Letter: Dan Casey cites outdated data on cocktails-to-go

The 1980s called. They want their alcohol policy back.

Dan Casey’s opinion piece [“Legal cocktails-to-go: Freedom or just dumb?” March 26] ignores the most recent research on alcohol laws and regulations completely. This is especially true when it comes to Virginia alcohol law, and more importantly, the recently adopted cocktails to-go law. The R Street Institute, where I work, is one of the only nonpartisan think tanks in the country that analyzes alcohol laws and regulations. I am confident that our work is more current and relevant than the sources Dan Casey cites.

The piece points out the many states — 26 states and the District of Columbia — that have made cocktails to-go permanent. That is where most of the facts related to this issue ends, and the conjecture begins. Mr. Casey points out that Maryland is notably absent from the list of states that have made cocktails to-go permanent because the state allowed its pandemic era law to expire because of “drive-thru bars” in a 1980s rural county.

The only facts he references are from a 1984 Washington Post article related to drinking and driving rates. A lot has changed in 40 years, including the passage of the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which pushed states to raise the legal drinking age to 21.

He conveniently overlooks the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (VABC) report last year to the General Assembly which found compliance related underage drinking laws for restaurants was similar to that of VABC brick-and-mortar stores.

In fact, the R Street Institute has found that almost every state that permitted delivery and to-go alcohol during COVID-19 witnessed a decrease in underage drinking. Likewise, states that allowed alcohol delivery saw their overall drinking rates rise less than those that prohibited delivery. In terms of drunk driving, states that allowed alcohol delivery experienced lower increases in drunk driving deaths during the pandemic — which intuitively makes sense, given that home-delivery of alcohol allows consumers to avoid driving back from the bar after numerous drinks.

In the future, Mr. Casey may want to use more precise data than a Reagan-era Washington Post article on Maryland when discussing 21st century alcohol laws in Virginia.

Robert Melvin, Richmond