Submitted by markurl t3_yqmhqo in massachusetts
Comments
ebi-san t1_ivp8bgz wrote
> but the prohibition on checking out using self-checkout was the “poison pill” for me.
Mind if I ask why? This didn't sound like a bad idea and lots of stores already have self-checkout require approval for certain items.
markurl OP t1_ivp8mei wrote
Nine times out of 10 I get beer at Walmart. It seems perfectly safe right now where an attendant has to come over and check your ID to allow you to pay. If this passed, then I would have to get in one of the few remaining lines with a cashier to buy beer. This was a direct quality of life issue, and I honestly didn’t have to look into the question much further than this to come to my opinion.
BatmanOnMars t1_ivpiwku wrote
If i am in a hurry and only need a bottle of wine at the store for a recipe or something, i think it's kinda silly to be required to sit in line with people who have a week or twos worth of groceries.
I understand the hostility to self-checkout taking jobs but someone would still need to id you and all these stores have help wanted signs right now.
PabloX68 t1_ivqa7d7 wrote
I thought that was a stupid provision, but you threw the baby away with the bathwater.
The_Pip t1_ivpssyg wrote
The level of weird complexity made this question smell bad for me. It felt like random shit lumped together to hide something. I would not mind if the legislature took up each issue independently in the next session.
marmosetohmarmoset t1_ivqpi9g wrote
That's how I felt. Individually some of the things it did seemed fine, but it put them all together in such a bizarre way that I didn't feel certain of the implications. I didn't want our liquor laws to become even more complicated if there wasn't a clear benefit. That might make real reform more difficult down the road.
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivozzbn wrote
I want to preserve local businesses, what can I say?
Ok_Translator_7026 t1_ivpe4v1 wrote
I agree. I do think the question itself could have been broken up into multiple questions making it easier to vote for each item instead of a blanket vote
PabloX68 t1_ivqabc2 wrote
Market Basket is a local business.
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivqapjg wrote
To you, maybe.
[deleted] t1_ivu94jn wrote
[deleted]
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivua0qw wrote
Most of the state has more in common with Hartford or Brattleboro or Albany than it does with Lowell. Just because it's from Lowell doesn't mean that it's local.
[deleted] t1_ivuarjp wrote
[deleted]
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivuazlu wrote
Something from Lowell is not local to people across most of the state.
[deleted] t1_ivucg3b wrote
[deleted]
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivucymg wrote
>If you lived in Boston and bought apples from Pittsfield, you would be buying local apples, yes?
No. But you live in Pittsfield and buy Canaan apples and you've bought local apples. Just like local media in Pittsfield broadcasts from New York.
>If you lived in Springfield and bought Wellfleet oysters, you would be buying local oysters, correct?
No. They'd be closer from Connecticut or New York. But even those wouldn't be "local". You're over 100 miles from the shore.
>so most of the state doesn't have more in common with Albany.
It sure does geographically. And those people are no more fond of Market Basket than they are of Wal-mart or any other large chain that puts local businesses out.
Bobbydadude01 t1_ivqdmz8 wrote
Yeah man I love my local liquor store. Really brings the community together :/
Banea-Vaedr t1_ivqfii2 wrote
Sounds kill someone's never stopped by the packie before a blizzard
somegridplayer t1_ivp3qva wrote
Literally the only argument FOR it was "Wines & More is bad!".
pab_guy t1_ivpialy wrote
Good, I voted yes on this before learning that it was actually a way to cap licenses, so glad to see it went down.
PabloX68 t1_ivqan2p wrote
There's already a cap on licenses. This would have allowed more licenses before hitting the cap.
pab_guy t1_ivqbgwg wrote
It would have instituted a limit on the cap that the legislature has been raising consistently. So it was like "yeah we raise the cap, ONE MORE TIME, but that's it" as a way to fool people into supporting this. At least that's what I read somewhere and don't really care enough to dig in deeper LOL
PakkyT t1_ivpwix0 wrote
This was one of those questions that was going to have zero immediate effect either way.
Only a couple/few places were up against the current cap anyway so there was really no demand for more licenses. So if it passed no stores would be rushing to grab more licenses.
On the flip side, all the bill was really meant to do was stop the big chains from putting forth their own question next time. Since it failed they can, but we don't have to worry about that for another couple years.
BiffNasty1234 t1_ivt8jjm wrote
It’s why I abstained. Immediate impact was nil, it was an overly complex bill with too many moving parts that really seemed to have no impact on how people consume. Just kinda weird…
Sayoria t1_ivq7h0s wrote
Maybe come back in a few years, and make the point one item instead of 6, then you'll get a yes. This one was crash and burn from the get-go.
Dragongala t1_ivqfoxz wrote
This question wasn't that clear, I still voted yes, because I'm all for small liquor stores opening a few more stores. I still don't understand why we can't buy beer and wine in the grocery store tho.
n8loller t1_ivr5kub wrote
What I want:
- no restrictions on numbers of licenses for on prem, off prem, beer, wine, liquor, everything. Let companies sell it as much as they want.
- allow self checkout, just keep having a human check the IDs. also scan them
- require companies accept out of state licenses and all passports
- no restrictions on hours of operation
- let us have happy hours
mrd511 t1_ivsy18s wrote
ma is fucked
markurl OP t1_ivozpue wrote
Not sure why people voted the way they did on this ballot question, but the prohibition on checking out using self-checkout was the “poison pill” for me.