After some research it appears that blue laws may benefit the areas where they are enacted. Or at least the opposite is true: areas that repeal the laws see jumps in participation in vices (legal and illegal).
A study from Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Daniel Hungerman of Notre Dame found that when blue laws were eliminated church attendance dropped, while drinking and drug use rose significantly. The biggest changes happened to those who frequently attended religious services.
When the blue laws were in place, 37% of people attended religious services at least weekly. Once the shopping ban was lifted, it dropped to 32%. While they weren’t going to church, they were going astray. Marijuana use increased by 11% among church attendees, compared with those who never went. Cocaine use went up 4%. Heavy drinking was up 5.5%.
What the study didn’t show was why this brought about the change in the formerly religious.
“That’s the million-dollar question,” Hungerman said. He suspects that keeping businesses open on Sunday means that some religious young people have to work or choose to go shopping, which apparently increases their exposure to sinners or otherwise weakens their resistance to the dark side.
Personally, I think blue laws should be up to local areas to decide. A community should have the right to establish their joint morality. If a small town in Mississippi wants them, but New York City doesn’t. That should be okay for both. Once you move to statewide and especially nationwide, it would completely lose my support.
But regardless of your personal stance on the issue, the study is interesting.
I think they should move sporting events to after NOON so that people don’t have an excuse from missing church…NOT!
*** RANT ALERT ***
I mean, I am no fan of sports, but come freaking on! So what if it “works”!!! I think churches need to seriously compete in the open market. If people would rather smoke dope and watch the Redskins on TV, maybe it’s because church is BORING!
Me, I miss church because 10:00 is too freaking early! I think we should have church on Saturday EVENINGS for us night people – the morning people can all get up early on the weekends if they want (freaks!).
OK, all done.
Just one question – how is 10:00 early?
Once you hit double digits you are well past early.
Um, you are NOT a night person, I take it? Everything before NOON is considered early. And to make it to a 10:00 service, I have to get up at 8:30 to shower, get the kids fed and ready, and drive there. I get up at 8:00 on weekdays, and adding 30 minutes is NOT sleeping in.
I used to be a night person. I would love to be one, but young children do not allow for that. You should know.
We usually get up at 7:00, 7:30 on Sunday’s because that’s when they get up. I have to be at church 30 minutes early to start the power point of the announcemnts running.
As an aside I would love to get up at 8 during the week.
but young children do not allow for that.
Yes and no. My two year old is a night person, likes to stay up, and often sleeps in until 10 if I let her.
My boy is too young, but if he is fed at 5 AM, will often sleep until 9. They get it from me ;).
e usually get up at 7:00, 7:30 on Sunday's because that's when they get up.
My brother's kids, like him, are up at 6:30. When they visit, we get no rest at all!
But if you put your kids to sleep later, PRESTO, they sleep later. Ahhh.
As an aside I would love to get up at 8 during the week.
It's called FLEX time. Love it. The world was made for tall morning people. If you are short (which I am not) or a night bird, you have to adjust, unless you can make the world adjust. Sigh, it's so hard being a minority ;)
Blue Laws are unAmerican and downright socialist in their design. I, for one, don’t believe in a huge government telling me what I can and can’t do. Aaron the Conservative does. So…that’s interesting.
Aww, come on Sam, you're missing a perfect opportunity to praise me for my open mindedness ;)
Well, of course I actually do agree with you about churches only meeting on Sunday mornings. That's a stupid way of meeting market based demand. AA meetings are limited to particular times; neither should Lord praising.
Dammit. AreN'T. AA meetings areN'T limited to particular times.
Sam, you pay no attention to what I wrote did you. I don't support blue laws and I probably would vote against them. I just said that communities should have the right to establish their joint morality. I am against both state and national laws on that.
I just postted this because I thought it was interesting to see the impact of repealing the laws. Not because I want your city to make you go to church on Sunday.
FCL, clearly you don't recognize "the principles upon which this nation was founded" since most of the blue laws were from that time period, which also had state churches. They were afraid of a national, federal government taking over and running things. The founders were perfectly fine with local, smaller goverments reflecting the values of those who live there.
You can accuse me of big government all you want to. I am for smaller government, but I also understand that the local governments are their to inact the morality of those who live there. If you allow local areas, cities and counties, to express their morality then you allow people more freedom. If I want an area that has blue laws and no alcohol, I can go live there. If you want an area where prostitution is legal and the city gives coupons on Sunday, you can go live there. It allows people to have a local government that reflects them. Instead of a national mandate of how everyone should live and what the laws for everyone should be. It's kinda why our founders set up the nation the way they did with decentralized power.
It is so funny that liberals would get upset about a local town having the power to decide that their city does not need stores open before 1:00 on Sunday, but the federal government should have the power to enforce environmental regulations on everyone, local governments should be able to take land from private citizens, tell small businesses how they should operate, who they can hire, what type of health care they must offer, enact national health care, etc. etc. on down the line.
Aaron,
Slavery was from the time of the nation’s founding. Is slavery part of the principles upon which the nation was founded? We can admit that the founders were correct in their principles if not in their practice. We need not be stuck in the 18th Century. We can certainly extend the blessings of liberty to the local level.
You claim to be for smaller government but you also “understand that the local governments are their to inact the morality of those who live there.” Those two concepts are incompatible. You cannot reconcile a smaller government with the notion of interfering with consensual acts between adults. The idea of enforcing some “moral code” at any level of government entails interfering with people’s consensual activities and is an idea based on an immorality. It is an idea that is by definition based upon coercive force and the violence or threat of violence that underlies it.
Your statement that “If you allow local areas, cities and counties, to express their morality then you allow people more freedom.” is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak. This statement goes far in explaining the modern conservative intellectual and moral confusion and decay.
You may have listed some of the inconsistencies of liberals in an attempt to tar me with them. If so you have failed. As I stated in another thread I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. You must as a conservative remember libertarians. We are the ones who consistently advocate a limited government and individual liberty. Unlike conservatives who dress tyranny up as liberty and turn her into a whore of the state
How is it that conservatives, who ostensibly believs in limited government, would acquiesce in such a clear expansion of governmental authority in the form of blue laws.
It is very simple. Because there is a difference between fiscal and social policy. When conservatives say "small governement", they are ONLY referring to fiscal policy. When it comes to social policy, they believe, not in SMALL government, but in one that "ensures domestic tranquility," which includes social engineering.
And before you get on a soapbox about social engineering, by nature legislation is often just that, and liberals do it to suit their own vision of utopia, so this is not just a "conservative evil."
Seeker,
Thank you for that bit of intellectual honesty regarding the conservative movement’s love of large, intrusive and violent government. It is refreshing to hear this from the Right.
Why exactly should I care what liberals think, say or do? Their love of the State is well known and their advocacy for social engineering is equally obvious. I am interested in a policy that is both principled and practical. A government that defends the rights of its citizens to engage in consensual behavior is a just and virtuous government. When a government that goes beyond that; toward social engineering let’s say, it is an unjustified government that violates individual rights.
This also happens to be the most practical policy as well. The benefits of a truly free market are clear and obvious; it produces copious amounts of wealth. A limited government also fosters the maximum amount of harmony possible in society. Your view of a government fostering “domestic tranquility” through social engineering is doomed to failure. When you politicize social arrangements you create tension because politics must have winners and losers. Politics is a zero-sum game that only magnifies social antagonism. A policy of peace and free enterprise is the only humane path we can travel.
It is so funny that liberals would get upset about a local town having the power to decide that their city does not need stores open before 1:00 on Sunday…
You know, for the record I think the issue is liberals on THIS SITE objecting. I don't you're seeing a widespread split between liberals and conservatives on blue laws. I'm a liberal who happens to believe that the government shouldn't tell business owners what they can and can't do on a Sunday, just because some church somewhere thinks it's important.
…but the federal government should have the power to enforce environmental regulations on everyone
Yeah, environmental regulations that make our air cleaner are for sissies! Who cares about polluted water? Cancer's fun and God's will too! Pollute away everybody, pollute away. This is so ridiculous. In the once case, we're talking about damage done to the environment that we all share; in the other, we're talking about churches who apparently so pathetic that they require the law to close everything so people will still attend.
…local governments should be able to take land from private citizens
I don't endorse this practice Aaron. I find it galling. But just for fun, where do you stand on the construction of the border wall in the American Southwest? If you support its construction, then you support eminent domain, because its going to have to be widely used by the government to secure the necessary land. So, really, enough of the lectures.
…tell small businesses how they should operate, who they can hire, what type of health care they must offer, enact national health care, etc. etc. on down the line.
You're just babbling at this point, just frothing at liberals without making a lick of sense. Small businesses, under a certain size, can do whatever they damn well please. You know that. You're talking about bigger businesses that aren't allowed to have 'whites only' policies. Way to take a stand on that particular issue.
The point here is that blue laws are unnecessary, and that churches should have to compete with everybody else for attention, not have 'special time' carved out just for them. Again, one of us believes in a free market, and the other's a socialist. I'm just saying that I wasn't expecting the conservative Christian to be the socialist.
Slavery is not a principle it is a policy and a very bad one at that.
You wanted to wrap yoursef in the Constitution and the founders and I called you out on it. You can't have it both ways – claiming the Constitution supports you and then saying the principles are wrong when you say so. Not surprisingly, this sets you up as ultimate arbitrator of what is correct or not, what is constitutional or not. How gave you that authority? Is that part of the libertarian way?
FCL, libertarianism is like a lot of sports teams. They sound really good on paper and it is easy to convince someone theoretically how wonderful they are, but they never seem to do that good once they actually play a game.
An actual libertarian government would be anarchy. The system of government here in the US is not an anarcho-capitalist one. You can be for limited governemnt without being for no government. You seem to continually confuse the two.
Much of the libertarian ideas I agree with, but many simply go beyond reasonableness. It is purely within reason and the Constitution for local governments to reflect the values of the area.
It is telling that you quoted my statement and told how it was doublespeak and confusing without discussing my explanation of that statement. It would allow people more freedom to be reflected in their government.
In your system, people like me or any non-libertarian have no freedom to have our town's government reflect us. In my thinking, if you want to live in a super-libertarian town with free prostitution, porn and alchohol – go for it. But if I don't want that in my town I should have hte ability, the freedom, to choose not to. Doesn't that seem like more freedom to you or is it only freedom like FCL sees it?
Aaron,
Go read the introduction of the Constitution again. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
When you step up to bat and say, "Hey, let's restrict the rights of these other people, because they're not Christians, and deserve to be punished for doing so," is when you step over the line.
For the millionth time, the elimination of Blue Laws won't force Christian businesses open on Sundays, won't force people to skip church, won't force people to be sinful. It'll just give them the option if they so choose. And that's the point. They should be allowed to so choose.
Sam, endowed by who? ;)
I didn't say anything about punishing anyone for not being Christian. I didn't say any of those things you list would happen. I just posted the study. But since you are talking about allowing people to choose, should people be allowed to choose a local government that more reflects their values? Or is that freedom a bad one.
As to your take against my list of things that liberals support I was merely showing that it is silly for liberals to rail against a local town outlawing the sale of alcohol on Sunday while supporting vast federal powers.
Please, Sam take the clean air and water thing somewhere else. The vast majority of those regulations are useless at best. They interfer with people simply trying to do their job and start a company. But it is telling that you support the government interfering in personal rights when it is a question of morality that you support. Morally, you are against people doing things which you believe harm the environment so you want the government to stop them. You must be a big government liberal! I don't believe that, but that is the position you and FCL try to force me in on this issue – my tepid support for towns having the option to have blue laws.
Eminent domain – Everyone, except perhaps FCL, has to be in favor of eminent domain in some cases. We wouldn't have power lines, roads, etc. if not. My disagreement is taking private land by the government to give to private developers because they think your land could make more money as something else. The wall would be a legitimate use in my mind, but why not just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Did I say anything at all about "whites only" or did you just insert a racist underpining into my comment for no reason. The actual policies I was refering to are the policies against Wal-Mart demanding that they have to offer a certain kind of health care or pay a certain wage simply because they are a big store. But you keep reading racist into everything, if you like.
I also think blue laws are unneccesary. I even said I would probably vote against them. I just said that local towns should have the right to enact them in order to better reflect the people who live there.
Just like liberals are constantly saying, if you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. In what I believe was the founder's system of government. You would have states and towns that presented a certain type of government and values. People would have the ability to move to an area that better reflected who they were or they could work to change the area they live in. Why is that so anti-American and socialist? Socialism is for the federal government to take over every aspect of our lifes. I don't want that at all. I just said local governments and people should have the freedom to reflect their values in the government, which would work both ways. Blue laws, no blue laws. Prostitution, no prostitution. etc.
But in bizarro world I am taking away everyone's freedom and trying to establish a national church.
Two quick points:
1. Yeah, by their Creator, which doesn't mean a Christian God.
2. When we see change the channel, that's what we mean. Change. The Channel. What you're proposing is that the channel be taken off the air, which is where we object. Again, nobody's forced to skip church, or open their store, or any of that. It's just that the option exists.
1. I didn't say it did mean a Christian God, but it seems odd that we argue against allowing any mention of creation within government, yet the Constitution references a Creator. Clearly, they had a different idea of seperation of church and state than is prevelant today.
2. No I am saying, if you don't like the morality of an area, move to one that fits your style better.
It is not some violation of the Constitution that every area of the nation does not have the exact same laws and regulations. The founding principles of this nation are not in danger because Las Vegas has prostitution and Jackson, MS does not.
Neither would the Constitution cease to exist if a small country town in Alabama decides that stores don't need to open up until 1:00 on Sundays because 90% of the town is at church. And if the other 10% is so distraught by not being able to run to the grocery store at 10:00 Sunday morning, they can "change the channel" by either driving somewhere else or moving somewhere else.
Well hell Aaron, why did we get rid of segregation then? All of those blacks could have just moved somewhere else.
Aaron,
When I said certain things are against the principles upon which this country was founded I specifically did NOT mention the constitution. Slavery was constitutional. Yet it was a clear violation of our founding principles. The same is true of blue laws. Get it.
Being for a limited government is a far cry from what you propose, which is why I want a clear separation between libertarians and conservatives. When you stated that “In your system, people like me or any non-libertarian have no freedom to have our town’s government reflect us” I have to agree. You see Aaron you should not have the ability to tell me I can’t trade on Sunday any more than you should be able to tell someone they can’t trade with me on Sunday. I conversely can’t force you to trade on Sunday. What don’t you understand about the principle of voluntary co-operation? The dividing line between governmental action and inaction is the following; is the action in question consensual or not? This is not me arbitrarily deciding what is right or wrong. The only really arbitrary position is yours. You would have groups of people coerce others into living according to their value systems in an ever shifting factionalism of coercion. If you don’t want to consume prostitution, porn or alcohol…THEN DON’T. It’s called freedom and it’s not just for the majority.
Slavery was constitutional.
No, slavery was not specifically UN-constitutional. It was not constitutional, because it was not specifically allowed.
But the founders knew that in order to hold our fragile union together, they had to let that issue go until later. And they did.
Article I Section 2: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)” clearly recognizes slavery.
Article I Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person” also clearly recognizes slavery.
I was not addressing the political realities necessary to ratify the constitution. I was simply noting that there were instances where the realities of the day did not live up to the founder’s ideals.
No, slavery was not specifically UN-constitutional. It was not constitutional, because it was not specifically allowed. – Seeker
Article I Section 2, Article I Section 9: clearly recognizes slavery. -FCL
Ouch!
While I stand corrected, I think we need to differentiate penal servitude from outright ownership, if that is possible.
I agree that it "recognizes" slavery, but as for establishing it, that's arguable. It certainly does not outlaw it, but accomodates it.
However, the fact that we taxed the trade is defacto approval. I hate it when I'm wrong!
Sam, you alwaygs get on me about moral equvalence. Are you comparing your "right" to shop on Sunday with a black person's right to essentially exist?
Of course, the majority cannot do whatever they want. No one, especially not me, is proposing that. What I am arguing is that individual towns and the citizens there should have rights to reflect their values in laws. Should Las Vegas be allowed to have prostitution? If say, yes, but argue against me on this, then we should have a national debate and see if we want prostitution outlawed or legal for the entire country.
Our nation is made of different individuals who want different values placed as high importance. This is one of the reason why you never saw me saying that the world was ending because Mass allowed gay marriage. I didn't like the way it happened, but I didn't think it was going to destroy the nation. They have a different set of values than many other states do. They should have the right to reflect those values. So I guess you want to take away that from Mass since most Americans don't support that.
My position is that smaller, local governments can reflect their constituents. Yours essentially has to be that everyone is forced to fall under the same values for the entire country. I don't think that will work, neither did the founders.
FCL, trust me from a conservative we want a seperation between us and libertarians as much as you do. As I said we believe in small government, you believe in basically no government.
Part of actually having a government is one set of values being enacted as law, that will never change. Allowing behavior is essentially endorsing it. We have laws child porn because we don't endorse or condone those behaviors, yet many want those repealed because they should have the "freedom" to do that.
Governments restrain human activity and that is a positive because anarchy is not a good thing. As has been illustrated very vividly recently, human beings have a bent toward evil and that must be restrained. Laws must keep that in check.
Again, I am not saying that every city should have blue laws. I simply recognize that those are consistent with the Constitution and with the principles of our founding. It allows for similar people to more effectively govern themselves in accordance with their shared values.
In your anarchistic system, you want to force the values of tolerance and acceptance of everything on everybody. That's not freedom, that's you telling everyone how they should run their government.
Aaron,
You know I love debating with you. You know that I love having these conversations. But please, stop doing this:
Yours essentially has to be that everyone is forced to fall under the same values for the entire country. I don't think that will work, neither did the founders.
Nobody's behavior is "forced" under the proposal advocated by both Cineaste and I. You're still free to be Christian, free to observe the Sabbath, free to oppose drug use, free to oppose prositution, free to advocate whatever it is that you want to advocate. You lose NOTHING under what our (somewhat) shared argument. Meanwhile, other citizens in our country, with other priorities, are free to do as they please.
The prostitution argument is always a great one – do you genuinely believe that two adults to consent to exchange money for sex shouldn't be allowed to? Based on what? If I'm not free to treat my body as I please, to do with it as I want, what real freedom do I actually have?
I was speaking in terms of the government Sam. You are free to have your values "everything is okay" as law, but someone who disagrees with prostitution or pornography (child porn?) is not. That is my point. Under your system, even if 90% of the people in the community want to not sell alcohol on Sunday, they have to because it infringes some right to beer on Sunday?
My whole position is based on individual towns having the freedom to do as they please and reflect their values. Your system is forcing all towns to do as you please. Let me make your argument. Why does it bother you in WV that a town in MS doesn't sell alcohol on Sunday? Does the citizens of that town not have any kind of right to reflect their value system in their government?
My town is my town, not yours, FCL's, Cineastes or seekers. Your town is yours and not ours. If you want to have a town where people can have sex on park benches, adult stores on every corner, prostitution coupons on Wednesday and beer flowing from the fountain in the town square – go for it. But if I want to live in a town that is dry, has no sex stores and no prostitution I should be able to. (By the way my two is only 1/3 on that, so…)
Sam, you honestly don't think the sex industry (prostitution) included is just some glowing thing where everybody gets what they want. Little girls dream of growing up to be a prostitute. Too often that is sexual slavery and if you can't recognize that you are being blind. Talk about rose colored glasses.
1. If all of the shopowners in a given town are Christian Aaron, and they don't want to open their stores on Sunday, that's fine. Codifying that into law – in other words, forcing the Jewish store owner to NOT open his store – is the problem. So yes, what I'm arguing is that super-majorities shouldn't have the right to tell small minorities what they are, or aren't, allowed to do. I can't believe you disagree with this. You wouldn't want your freedoms restricted by super-majorities.
2. Nice play on the child pornography gambit, except that child pornography involves a victim. And clearly neither Cineaste nor I is suggesting, even for a minute, that victim-ed crimes should be legal.
3. Seriously Aaron: Your system is forcing all towns to do as you please. No it isn't. It simply allows for individuals to do as they please. Unlike you, I believe in personal responsibility, and that the government doesn't need to make decisions for people.
4. Finally, I'm definitely wearing rose-colored glasses about prostitution. You've got to be kidding me. But the point is that, RIGHT NOW, it's illegal and still occurs EVERYWHERE. Why not legalize it and offer the prostitutes legal protections? You know, so abusive Johns can be tried and charged for their abuse?
We will not agree on this it is clear. My position is that towns should be able to reflect the values of those who live there. I believe in personal responsibility and limited government. I also understand the value of having distinct governments within different towns.
My point that the government you support reflects the values that you support is this. It's like FCL argued about judging the founders because they allowed slavery to happen. They may not have said, "slavery is good," but they allowed it to be a part of the nation. Certain towns do not want to condone certain behaviors by their inaction. They see tolerance of that as a wrong thing to do, but you would force them to accept a behavior they found morally unacceptable. That is my only point. Towns should be able to establish, within reason, the moral code of the citizens.
The question of child porn was really directed at FCL because he is such an extreme (in my opinion) libertarian. The view he claimed he belonged to advocates the elimination of the military, police, etc. turning all those over to the private market. Maybe, he doesn't but he associated himself with that philosophy.
As to prostitution, the legalization of an activity does not remove all the bad parts from it. Prostitution and drug use are negative influences on society and bring negative consequences. Legalizing them may reduce the number of people in jail (on those charges) but would hardly do away with all the bad results.
And simply because an activity occurs is not a reason for or against the legalization of it. That would be a horrible sense of majority rules. What if the majority of the nation felt and acted as NAMBLA? I know you don't agree with that and I am not accusing you of that, I am simply making the oft repeated point – majority doesn't equal right. Where have I heard that before? ;)
My position is that towns should be able to reflect the values of those who live there.
Instead of writing that, can you least be honest and say, "My position is that towns should be able to reflect the values of fifty-one percent of its citizens, at the expense of the other forty-nine percent."
As to your other points, you know that I draw the line at the victimhood of somebody else, which is why I tolerate prostitution, drug use, etc., and not child-pornography.
Finally, prostitution isn't, necessarily, a problem. You think it's a problem, because you fundamentally believe that sex shouldn't be sold as a commodity; others should be free to decide differently than you.
Okay, I will compromise and say that up to a certain extent, this must be reasonable, towns should have the rights to reflect the values of the majority. Those in the minority have to right to work against enacting those values in law and also have the right to go somewhere where the government better reflects their values. They can "change the channel."
One thing you also have to keep in mind, blue laws would never come to a town that was split 51-49. I don't even know if you could get away with it in 70-30. This is going to be the vast majority of the citizens, upwards of 90% support these values. That doesn't automatically make it right, but it also doesn't automatically make it wrong – to me.
That's how I see a government of the people, for the people and by the people, particularly on a small, local scale.
Well, fair enough. I believe in a government that makes more sense.
I am not listening. You're STUPID!
Aaron,
The crux of your problem is your conception of ‘community”. Why do you define it as a town or city? Why not define it as a neighborhood association? Maybe a cyber community would be a better definition? Maybe and here’s a novel idea, it should be defined as an individual? An individual is the building block of a society and it is here we must look to ascertain rights. An individual has the right to be free of the use of coercive force or the threat of violence to coerce certain actions. In other words an individual has the right to engage in any voluntary, consensual activity with another adult. This is as fundamental as it gets for human rights.
The problem arises when there are those who feel that moral rights accumulate. They do not. If it is immoral for an individual to commit an action then it is wrong for a group, no matter how much a majority, to commit that action.
It is also a dead end to try and set me up as defending child pornography. I have clearly set fort a conception of rights that adheres to adults. Children present a different case and a longer explanation than this post merits. Suffice it to say that children cannot give their consent to sexual activity and therefore it is not within anyone’s rights to engage them is such activity.
The conception of rights built upon the individual is the only one not arbitrary nor reliant upon clearly immoral uses of force to achieve its ends.
Washington Sunday liquor sales a big hit
Washington state's experiment with Sunday liquor sales is a big hit, and lawmakers may expand it to more stores this year.
Twenty state-run stores and 38 contract stores run by private vendors have been keeping Sunday hours, noon to 5 p.m., for the past 16 months. And sales are expected to top $18.5 million by June 30th.
About half of that goes to the state treasury, local governments, health services and alcoholism prevention programs.
"It doesn't mention what happened to liquor sales on the other six days of the week. The article implies that this $18.5 million figure is extra liquor sales. I doubt that."