Lost amid the drive to expand alcohol delivery in the wake of COVID-19 has been the corresponding push—actually starting even before the pandemic—to allow more types of stores to sell alcohol. While more and more states have allowed grocery stores to sell booze in recent years, these efforts have been fiercely resisted by independent liquor store owners who claim that their small businesses will be forced to shutter if large chain retailers are suddenly able to sell alcohol.

Up until now, these debates have largely been devoid of actual data, but new empirical research has been published showing that grocery store alcohol sales don't really impact mom-and-pop liquor stores after all. At long last, this is one protectionist argument that can finally kick the bucket—if only policy makers will let it die.

Currently, 11 states still forbid wine from being sold in grocery stores while four still prohibit beer. In recent years, states as politically diverse as Mississippi, Connecticut, and Maryland have considered bills to expand wine and/or beer to their grocery store outlets, only to be met with a tidal wave of opposition. Any place where such reform legislation appears, it is immediately opposed by liquor stores in the state—sometimes called "package stores"—which already sell wine and beer and want to prevent any grocery store from becoming their new competitors in the market.

The impact of this protectionism extends far beyond the alcohol market, as well. It is why less populated states that restrict grocery store booze, such as Mississippi, have only one Costco and one Whole Foods in the entire state—and zero Trader Joe's outlets. These stores often depend on their alcohol selections, including their private-label alcohol offerings, to make their business models viable in more locales. Restricting grocery store booze can actually lock entire food stores out of a state.

This setup works just fine for liquor store owners. As one store owner claimed when discussing a Mississippi reform bill: "out of state retail corporations harvest money that could be recirculating in our local economies….Big out-of-state grocery and box retailers have had years of practice of profiting off the destruction of public health in other states." He went on to note that alcohol markets are "unable to regulate themselves without being destructive to public health and safety" and that if alcohol consumption increased, it would put "undue burden" on taxpayers, public safety officials, and the health care industry. One would be hard-pressed to find a business owner who so loathes the very product he sells, but these arguments are sadly par for the cronyist course when it comes to blocking grocery store booze sales.

While it is unclear how one might go about "harvesting" money, it is clear what this package store owner is really concerned about: protecting his bottom line. Unfortunately, package and liquor store lobbying associations are extremely influential in many states, which leads to reform efforts silently dying in committee year after year.

That's why states like Oklahoma and Colorado have opted for ballot initiatives to expand grocery store alcohol sales, as consumers overwhelmingly are in favor of it. But even successful ballot initiatives have not ended the debate, as a group of Colorado legislators introduced a bill in this year's legislative session to overturn the state's wine-in-grocery-stores ballot initiative (which only went into effect in 2023).

The main argument in favor of this repeal bill? "I don't want to see the independent liquor stores put out of business. They are owned by diverse entrepreneurs—50 percent are women- and minority-owned businesses—and provide jobs," said Colorado state Rep. Judy Amabile, a Boulder area Democrat who cosponsored the legislation. 

In other words, Justice Antonin Scalia's famous quip about the notorious Lemon test in Supreme Court jurisprudence—analogizing it to "some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried"—could just as readily apply to antigrocery alcohol claims.

After years of scaremongering and anecdotal supposition about whether grocery stores will or will not kill off mom-and-pop booze stores, facts have finally been injected into the debate by FMI, a food industry group. A new FMI paper by Vincenzina Caputo of Michigan State University studies the impact of Tennessee's 2016 reform that allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores in the Volunteer State. The paper compared the number of liquor licenses in post-2016 Tennessee with a hypothetical "synthetic version" of Tennessee in which the reforms were never passed. (This was done via a weighted average of control states that did not pass wine-in-grocery-store legislation.)

The report—a copy of which I obtained from FMI—shows just 62 fewer liquor stores selling wine in postreform Tennessee compared to the nonreform synthetic version of Tennessee—a result which was found to be not statistically significant. Overall, the quantity of liquor stores selling wine in Tennessee increased from 505 stores in 2004 to 733 in 2022, and liquor stores still held the greatest number of wine-selling licenses in the state in the postreform years. 

Further, the Tennessee wine-in-grocery-store reform accounted for a 23 percent increase in wine sales tax volume for the state—undermining the idea that chain stores "harvest" away money from local economies and the tax base.

These results show that our favorite mom-and-pop shops can do just fine in the wake of grocery stores being allowed to sell alcohol. In fact, many of these smaller stores have found a niche specializing in craft beer or hard-to-find wines and liquor that grocery stores have little interest in carrying, a point that both independent store owners and economists have made.

This new research provides a much-overdue corrective to the protectionist claims that small liquor stores have been peddling for years. Now lawmakers just need to listen.

The post Grocery Store Booze Doesn't Hurt Mom-and-Pop Stores appeared first on Reason.com.

The new plan to keep kids from drinking alcohol: Ban kids (and some adults) from buying drinks containing zero alcohol.

No, it doesn't make much sense.

But that's the argument being made by Molly A. Bowdring, a clinical psychologist at Stanford, who wrote this week in STAT that nonalcoholic drinks meant to resemble beer or cocktails are "a potential public health crisis."

The zero-proof beverage market includes brands like Athletic Brewing, by far the largest nonalcoholic beer brand, as well as a growing number of wine and spirits varieties. While nonalcoholic drinks still account for a tiny sliver of the overall beverage market, the rate of growth in recent years has been impressive—driven by consumers who are looking to enjoy a drink without getting drunk.

But won't someone think of the children, frets Bowdring. "While it's great that more people are taking to heart public health messages that reducing alcohol consumption can improve well-being and extend life, an important lesson from vaping as a replacement for cigarettes is being overlooked: What may be good for adults may be harmful to kids."

After contacting alcohol regulators in every U.S. state, she writes that she was shocked to find drinks that contain no alcohol are generally not subjected to limitations placed on drinks that do contain alcohol. Imagine that.

"Children and teens are, by and large, legally permitted to purchase non-alcoholic beverages. This is a huge liability," warns Bowdring. "The path from non-alcoholic beverage consumption to alcohol use among youths appears to be fairly direct….Among minors, consuming non-alcoholic beverages can socialize them to the drinking culture, with the beverages being perceived as cool, adult, and modern."

Goodness gracious, not that.

The logic here is seriously flawed in several ways. Most importantly, banning the sale of nonalcoholic drinks to individuals under 21—which includes a lot of adults, by the way—isn't going to make "drinking culture" seem much different. And even if it did, it is absolutely not the government's job to police what subcultures seem cool or interesting.

If there's a compelling reason for the state to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some individuals, it's on the grounds that consuming alcohol can increase the risk that they harm themselves or others. But kids are already prevented from legally purchasing or consuming alcohol—and someone who is purchasing or consuming a nonalcoholic drink is, by definition, not consuming alcohol in the first place!

Finally, Bowdring isn't arguing that kids who buy nonalcoholic drinks go on to become raging alcoholics or drunk drivers or anything dangerous like that. She's panicked over the possibility that they'll have an increased interest in drinking, period. But learning to drink socially and responsibly—which might include the consumption of nonalcoholic drinks at times—is a key part of being an adult.

This isn't an argument for banning video games because some kids who play video games will someday commit a school shooting. This is arguing for banning video games because some kids who play video games might someday drive a few miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

The post Will Banning Nonalcoholic Beer Save the Children? appeared first on Reason.com.

As anyone who has traveled by plane in the last decade can attest, one of the few—perhaps only—things that make modern commercial flying tolerable is a strong onboard libation. For those lucky enough to travel internationally, the booze is sometimes even free. But could this last vestige of mile-high sanity be snatched from us like a water bottle at an airport security checkpoint? 

Newly released research argues that it should be. The study, published in Thorax by researchers from the Institute of Aerospace Medicine in Germany, concludes that in-flight alcohol can increase the risk of heart attack. While the topline conclusion sounds concerning and compelling, the research itself is less so. 

The researchers used a sampling of a mere 48 people between 18 and 40 years of age, half of whom slept in a sleep lab that mirrored normal on-ground conditions while the other half slept in a lab that simulated high-altitude cabin pressure. On the first night of the test, everyone was instructed to go to bed. On the second night, each group was given the assignment of drinking booze and then passing out. (How one qualifies to become a test subject for a study of this kind is unclear at the time of this writing). The researchers then monitored each group's heart rate and sleep patterns.

The results showed that those who consumed alcohol and slept in the high-altitude simulation experienced the most heightened heart rates and the lowest oxygen-blood levels while sleeping. The researchers conclude that those with existing cardiac and pulmonary conditions could be in danger—as well as those with sleep apnea and other respiratory ailments—but even healthy individuals were at risk.

"Even in young and healthy individuals, the combination of alcohol intake with sleeping under hypobaric conditions poses a considerable strain on the cardiac system and might lead to exacerbation of symptoms in patients with cardiac or pulmonary diseases," the researchers state. "Our findings strongly suggest that the inflight consumption of alcoholic beverages should be restricted."

One might be tempted to brush this off as merely the work of a few teetotalers from across the pond, but as students of the temperance movement know well, prohibitionary brush fires can start with the smallest of sparks. In fact, the in-flight booze ban movement has already begun to catch on in America. 

During the COVID pandemic, reports of unruly and intoxicated airplane passengers getting into physical altercations with flight attendants led several airlines to suspend their on-board alcohol service entirely. Despite this built-in market reaction—after all, no airline wants to be the arena for a drunken brawl in the clouds—numerous federal lawmakers inevitably joined the booze ban chorus.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D–Ore.) called for a ban on to-go alcohol from airport bars in 2021 after he allegedly watched a fellow passenger order three shots of alcohol in a to-go cup from an airport bar and then board the plane. Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), citing reports that anti-mask passengers were the ones creating the on-board ruckuses, went on record in support of banning the hard stuff at least temporarily.

The study claiming to show heart and other health risks will likely further embolden the no-alcohol-on-planes crowd. Lost in all of this is the reality that, as Rep. DeFazio's anecdote shows, many of the unruly passengers that caught media headlines involved those who were already intoxicated upon boarding the plane or brought their own alcohol on board.

Under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, it is already illegal for consumers to imbibe alcohol they bring onto a plane: "No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him." The rule goes on to state that airlines cannot permit already intoxicated passengers to board their planes or serve them more alcohol onboard. 

Therefore, a complete ban on in-flight alcohol would simply be another example of the government implementing more rules to address behavior that is largely already illegal. It also would clearly incentivize more passengers to sneak their own alcohol on board—something that already happened when airlines suspended alcohol service during the pandemic. It doesn't take a libertarian to understand that if you ban a legal product—like in-flight alcohol service—you will inevitably create a more robust black-market workaround. 

A better approach would be to allow airlines to continue selling and serving in-flight alcohol. Like servers at a bar, flight attendants can monitor how much alcohol each passenger has consumed, instead of supercharging an uncontrollable airborne BYOB free-for-all. As for potential health concerns, passengers should be empowered to make their own decisions based on knowing themselves best. Most people already do this in situations such as avoiding air travel after scuba diving or major surgery, and there is no reason they can't do the same in determining whether to drink before or during a flight.

Some clever travelers have pointed out that the above-mentioned FAA regulation merely says that a person cannot drink alcohol on an airplane unless it is served by airplane staff. This technically suggests that you can bring your own alcohol on board—as long as it's in a mini bottle—and simply ask your flight attendant to serve it. At least a few airlines appear to be open to this.  

Now might be the time to find one such airline, book a flight, and enjoy this Prohibition-era 12-Mile Limit cocktail in defiant—but technically still legal—protest:

Prohibition-Era 12-Mile Limit Cocktail

Ingredients:

• ½ oz rye whiskey
• ½ oz cognac
• ½ oz rum
• ½ oz grenadine (real grenadine, not red syrup)
• ½ oz lemon juice 
• Lemon wedges (for garnish)
• Ice

Instructions:

1. Obtain two mini bottles of liquor, each under the 3.4 oz TSA liquid carry-on limit.
2. Fill one mini bottle with ½ oz rye whiskey and ½ oz cognac, topped off with your favorite rum.
3. Fill the second mini bottle with ½ oz grenadine and ½ oz lemon juice. Store this bottle in the fridge until leaving for the airport.
4. Bring both mini bottles on board with you in your carry-on.
5. Ask your flight attendant to pour the contents of the liquor-filled bottle over a cup of ice.
6. Add the grenadine and lemon juice mixture to the cup.
7. Garnish with lemon wedges.
8. Stir with the provided plastic stirring stick.
9. Sit back, relax, and enjoy your cocktail (while you still can).

The post Oh God, What If Congress Bans Drinking on Airplanes? appeared first on Reason.com.

America's tax code is notoriously convoluted, but the complexity really sparkles when it comes to the federal government's approach to alcohol taxation. Wine, beer, and liquor are all subject to varying tax rates based on intricate calculations, but the so-called "bubble tax" for hard cider is the star of this regulatory circus.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the tax rate for alcoholic cider is based on, among other things, the amount of carbonation the drink contains. Yes, America technically already has a carbon tax and the feds have literally found a way to tax air. Craft cider makers are being flattened by an arbitrary system that is strangling the industry's long-term potential.

Under the federal code, alcoholic cider is taxed as either hard cider, still wine, or sparkling wine, and the implications of which category applies are not insignificant. Hard cider is taxed at a modest $0.226 per gallon, while sparkling wine is taxed at a whopping $3.40 per gallon—a staggering 1,400 percent increase. For every 100 gallons of cider produced, Uncle Sam either takes $22 in taxes or $340 in taxes. 

What determines how cider is categorized and taxed? A ridiculous three-part formula based on a) what type of fruit is used to make the cider, b) the alcohol content of the cider, and c) what carbonation level the cider contains. 

Imagine you're a cider maker aiming for the lower tax rate to apply to your product. You need to produce a cider that is made from apples or pears (with no other fruit additions), is less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume (ABV), and has less than or equal to 0.64 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per 100mL. However, if you decide to add some blackberries or grapes, it's considered a still wine and taxed at $1.07 per gallon—but only if it has less than 0.392 grams of CO2 per 100mL. If you go over that carbonation threshold, you've unlocked sparkling wine status and with that the $3.40 per gallon tax rate.

Confused? It gets worse. 

If your pear or apple cider is over 0.64 grams of CO2, it gets the sparkling wine rate. But it's knocked back down to the still wine rate if it's less than 0.392 grams of CO2 and the ABV level is 8.5 percent or higher. Whether the bubbles are added via "force carbonated" or "bottle conditioned" carbonation creates another tax delineation for the sparkling wine category. A flow chart is needed just to unpack all the potential permutations and combinations:

The implications of this tax labyrinth extend to consumers. A report from Wine Enthusiast notes that modern drinkers have grown to expect beer-like carbonation levels in their alcoholic beverages, thereby creating pressure for cider makers to add more carbonation to their products. 

One cider maker from Oregon reported that he receives frequent emails from consumers complaining about flat cider, which they incorrectly blame on him rather than the government. If adding more carbonation could financially cripple a small business, it's little wonder many cider makers feel that their hands are tied. 

The disparity is glaring when compared to beverages like beer, hard seltzer, and regular soda, which face no such carbonation-based tax penalties. It's a clear disconnect from market realities and consumer demands, which increasingly favor diverse flavors and more carbonation in ciders.

Craft cider makers are doing their best to diversify the carbonation levels and fruits in their ciders to respond to consumer demand, but it's clear the industry has a hard ceiling on its growth due to these tax rules. This is why many cider makers state that their ability to expand—and the ability of the industry as a whole to thrive—is being pointlessly inhibited.

The bubble tax is now getting more attention due to a recent bipartisan bill introduced in Congress, which aims to level the playing field between apple and pear ciders and those made with other fruits. While promising, the best reform would be to convert the entire system of alcohol taxation to one based simply on a drink's ABV level rather than arbitrary classifications.

Craft cider, a beverage steeped in American history, deserves better. Another Michigan cider maker made it even simpler: "It's not expressing the free market. The government needs to get out of the way."

The post The Federal Government is Literally Taxing Air appeared first on Reason.com.

Hawaii News Now (HNN), a news service operated by a consortium of TV stations, reports that in 2022 and 2023, Oahu police arrested almost 300 people for driving under the influence who had breathalyzer scores below the legal limit of 0.08, 69 of them with scores of 0.00. "When I was a policeman, I never had anybody blow triple zeros," said Jonathan Burge, a defense attorney specializing in traffic cases and former Honolulu Police Department (HPD) officer. Burge claims there are unofficial quotas for officers, particularly for those working DUI task forces funded by federal dollars. Deputy HPD Chief Keith Horikawa, in a statement to HNN, said "supervisors may have goals and standards that are pertinent to their unit to help guide the personnel under their command." HNN reports that even when charges are dropped, the arrest remains on the records of adult drivers unless they pay to have it expunged. Last year, the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office rejected more than 80 percent of the DUI cases referred by HPD.

The post Brickbat: This Blows appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden says, "I know how to make government work!"

You'd think he'd know. He's worked in government for 51 years.

But the truth is, no one can make government work.

Biden hasn't.

Look at the chaos at the border, our military's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the rising cost of living, our unsustainable record-high debt.

In my new video, economist Ed Stringham argues that no government can ever work well, because "even the best person can't implement change….The massive bureaucracy gets bigger and slower."

I learned that as a consumer reporter watching bureaucrats regulate business. Their rules usually made life worse for consumers.

Yet politicians want government to do more!

Remember the unveiling of Obamacare's website? Millions tried to sign up. The first day, only six got it to work.

Vice President Joe Biden made excuses: "Neither [Obama] and I are technology geeks."

Stringham points out, "If they can't design a basic simple website, how are they going to manage half the economy?"

While bureaucrats struggled with the Obamacare site, the private sector successfully created Uber and Lyft, platforms like iCloud, apps like Waze, smartwatches, etc.

The private sector creates things that work because it has to. If businesses don't serve customers well, they go out of business.

But government is a monopoly. It never goes out of business. With no competition, there's less pressure to improve.

Often good people join government. Some work as hard as workers in the private sector.

But not for long. Because the bureaucracy's incentives kill initiative.

If a government worker works hard, he might get a small raise. But he sits near others who earn the same pay and, thanks to archaic civil service rules, are unlikely to get fired even if they're late, lazy, or stupid.

Over time, that's demoralizing. Eventually government workers conclude, "Why try?"

In the private sector, workers must strive to make things better. If they don't, competitors will, and you might lose your job.

Governments never go out of business.

"Companies can only stay in business if they always keep their customer happy," Stringham points out. "Competition pushes us to be better. Government has no competition."

I push back.

"Politicians say, 'Voters can vote us out.'"

"With a free market," Stringham replies, "the consumer votes every single day with the dollar. Under politics, we have to wait four years."

It's another reason why, over time, government never works as well as the private sector.

Year after year, the Pentagon fails audits.

If a private company repeatedly does that, they get shut down. But government never gets shut down.

A Pentagon spokeswoman makes excuses: "We're working on improving our process. We certainly are learning each time."

They don't learn much. They still fail audits.

"It's like we're living in Groundhog Day," Stringham jokes.

When COVID-19 hit, politicians handed out almost $2 trillion in "rescue" funds. The Government Accountability Office says more than $100 billion were stolen.

"One woman bought a Bentley," laughs Stringham. "A father and son bought a luxury home."

At least Biden noticed the fraud. He announced, "We're going to make you pay back what you stole!

No. They will not. Biden's Fraud Enforcement Task Force has recovered only 1 percent of what was stolen.

Even without fraud, government makes money vanish. I've reported on my town's $2 million toilet in a park. When I confronted the parks commissioner, he said, "$2 million was a bargain! Today it would cost $3 million."

That's government work.

More recently, Biden proudly announced that government would create "500,000 [electric vehicle] charging stations."

After two years, they've built seven. Not 7,000. Just seven.

Over the same time, greedy, profit-seeking Amazon built 17,000.

"Privatize!" says Stringham. "Whenever we think something's important, question whether government should do it."

In Britain, government-owned Jaguar lost money year after year. Only when Britain sold the company to private investors did Jaguar start turning a profit selling cars people actually like.

When Sweden sold Absolut Vodka, the company increased its profits sixfold.

It's ridiculous for Biden to say, "I know how to make government work."

No one does.

Next week, this column takes on Donald Trump's promise: "We'll drain the Washington swamp!"

COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post No One Can Make Government Work appeared first on Reason.com.

During the height of the pandemic summer of 2020, the proprietors of the Burning Bridge Tavern worked with local officials in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, to host a series of outdoor gatherings for the community.

For their trouble, the bar's owners got slapped with a series of citations by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), the government agency that oversees and manages the sale of alcohol in the state. The citations were ticky-tack offenses, according to Burning Bridge's chief financial officer, Mike Butler. Twice, the bar was cited for noise violations because they'd allowed a band playing at the gathering to plug into the tavern's electricity supply. Another offense occurred when the owners and some family members were drinking inside the tavern, which was closed to the public, during a period when indoor dining was prohibited.

A frustrating situation, but not the end of the world. Burning Bridge's owners paid the fines associated with the citations and assumed that was that. But then the bar had to renew its liquor license.

"They denied it. They said, 'Oh, you're the guys that got all those citations,'" Butler says. "It was a real gut punch."

Turns out, over the past two years the PLCB has pushed dozens of Pennsylvania establishments that racked up pandemic-​related citations to sign "conditional licensing agreements" to renew their liquor permits. In some cases, those agreements have forced the sale of licenses—but in most cases, as with Burning Bridge, they've added additional conditions to the license that could prevent a future renewal from being approved.

While the PLCB cannot revoke existing licenses, the board is empowered to object to the renewal of a license or to demand the license can only be renewed conditionally. "In extreme cases," PLCB Press Secretary Shawn Kelly says, the PLCB can force the sale of a liquor license, though the board only pursues that option when "there is an operational and citation history that calls for such an agreement."

Even though Burning Bridge's owners weren't forced to sell their license, Butler says signing the conditional licensing agreement has come with real costs: The bar's insurance premium tripled as a result of being viewed as a greater risk.

Typically, those agreements have been used to curb nuisance bars or force establishments with a history of legal problems, like serving underage patrons, to clean up their acts. Recently, however, the PLCB has taken a hardline stance against establishments that violated pandemic-era rules.

"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences," argued Mary Isenhour, one of the PLCB's three board members, at a January 2022 meeting where the first several of the COVID-related conditional licensing agreements were approved.

Isenhour was responding to an objection raised by a fellow board member, Michael Negra, who argued that the PLCB should take the view that businesses had "paid their dues" during the pandemic and should not face additional sanction now. Negra left the PLCB in June 2022 and now works for a ​Pittsburgh-based lobbying firm. He did not return requests for comment.

After Negra's departure, the PLCB has unanimously approved dozens of conditional licensing agreements for COVID-​related violations, including at least 10 that have required the sale of a license, based on a review of PLCB meeting minutes.

Kelly, the PLCB spokesman, maintains that licensees are "under no obligation" to sign conditional licensing agreements.

But any licensee that refuses would face a set of unattractive alternatives: not having the license renewed, or being drawn into a legal battle against the PLCB in state court.

"Do you risk your entire business, your license, the loans, all of that to fight" in a real court, asks Butler. "Or do you just kind of hold your nose and take your medicine? Tactically, for us, we weren't in a position to say, 'Yeah, we'll run that risk.'"

Chuck Moran, executive director of the Pennsylvania Licensed Beverage and Tavern Association, acknowledges that pandemic-era public health orders left many establishments with a difficult choice between following the law and surviving financially. Fairly or unfairly, "those who broke the rules went the wrong way and now they're paying the price," he says.

The whole matter raises some complicated questions about how our political institutions ought to handle, with the benefit of hindsight, the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic and policy makers' response to it.

"The feeling was that our government really isn't working to try and help us," says Butler. "At this point, it feels like they're coming after us."

The post Liquor Regulators Are Seeking Revenge on Bars That Broke Pandemic Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

Inflation stressing you out? Making you wish you had just a touch of nicotine in your system? Unfortunately, that'll cost a lot. While prices economywide have risen 3.1 percent in the last year, cigarette prices have jumped 8 percent. On top of federal and state taxes that often make up half the price of a pack, tobacco companies tend to raise their prices faster than inflation to make up for declining sales volume. These and the rest of the numbers in the Reason Sindex use data from November 2023.

The post The Sindex: Cigarette Prices Outpacing Inflation appeared first on Reason.com.