If tomorrow, you stopped the average Marylander on the street and asked him or her whether wine and beer should be sold in grocery stores, it’s highly likely that individual would say yes. In fact, it’s entirely possible they might add “duh” to that comment. Polls have long shown that Marylanders favor grocery store alcohol sales. Opinion surveys conducted in recent years have found that as many as 80% of respondents would support such a change in state law.

And why wouldn’t they? The vast majority of states allow supermarkets, big and small, to sell beer and wine — including Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. It’s a simple convenience taken for granted in most parts of the country. Gov. Wes Moore endorsed the liquor law expansion prior to the start of the 90-day legislative session in Annapolis, calling it an issue he’s heard everyone talking about. What amateur chef and dinner host doesn’t want to pick up adult beverages to match their food selections? As W.C. Fields once observed, “I cook with wine. Sometimes I even add it to the food.”

But not so fast. There are reasons why Maryland has been reluctant to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine. At least two merit attention. The first is that making alcohol more available likely means more people consuming it, perhaps abusing it, including young people. In neighborhoods where drinking is already a problem — including low-income communities where alcohol represents a disproportionate percentage of retail sales — that’s clearly unhelpful. The second is the economic hardship such an expansion would likely cause mom-and-pop liquor stores as they struggle to compete against the big grocery chains that can offer greater selection and discounts.

Yet the reality is that both obstacles can be addressed. It simply requires lawmakers to do what they’re supposed to be doing during their annual 90-day legislative session in Annapolis — finding opportunities for compromise and working to the benefit of all. In years past, this has not always happened. Why? It is the classic problem found in legislative bodies across the nation: Special interests would rather fight it out tooth and nail, a process that enriches their lobbyists and lawmakers alike.

Not to get too cynical about things but in Annapolis but consider the example set by the infamous “eye drops bill.” The legislation allowing optometrists to administer eye drops to dilate patients’ pupils evolved in a hard-fought turf war with eye doctors that wasn’t resolved for more than a dozen years. By the end, only two states banned the practice, Maryland and Alaska. Did life in the Free State — or even optic health — change markedly when the ban was finally lifted in 1989 (after a veto override of all things)? Nope. Mostly, it just meant a little less money in the pockets of two of the state’s top lobbyists.

With grocery store beer and wine, the solution requires taking steps to protect small business owners and neighborhoods that might become saturated with alcohol. The best way to achieve such an outcome is probably to limit licenses by physical location. Big grocery chains want to move into a particular community already served by smaller liquor stores nearby? They could have an opportunity to buy them out and secure a license for that particular neighborhood. The moms and pops are compensated and consumers win, too. And neighborhoods won’t be swamped with liquor outlets. That’s a win-win-win.

Is this really all that difficult? Even by traditional political standards, this issue is pretty stacked — with public opinion and a popular Democratic governor on one side and, on the other, some reasonable objections that are nonetheless solvable. But, alas, there’s a lot of the inside-State-Circle machinations on top of it all. Granted, this is also the year of some genuinely tough calls in the General Assembly including how best to cover a $3 billion budget shortfall that will keep lawmakers busy through sine die.

So while it’s probably too early to pop any champagne corks, or even reach for the champagne of beers, it does seem reasonable for legislators to move the matter forward and at least lay the groundwork for a consumer-enabling, business-friendly, community-respecting compromise. We’d toast to that.