Through the Wine-Glass

As public health advocates in New York gear up for this year’s attempt to get wine (including rotgut fortified wines such as Thunderbird and Richard’s Wild Irish Rose) into grocery stores (including corner stores and convenience stores), two overarching social issues have become abundantly clear.

One is the need for a broad-based coalition of public-minded New Yorkers to demand a full, informed debate on the true costs of alcohol to the state.   Unlike many other industries, the alcohol trade typically giveth in the short term and taketh away in the long term.  Nonetheless, the current myopic framing of the debate is that of competing business interests – grocery stores vs. liquor stores – with a vicious ignorance of the public health and public safety impacts.  As Prof. Nicholas Freudenberg suggests in his letter to the New York Times in response to the Gray Lady’s half-baked endorsement of expanded wine sales,  public policy that ignores health is bad policy.  The wine expansion proposal is the equivalent of a risky credit default swap.

Another pressing need is that of meaningful campaign finance reform in New York State, even in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Imagine the following scenario:

The 3rd largest wine company in the US drops a $25,000 campaign donation to an embattled official.  One week later the official unveils a budget plan featuring a proposal (albeit a recycled one ) to exponentially increase the number of outlets where wine will be available in the state.

The wine company spokeswoman asserts that the contribution is “not in any way connected to the wine in grocery stores” issue and that the company remains neutral (about the proposal which would help boost its sales in a sluggish wine market).

At what point did alcohol policy in New York State begin to resemble an M.C. Escher drawing?