It is election time, and along with voting for candidates to fill all kinds of local and state offices, there are usually lots of local issues to vote for or against too.

In the state of Massachusetts, there is a vote coming up about whether or not consumers should be able to buy their Pinot Noir in grocery store rather than having to go a wine shop or liquor store. Obviously, this is very controversial and I've been reading about it all over the place.

Here's more from Boston.com News:

Massachusetts allows only limited sales of wine at supermarkets. By loosening some of the state's restrictions, Question 1 would promote competition among retailers, and convenience for consumers. The Globe urges a Yes vote on this question.

Under existing law, food stores that wish to sell wine have to obtain retail liquor licenses, which are in short supply. And no company can obtain more than three licenses, regardless how many stores it owns. Question 1 would vastly expand those sales by creating a new class of licenses for retailers that sell products typically found at grocery stores.

The measure -- which deals only with wine, not beer or hard alcohol -- has sparked vigorous opposition from liquor stores and some law-enforcement interests. They say the measure would lead to wine sales at convenience stores, and no doubt some would try to stock just enough arugula to satisfy Question 1's requirements. But no store could get licenses to sell wine without the approval of local authorities.

Opponents tout research suggesting that having more alcohol outlets means more drunken driving and more opportunities for minors to buy (or steal) alcohol. But these aren't arguments against selling wine in supermarkets; they're arguments for banning alcohol altogether. Something is amiss when liquor interests promote a campaign with prohibitionist overtones.