons for Bandit and Frog (Sally again) and the Duke boys to go jumping their cars over every creek and gully in sight, and it had nothing to do with meeting first-class delivery windows.
Without helpful contextual notes, things that made sense in our day will look like a dystopian banjo-infused free-for-all.
This work appeared in The Bakersfield Californian on April 1, 2021.
Enterprise-Journal Variation (610 words) - In response to editorial about Mississippi legislation. This version addresses both state and national topics.
As a recent transplant from Alabama, I read with great interest your editorial concerning Mississippi's pending legislation to allow home delivery of alcohol. Alabama's legislature was at the same juncture the last time I checked. Like you, I find it jarring to contemplate such a momentous change, given both states' histories with all manner of vices.
Who would have thought that Alabama would, over decades, take over management of the very things they called out the National Guard to eradicate in Phenix City in the 1950's? Yet there they are with liquor sales not only legalized but largely managed by the state. Gambling--another Phenix City favorite--also keeps coming up for consideration in Alabama, and it is only a matter of time before it, too, is a state-run enterprise. No one has been so bold as to propose state-run brothels, so it's not quite a trifecta yet. Still, it is head-spinning if you are a student of history in general, but especially if you know the history of Prohibition and blue laws. You mention a few things about Mississippi's history, but I'll have to play catch up on that.
State laws involve private delivery companies. I wondered if you also know that there is serious discussion underway about national legislation to allow the U.S. Postal Service to move the hooch? The national proposal is aimed at helping the USPS overcome its money woes. Issues of money and morality rightly dominate the discussion at all levels. However, I do hope attention will also be paid to important cultural issues, such as one that I started worrying about when this issue came up in Alabama: how, in a future where mail-order booze is legal, will we explain Smokey and the Bandit and The Dukes of Hazzard to our grandchildren? Assuming, that is, that those works are not simply cancelled and thrown on the trash heap along with the Potato Head family's titles of respect, and other discredited cultural artifacts.
Not to get too academic about bumpkin-based entertainment, but those movies and shows hinged on the adversarial relationship between the scalawags and the lawmen, which relationship existed only because of government restrictions on the transport of alcoholic beverages. Audiences understood this going in because it reflected the then-current reality. While the booze-runners were appealing--especially Sally Field in her pre-Boniva heyday--it was understood that they were the baddies. The authorities were portrayed as buffoons, but they were in the right.
Now imagine watching those shows under a regime of legal delivery of booze by mail. You will have to tell your bewildered descendants that no, that sheriff has not gone rogue and he is not preventing the U.S. Mail from completing its appointed rounds. No, kids, Snowman is not the postman. Yes, kids, there were good reasons for Bandit and Frog (Sally again) and the Duke boys to go jumping their cars over every creek and gully in sight, and it had nothing to do with meeting first-class mail delivery windows. Things that made sense in our day will look like a dystopian free-for-all on the freeways and back roads--Mad Max, but with banjos--unless some context is provided.
It is interesting that I can move from one state to another and find not just the people and the landscape fairly reminiscent of home (they are neighboring states, after all), but also have the same kind of state legislation percolating in both places. I don't really think any legislature will address the issues of historical cognitive whiplash, much less how to explain Smokey and the Duke Boys to the young, so I guess we'll have to manage that ourselves.
This work appeared in Enterprise-Journal on April 7, 2021.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.