I don't usually read Joe Fitzgerald's column but I did today because it's on a subject I'm interested in: Question 1. Joe says small businesses are good and alcohol is bad, and that equates to a no on Question 1.

As for the first part of his argument, he should note that small business already compete successfully with large supermarkets. They do it, not necessarily on price, but on convenience, personal touch and specialized selection. Sorry Joe, that point doesn't hold up.

On the second part, there is an arguable case, especially for parents, on the danger of how supermarkets will police their sales of wine. So let's go beyond general concern and hear the case made by No proponants.

From the Vote No on 1 website's "RESEARCH" section:

Convenience stores allow alcohol to be sold to underage persons 52% of the time, compared to 18% in market/grocery stores and 14% in liquor stores. 2004 Survey of Retail Alcohol Sales, Hawaii, State Department of Health, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Inc., and Mattson Sunderland Research and Planning Associates, Inc. (2004).

Here's the study they reference so you can read it for yourself. See if you can find any of that. I couldn't. The results of the study weren't even close to what they're claiming.

Here's another study:

Researcher Alex Wagenaar from the University of Minnesota studied seven states that allow wine sales in grocery stores. All of them saw a dramatic rise in wine consumption, he said. One state had a 150 percent increase...

Assuming that's what the study says, wine consumption is not necessarily a bad thing. I assume even liquor stores would like to see more wine consumption. But then we make a logical leap:

...When people consume more alcohol, Wagenaar said, liquor-related problems always go up...

This is an argument, not against wine with dinner, or wine in supermarkets, but against alcohol altogether, and it's being made by the liquor industry !?! I don't get it.

The Vote No site quotes NCADD in saying that, "The density of alcohol outlets in an area is related to arrest rates for public drunkenness and drunk driving." They provide a link to this research, but the link takes you to an ad site. The referenced document doesn't exist there.

The bottom line is the sloppy research supporting the Vote No argument doesn't hold up. This is about business, trade and reasonable regulation, not a referendum on the dangers of drinking. It it were, the liquor stores would be arguing against their own existence.