Yes it's true that states want to reduce alcohol consumption; drunk driving, alcohol related illnesses and crime are all tied to alcohol use, so there is a publ

Yes it's true that states want to reduce alcohol consumption; drunk driving, alcohol related illnesses and crime are all tied to alcohol use, so there is a public health aspect. But like many things that are opined on on HN, it's a little more complex than what you wrote, in that they were also trying to prevent tied houses (1) and vertical integration wherein brewers would basically tie into every local bar, creating a local monopoly. Washington State got rid of the common three tier (2) system in 2012, and it seems to have lead to higher prices. (3) The options we have for alcoholic consumption might not exist without these sort of regulations. To be clear I'm not an expert on liquor laws and their economic impacts, but my point is that it seems like there is a complex interplay wherein regulation, enforcement, and power relationships between companies can affect availability and pricing in complex and sometimes counterintuitive ways. And that's not even getting into smaller regulatory policies that I don't know enough about to even throw out an opinion on. Unlike food, alcohol distributors aren't isn't pay for play slotting fees for shelf placement, and many states require distributors to post and hold prices for 30 days, for example. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_distribution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis... 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied_house 3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608622/