a) When dealing with an issue of this importance, the financial aspect should never be the driving argument. Odds are, the stores themselves wouldn’t be sold for that amount as those stores would most likely cease to exist and lose their value. I also don’t think the “convenience to consumers” argument should be an overbearing consideration.

b) The tax issue is a non-issue as the numbers are virtually the same as they are now

c) If deregulation actually decreases consumption (and I’d have to read that study to see how they determined that deregulation was the cause) and prices come down, how does that translate to more money? Less drinking + lower prices = less revenue. Simple math.

d) As for the study, I question any study funded by an organization with an agenda, where that study helps them move their agenda forward. Just the way I am.

e) His article doesn’t state that deregulation decreases underage drinking. Besides, you can’t compare state to state, as those various states may have different rates to begin with, regardless of regulation levels. I’ve seen first hand how grocery stores and other general retailers can have issues because they employ staff under the age of 21.

f) Only a few studies were quoted in that article. Certainly there are other studies that should be considered.