Police powers, anachronism, inertia, or reason? Liquor regulation

Federal courts have ruled that states have rights in alcohol-related matters that they do not have in other things. As a result, in addition to having minimum drinking age rules, we have regulations on days, hours, and means of distribution and sales; controls on advertising; bans on conduct in places where alcoholic beverage is served which would not apply elsewhere; we have “dry” jurisdictions and government-owned liquor stores; and we have distinctions between “strong” and “3.2” beer. Locally, we have some liquor stores who have the additional license clause that prevents selling small liquor bottles.

Some of these things come from the whole national trauma from the temperance/Prohibition era. Other matters come from our heritage of blue laws.
These regulations seem anachronistic. But I do wonder whether some of them do not serve a purpose.

Colorado recently allowed Sunday openings for liquor stores. Minnesota does not. According to a resent US News & World Report article, fourteen other states besides ours still have this prohibition.

The big controversy we seem to have in our state is whether grocery stores should be allowed to sell wine or liquors. Nobody seems to have thought of the Sunday ban.

Do we keep these regulations because [with apologies to Mr. Soucheray] nothing is allowed here and we want to keep it that way? or do we keep these regulations because there are legitimate public health, safety, or welfare [the traditional "police powers"] reasons? or is it just inertia?