There are lots of reasons. The supermarket business model is built around low prices and high volume. That's great when it comes to celery and lamb chops, but when you do that to alcoholic beverages society suffers. This is why states set it up the way it is; control. When similar systems were lifted in Great Britain the result was a huge increase in binge drinking and alcohol related social costs. Now they are backpedaling and trying to institute minimum price laws to stop the flow of cheap booze. Most people drink very rarely or not at all (by choice). Why should we pay the heavy social cost for the convenience of a few? That is not democracy, it is tyranny.

It also hurts the local, independent business owners who hire people and helps keep money in the local economy. After all, small business is the economic engine of the state and the country after all.

Not Fooled, frankly, you are delusional. What are you like 150 years old? I seriously doubt prices of booze would change much if grocery stores were allowed to sell. But if they did, maybe they'd drop 10% if we are lucky? It's not like they'd be giving the stuff away to kids. Please get real. We're not sheep who need to be led by government social engineers.

CB- Wegmans is hiring people. From what I read in Patch, they're one of the few who are. They even made a donation to a local food bank a few months ago. I'm proud to have Wegmans in the community.

@Not Fooled. Price is not a deterrent to heavy and binge drinking. I'd be willing to bet that every one of the 100 liquor store owners at that hearing sells $3 bottles of MD 20/20 and cheap 30-packs of beer. Selling alcohol in grocery stores would have no effect like you describe. This is about fear of competition, pure and simple.

Not Fooled--so why is the only complaint about the liquor? Why aren't you and others concerned about high volume and low prices of food and other products Wegmans (or CostCo, Target, etc.) will carry? Lots of those things are quite unhealthy, and we don't need to push frozen boxes of chocolate chip pancakes n' sausage on a stick (yes, this product exists) into smaller shops to drive up prices. Have you ever even lived in another state? I've lived in six now, and Maryland is by far the most absurdly conservative about its alcohol laws. Even my home state of Kansas allowed sale of 3.2% ABV beer in grocery stores and gas stations, and recently (2003) began to allow alcohol purchases on Sundays. Texas allowed all types, but has two tiers of licenses, with products above 15.5% ABV requiring a the higher tier, resulting in most grocery stores selling only beer and wine. That's a pretty liberal alcohol policy by comparison, and I could definitely live with that compromise for Maryland.

Quite simply, what you're advocating is the price-fixing racket the liquor store industry has in Maryland. The vast majority of independent liquor stores offer nothing special in terms of service to make the much higher prices one pays for alcohol in Maryland even close to worth it, so why are you and others so quick to swallow the lines they feed you?

Ohai - It's hiring people, yes. Probably at a lower wage? Yes. Killing small businesses, also yes.

I mean, that's what I hear from conservatives all the time. "Small businesses are the engine of our economy". And then we allow a chain to come in, change the market dynamics and close quite a few small businesses.

Here in this state, it's one of the areas where we protect small businesses from larger ones. It's worked out well. There's quite a few liquor stores in the area around Wegman's already and each has their own strength and weaknesses because that fosters a healthy competition and makes a loyal customer base more likely. When chains come in, stores like that close and instead of 6, there's one. That's hardly competition. It's the competition fairy.

Chris Bachmann-Wegmans is listed as number 4 on Forbes top 100 companies to work for.
Most common job (salaried):
Store Department Manager $56,040
Most common job (hourly):
Store Customer Service $29,286

Thanks, @ABC, for doing the research on that. It's amazing to me that people like Chris Bachman think doing more with less is somehow bad for the economy.

So why didn't the "small business owner" liquor stores partner with Safeway, Superfresh, Giant, etc. years ago? Don't be mad at Wegmans for innovating in ways that save consumers money.

Do you think this is only a problem with liquor stores? Is it safe to assume that you don't shop at any supermarkets (Giant, Safeway, etc.) or big-box stores (CostCo, Sam's, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, Target, Wal-Mart, Kohls, Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, etc.)? I ask because you seem awfully concerned about the plight of the small business owners, which would make it clearly hypocritical if you were to buy your groceries, electronics, books, etc. from somewhere other than mom-and-pop shops.

Believe me its not going to be cheap....

Good point, hopefully this example will lead to public outcry. Most people probably don't give our absurd liquor laws a second thought since they've been that way forever. However, when these outdated laws are clearly standing in the way of progress, it's time for a change.

Fully agree, Frank. That's one of my biggest problems with Maryland governance.

Laura - I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. I was poking fun at the notion that this new liquor store will put the currently operating stores out of business.

Only a sociopath? And what do you call people who like to decide for me what's right for me and my family? And the "won't someone think of the children!!??" argument just makes me laugh (maybe I am a sociopath - BOO!)

I do feel for these small business store owners, but honestly, if I want cheap booze I can already go to Corridor fine wines and get things cheaper than what the local liquor stores offer anyways - with traffic, it's really not that much further. I usually go to the local guys simply because they're more convenient.

Haha. Slippery slope much? Do you work in the alchohol distribution business?

Not Fooled - I realize you are trying hard to make a point, but dismantling the three tier system would in no way lead to buying vodka with food stamps or G&T dispensers in middle school lunch rooms.

And really enjoy that you find the "check and balances" within the three tier system to be "carefully reasoned." I'm pretty sure the only "checks" in the three tier system are those that go from the distributors to the lobbyists and politicians.

From the Center for Alcohol Policy website - "The Center for Alcohol Policy was founded by the National Beer Wholesalers Association and receives funding from America’s beer distributors and others interested in exploring, researching and expanding education on alcohol regulation."

I never would have expected that an industry-backed group would report findings that support the continuation of policies that make them rich. Where's that sarcasm font when I need it?

And just because 75% of the population "understand that alcohol is different and needs different rules," doesn't mean that they are in favor of the current set of rules. It just means they understand the need for them. I understand that alcohol needs different rules. But I think we could do much better than the current antiquated ones.

Doing away with the three tiered system is not "mass marketing" alcohol and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest such nonsense. Anyone who wants cheap booze has access to it. All liquor stores sell cheap beer, 40 ozs, M/D 20/20, etc. Obviously, you are pretty old based on your old school opinions on alcohol. Strangely, you never answered my question. Do you work in the alcohol business somehow?

Even if that's true (and i have doubts) that's the state of Maryland's stupidity. They should change their tax apportionment rules while they're revising their moronic alcohol laws.

Well if he's so clueless he'll go out of business rather quickly, right?