You might be surprised that blue laws, which limit certain types of business activity on Sundays, don’t provide much of a benefit, if any. The laws are typically used to restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays, ostensibly to prevent alcoholism.

According to a recent study conducted by the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and various other universities, repealing blue laws does not have the pernicious impact that proponents might predict. The study focused on Connecticut, which repealed Sunday blue laws in 2012, and analyzed the trends.

The move was initially opposed by liquor stores, which argued that allowing grocery stores and other retailers to sell alcohol on Sundays would cut into their profits. They also pointed out that staying open an extra day would add more to their overhead costs. Others indicated that it would promote increased alcohol consumption. Yet, the researchers found that none of this materialized over a decade after the state repealed the restrictions.

This study examines the impact of repealing Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales and retail competition, focusing on Connecticut’s 2012 policy change allowing Sunday beer sales in grocery stores. Using nationwide data from 2004 to 2021, we find a short-term increase in beer sales post-policy change, but no significant long-term economic effects on grocery and liquor stores. Our analysis also shows similar treatment effects for chain and standalone liquor retailers, suggesting limited lasting implications for the liquor retail industry’s performance and conduct after Sunday sale restrictions were lifted.

The study found that “repealing these laws significantly increased beer sales at grocery and liquor stores directly after the policy shift, but these effects disappeared afterward.”

The initial surge was likely the result of the novelty of being able to purchase liquor on Sunday. However, once the shine wore off, people went back to their normal consumption of alcohol. The lack of long-term adverse effects is quite telling.

Researchers discovered that lifting the blue laws did not harm smaller businesses. “Despite repeated claims by liquor store associations, repealing these laws did not harm liquor stores,” the report read, also noting that it found “no statistical evidence of adverse or positive treatment effects on the long-term economic outcomes for grocery retailers and liquor stores after the policy change.”

As it turns out, blue laws do not protect small business.

What this shows is that the free market is always a better path than relying on government intervention. Allowing economic liberty does not always produce the negative outcomes that those in favor of state involvement might indicate. The free market has shown that it can regulate itself without Big Brother throwing its weight around.

In the end, the study reveals that “the liberalization of Sunday blue laws had no discernible long-term consequences for the economic outcomes of the average liquor store in Connecticut.”

Blue laws, just like most other arbitrary laws, are clearly not necessary. Not only do they unnecessarily restrict commerce, but they also constitute an infringement on people’s rights to purchase and consume whichever products they choose. Studies like this are valuable in that they further expose what happens when the state tries to legislate one’s personal morality.