{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015544041450777202, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025906735751295338, 'mean_word_length': 5.84070796460177, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of formal law in alcohol control systems: a comparison among states.

Formal laws and regulations governing activities of state alcohol beverage control agencies in the United States were classified into 10 categories of physical availability and four categories of economic availability. These categories were subjected to similarity analysis to determine variation among states. Kruskal's stress-one measure revealed three major dimensions of alcohol control laws: forms of retail sales, administrative penalties for violations of alcohol control laws, and price restrictions. This finding suggests that the license/monopoly distinction frequently used to categorize state alcohol control systems is inadequate to characterize the variations in control systems.