liquor laws

liquor laws legislation designed to restrict, regulate, or totally abolish the manufacture, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages. The passage of liquor laws has been prompted chiefly by the desire to prevent immoderate use of intoxicants, but sometimes also by the need to raise revenue. Direct taxation and license requirements are among the oldest methods of regulating the sale of liquor. With the license system the state can exercise extensive regulatory power by revoking permits upon violation of rules and by restricting licenses, although the system is vulnerable to political corruption. Licensing has been practiced most extensively and severely in Great Britain (especially since 1904), where regulation of the public house has resulted in the decrease of liquor consumption. Licenses are also used in the United States, and there are general regulatory provisions such as hours of closing and consumption privileges. National prohibition of the manufacture and sale of liquor received its major test in the United States from 1919 to 1933. Many states have granted counties and municipalities a local option to restrict or abolish by vote the sale of liquor. Several states have monopolies of retail distribution, and a similar system prevails in most of Canada. Limitation of profits on the manufacture of liquors was begun in Sweden (1865) with the Göteborg licensing system, which restricts both production and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Norway and Finland have variations of this plan. A state monopoly of vodka manufacture was instituted (1894) in Russia for reasons of public finance and after a period of prohibition during World War I was restored by the Soviet Union. In France and other Latin countries where wine making is an important industry and where distilled liquors are less heavily consumed, few government restrictions have been imposed other than stringent labeling laws. Conditions are similar in Germany and other countries where malt liquors have wider use than spirits.

Blue Laws, term applied to colonial legislation, especially in New England, which restricted personal action in order to improve community morality. A collection of such laws was made by the Rev. Samuel Peters in his derogatory General History of Connecticut (London, 1781), and he was the first to popularize the term. His hatred of republicanism and nonconformity led him to make gross misrepresentations about the stringency of these laws, but his discredited statements have generally found their way into the popular mind. Such blue laws as the prohibition of sports and work on the Sabbath, and compulsory church attendance, disappeared generally following the Revolution, but there are still similar laws in many places, like those in some states prohibiting the sale of tobacco or liquor.

Sunday Closing Laws, state or local laws requiring all but the most essential businesses to be closed on Sunday, commonly known as blue laws from the color of the paper on which the early ones were printed. They originated in the colonial period, when their religious purpose was expressly stated, and state courts in the nineteenth century generally upheld them.

In McGowan v. Maryland (1961) the Supreme Court considered the broad issue of whether the laws were an establishment of religion. Claimants contended that Sunday was selected for closing to recognize the Christian sabbath and to encourage church attendance. The Court held that while these laws had a sectarian purpose at one time, their contemporary purpose was secular: to provide a common day of rest for the entire community. Since there was a valid secular purpose and only an indirect effect on religion, the laws were not an establishment of religion.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) posed the issue whether Orthodox Jews who shut their businesses on Saturday for religious reasons could be forced to close on Sunday as well. Closing both days would impose an economic hardship on them. The Court ruled that there was no interference with their free exercise of religion. Sabbatarians were free to close on Saturday, and their religion did not command Sunday opening. Sunday closing imposed only an indirect burden on religious observance and was valid.

Despite the legitimization of these laws, suburbanization, the growth of shopping malls, and police reluctance to enforce them induced many communities to repeal Sunday closing laws. Except for bans on beer and liquor sales, there are few localities today that have Sunday laws.

See also First Amendment.

Robert H. Birkby