But what about consumers? The current system of alcohol regulation in Massachusetts reduces choices. And by requiring booze to pass through a gantlet of middlemen before reaching consumers, those regulations raise prices. In towns and cities, caps on the number of liquor licenses for restaurants can further limit options.

State treasurer Deborah Goldberg has opened a sweeping review of alcohol laws in Massachusetts, and business interests — retailers, brewers, and distributors — are sure to make their voices heard as that process plays out. Profits are at stake for them.

And, of course, happy hour remains illegal.

Goldberg’s seven-member commission, which will meet for the first time later this month, provides an opportunity to make long-overdue changes to a complex system that’s ostensibly designed to safeguard public health but often looks more like a state-sponsored protection racket for the alcohol industry. Alcohol, it goes without saying, can be dangerous, and its sale should be regulated to prevent drunk driving and sales to minors. But the commission shouldn’t be shy about scrutinizing who is really protected by the state’s outdated laws. When Goldberg chooses a chair, she should pick someone with a strong consumer-advocacy background and mindset.

If the group puts consumer interests first, one easy reform to start with would be the state’s restrictive franchise law, which has no public-safety justification and serves only to protect an entrenched business interest. The law prevents beermakers from leaving a distributor once they’ve signed on. Rather than comply, some brewers simply avoid Massachusetts; others self-distribute, meaning it’s harder to find their products on shelves or at bars. In either case, it’s the consumer who suffers: If you can’t find your favorite out-of-state beer at the local package store, the franchise law may well be the reason.


Another head-scratcher: Consumers who buy full growlers of beer at a brewery have to use a brewery-specific growler. So Massachusetts residents who want to buy from more than one brewery have to collect a pile of extra growlers, one for each brewer. That’s great for breweries, who get to sell the superfluous growlers, but exactly what purpose does it serve for their customers?


The commission may also hear calls to crack down on taprooms at breweries, which have been allowed to sell directly to consumers. Any new limits on taprooms would be a big step backward. If anything, restrictions like the law that nearly prevented a winemaker in Bolton from serving his own wine at his own farm should be abolished.

The basic structure of the state’s alcohol laws dates to the period just after Prohibition, when Massachusetts and other states rushed to impose new rules on the reborn alcohol industry. Like the taxi industry, another hasty creation of those 1930s lawmakers, it’s a system of caps and limits that was thought to protect public safety but instead created a protected industry willing to fight hard to keep its privileges. Ultimately, fundamental changes to that system will have to win approval from the Legislature. But if Goldberg’s commission can present a strong, consumer-focused set of reforms, it’ll be harder for lawmakers to say no.