Why Its Not Safe To Go Into The Woods - A PLCB Horror Story

Not satisfied that their stupid laws, random enforcement, idiotic "interpretations," and never being checked for underage sales are killing enough citizens, the PLCB figures that having more stores open with longer hours for the start of hunting season fits their goal of  "...an exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth...:

So while DUI, Underage DUI, DUI Fatalities, Underage DUI Fatalities, Binge Drinking, and Underage Binge Drinking is worse in PA than most of the border states, apparently drinking, driving to game lands, and hunting is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged by the PLCB.

They are getting sneaky about it too. In my first blast at this insane policy in 2013 they put out a separate announcement stating that these stores would be open early just for hunting season.  I'd link to it but the PLCB no longer  has it listed. In 2014 they combined it with the Thanksgiving holiday extended hour increases as shown here. Now they are trying to just outright hide the fact they are expanding store hours for hunting season by not listing it at all.  When you look at this year's announcement there is no mention of  Holidays or Hunting Season. All you get now is a flat "The following stores will have extended store hours in late November." However, if you look at the stores that are open or have extended hours on November 30th it is only because of hunting season.

So if you find yourself in the woods on November 30th, remember that the PLCB did their best to make sure all those people with guns were able to get liquor. I wonder how many cows would survive if they didn't ?

Liquor & Guns

The people's right to trade freely with their neighbors and those in neighboring states shall not be infringed. 

One line like that in the Constitution would have rendered the PLCB largely impotent, but it didn't work out that way. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to buy alcohol is not. Both have laws governing their sale and use, but only one has the state trying to make sure you can get it: Liquor. 

Proponents of the State Store System are always pushing for and bragging about having more sales. They want to make sure that all the citizens can buy booze, but they don't want to make sure you can buy a Constitutionally guaranteed item, or have freedom of choice or be allowed to participate in interstate commerce. That, of course, would puncture their precious monopoly, and show how non-competitive they really are.

But this is -- supposedly -- all about control. Let's look at that whole concept from a different angle. If you are like me or most people I know, you probably think guns are more dangerous than a bottle of Captain Morgan. But according to State Store-style thinking, you would be wrong. I drink, and I also shoot. I probably drink more often than I shoot, but it's close, since my range is only a mile away. Let me tell you: I worry more about the guy next to me at the range than I do about the guy next to me at the bar. Just think about these comparisons.

• What takes longer to buy: a special order bottle of liquor or a special order gun (even with the federally-mandated wait time on gun sales)?

• As a private citizen, you can sell guns, but you can't sell alcohol beverages.

• Sell a bottle and you can get fined $4 an ounce and go to jail.  Sell a gun...and you get cash.

• If you're 18, you can buy a gun; if you're 14, you can get a hunting license. Buy a beer when you're 18, and you can LOSE your license.

• Most places you are allowed to open carry a gun on the street in PA ; most places you are not allowed to carry an open bottle.

• If you are a resident with the proper permit, you can have a loaded gun on the front seat of your car. If you have an open bottle, there is no permit you can get.

• If you are visiting from out of state and have a gun in your trunk and want to stop and take in any of Pennsylvania's scenic attractions as you pass through the state -- it is perfectly legal.  Have a bottle of wine from New Jersey in your trunk and make that same stop? You can be fined, and your wine will be seized and destroyed. 

• You can bring a number of guns into Pennsylvania without any special licenses or forms and shoot.  You can't bring any bottles of wine, beer, or spirits into the state -- legally! -- without special licenses or forms which the PLCB does not even make available to you.*

People who use guns professionally in their job have to be licensed, but people who sell alcohol professionally (like bartenders) don't. They don't have to be certified by the state in any way, unless and until they make an illegal sale, which seems to me like closing the barn door after the horse ran away. Our State Store alcohol sellers don't even have to be certified in any way at all, nor are they ever checked for illegal sales (they rely on 'self-reporting'). Does anybody find this strange based on all of the above?

Most states have figured out how to regulate the sale of alcohol and not treat their citizens like children. If the liquor laws in the state were even close to being like the gun laws, there wouldn't be a privatization effort (or a modernization one either) because the dead hand of leftover Prohibitionism wouldn't be on the backs of the residents. Since that isn't going to happen, we have to take control away from the state through our legislature. Give retail back to private industry where it belongs, because when the state decides what you will get, it also decides what you want and does it without any input from you.

We are not safer, we are not better served, and we are not satisfied. Privatize.


* I challenge any reader to try to find the form or forms needed to pay the taxes on 6 bottles of liquor you want to bring into the state. Good luck. 

Lets Kill Another Privatization Myth IV

With all this "control", why isn't PA safer?

Converting PA to a private system will put a liquor store on every corner, have drunk drivers roaming the streets looking for victims and packs of wild drunken teens will trod over the desolate landscape. How do we know this?  The state store clerks union tells us in letters to the editor, on-line comments and even senior officials spouting it as gospel.

The truth is none of that has happened in Washington State.  Clerk representatives like to say that Washington State DUI citation data can't be believed because there were less troopers on the road to write tickets.  Never mind that local police write the most tickets since there are thousands more of them than State Police. Or they say that DUI fatalities are going down everywhere which to me means that their dire predictions didn't come about since Washington State did see a decline in DUI fatalities. However, the amount of troopers on the road has little to do with DUI fatalities. People do not die and then try to hide the fact like they do with crashes.

2013 national data has not been released yet so we have to look at 2012 data.  In 2012 17 states reported a decrease in DUI fatalities.  Pa was not one of them.  Pennsylvania's DUI fatalities increased 2,8% overall compared to 2011 and went up over 15% for under 21 drivers while Washington DUI fatalities decreased 7.6% overall and over 30% for under 21 drivers. Now an official representative of the UFCW has said that this represents "statistically insignificant numbers" so I have to wonder how many deaths it takes to be significant (statistically speaking) for him?

It is all because of beer the clerks say but beer is also private in Washington and since they had and continue to have the highest liquor taxes in the country that makes beer the choice for those on a budget....like teens. So since the PLCB is in charge of "control" via inspections, complaints, beer registration, and numerous other ways - are they not doing as good a job as the WSLCB? Would they do better if they only had to concentrate on regulation and not retail.  One would hope.

Statewide statistics are not yet available for Pennsylvania for 2013 but they just came out for Washington and the data shows that alcohol impaired driver fatalities have gone down again, this time over 18% for the year. For the past 24 months, 18 of them since privatization, Washington State has decreased DUI fatalities by over 25% and PA has not.

Wake up Legislators.  The PLCB is not the only, nor has it ever been, the best way to do things.

Privatization Is REAL Modernization.

Would Privatization Kill Children?

To go with last year's “Non-union employee-sold booze killed my Daddy” commercial, you may have seen the newest propaganda from the State Store clerks union about how increased availability of beer and wine will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it. Among other lying lies from the big fat liars at the UFCW media lying office, the ad says that North Carolina put in "a similar law" and it's killing one "child" every week from underage drinking.


The idea that they can trace the death of one underage drinker (who are, BTW, usually 18 and older, hardly the toddlers pictured in the ad) per week directly to this law and ONLY this law...is ludicrous. But here are some even bigger things they don’t tell you about crazy loose boozy North Carolina vs. wonderfully 'controlled' Pennsylvania.

• North Carolina has a lower rate of high BAC fatalities than Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina has a 39% lower rate of women 18-44 who binge drink than Pennsylvania
• North Carolina has a 26% lower alcohol use rate for women 18-44 than Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina has a lower Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder rate than Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina has a better rating from MADD than Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina's DUI fatality rate is the same as Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina's overall binge drinking rate is 17% lower than Pennsylvania’s 
• North Carolina is also one of the 17 alcohol control states, like Pennsylvania 
• North Carolina liquor stores are checked for underage sales. Pennsylvania's are not. 
• North Carolina allows beer and wine sales in grocery stores.  

It would be an improvement if Pennsylvania were more like North Carolina, but it will be even better if we privatized.

Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/data.html
http://responsibility.org/sites/default/files/files/TCC-AIDF_2012.pdf
http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/state-stats/
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/WI/Binge/2012

Let's Kill Another Privatization Myth II

Time to debunk another myth.

"Pennsylvania has such a high DUI fatality rate because we have so many rural roads...not because the PLCB doesn't control sales of alcohol very well."

While PA does rank 6th worst in total in the US for Rural Road fatalities (2009) we rank 16th worst in DUI fatalities (2011). For fatalities per 100 million rural road miles driven PA isn't in the top ten or even top twenty but is number 23 (2009).


I had this page full of numbers and charts and math to prove the point but it comes down to this: 
Of the six border states and PA itself, PA is 5th worse in rural road death rate per 100 million miles traveled. It also turns out that PA is 5th worse in DUI fatalities.  In fact the rural road death rate and the DUI fatality rate coincide with each other for all seven states.  New Jersey has the lowest rural road and DUI fatality rate and West Virginia has the highest.  Common sense shows that the rural road fatality rate is a causation of DUI rate and not the other way around. Maybe the next excuse by the clerks will be to blame PennDot because we have too many potholes...anything but the lack of control by the PLCB

STATE	Rural Road
	Death Rate
New Jersey	1.48
Maryland	1.89
New York	1.95
Ohio	2.2
Pennsylvania	2.23
Delaware	2.41
West Virginia	2.62
(rates based on per 100 million miles traveled)

Looking at DUI fatality rates per 100,000 population we have

New Jersey - 1.7
New York - 1.9
Maryland - 2.7
Ohio - 3.0
Pennsylvania - 3.4
Delaware - 4.0
West Virginia - 4.7

I do want you to notice that the 4 states with better than PA's DUI rates all have private liquor sales and the one other control state (WV) has a worse DUI rate.

You could say that having the PLCB is killing more Pennsylvanians than would happen without it..

Let’s talk Turkey

Turkey -- 98% Muslim, a religion that forbids alcohol consumption. By far the lowest per capita alcohol consumption in the EU (Turkey is currently an EU candidate) at 2.7 liters per person aged 15 or older per year. The current population is 74 million people. There are over 200,000 places to buy alcohol beverages (according to Turkey's major newspaper, Hürriyet Daily News), but we'll round that DOWN to 200,000. That gives this relatively abstemious Muslim country a retail outlet for alcohol beverages for every 370 people.

Pennsylvania -- Generally considered Christian in religion; 42% do not claim to belong to any major church. Roman Catholics are the largest religious group, just under 4 million, but there are significant numbers of Protestants who belong to churches that frown on drinking, and some that outright forbid it. Per capita consumption is just under 4 times that of Turkey at 8.2 liters person aged 14 or older per year. The current population is 12.76 million people. There are 600 State Stores, about 1200 beer distributors, and 17,735 active liquor licenses (restaurants, delis, clubs, resorts, hotels, etc., according to the PLCB's own online database), or a total of 19,535. We'll round that up to 20,000, even though many liquor licensees do not exercise the option sell takeout (most restaurants, for example); we also have to recognize that the great majority of these are allowed to sell takeout beer only. That gives this modern, progressive, Western state a retail outlet for alcohol beverages for every 614 people. That's about half as many as in the Muslim country of Turkey (where ALL the stores are privately owned). Makes you wonder how and why Turkey has a lower alcohol death rate and lower DUI rate than PA with all those places to buy alcohol.

In The Public Interest? What are they thinking?

Contrary to what you may think the PLCB isn't all bad. They, along with 34 Happy Valley establishments have put a major dent in the drunken spree known as State Patty's Day and they tried to curb the drinking at Kutztown by limiting hours although that didn't work. 

However, I really can't figure out why the PLCB has extended the hours of some stores for hunting season. Drinking and driving isn't enough we have to add firearms into the mix too?  They really need to explain how making sure that people with guns have increased access to alcohol, courtesy of the state store system, is in the public interest. (Before you climb on your high horse - yes I am a gun owner.)

http://www.finewineandgoodspirits.com/static/pdf/Extension_of_HolidayHours_2013.pdf

A Shot Across the Bow

Time to step things up. I just sent the following to Governor Rendell, Senators Wonderling, Tomlinson (my local senator), Greenleaf, and Rafferty, and Representative Farry (my local rep), cc;'d to the three PLCB Board members. If you feel like it, send them something similar, but don't use my letter; they'll just write it off as kook action. You can get their e-mail addresses (and those of your legislators) easily: here's a list of senators, representatives, and the governor. Have at it.


Gentlemen,

As a Pennsylvania citizen, taxpayer, and native, I strongly believe that the time has come to end the Commonwealth's monopoly on the sale of wine and spirits. This week's reports of a $173,820 consulting contract with Solutions 21 to train State Store clerks and managers "how to greet someone, where to stand, and how to read a customer's cues", and the ensuing concerns over a possible conflict of interest when it was revealed that the head of Solutions 21 is married to one of three PLCB regional managers, put a cap on a building series of questionable decisions by the Board. The people of Pennsylvania deserve better from their state agencies.

But this is almost beside the point. There is no good reason why the State is in the booze business. Approximately 75% of the monies transferred to the general fund from the PLCB are taxes that could just as easily be collected by private businesses, as is done in other states, as is done in Pennsylvania by beer distributors now. The "profits" from the PLCB stores are not insignificant, but it is very likely that any revenue loss from privatization would be more than made up by greater in-state sales when Pennsylvanians ceased going across the borders to buy spirits and wine in other states. There is, after all, a very good reason that there are huge booze superstores right across our borders; people can get the service and selection there that they simply cannot get in the State Stores. Privatization would bring those stores into Pennsylvania, keep those sales and taxes in Pennsylvania, and bring those jobs to Pennsylvania.

It has been argued since Repeal of Prohibition that the Commonwealth's 'control' of liquor and wine sales is in the interests of the citizens, that control serves, in the words of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, "for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose." But all control has proven to be is an inconvenience and annoyance to the citizens. Pennsylvania's record with underage drinking, alcoholism, and drunk driving is not significantly better or worse than neighboring states that have fully privatized wine and spirits sales. The State doesn't sell gasoline, guns, or prescription drugs: why does it sell wine and spirits?

If there is no benefit to the citizens in tax revenue, convenience, satisfaction, or safety, there is no compelling reason to continue with the State-controlled retail (or wholesale) of wine and spirits. Indeed, the State's image suffers from the accusations of favoritism and patronage that dog actions like the Solutions 21 contract and the non-competitive appointment of PLCB CEO Joe Conti.

It has been estimated that privatization would bring the State a windfall of over $1 billion from sale of product stocks and other assets, and the sale of new store licenses (and I would urge the Legislature to set up any new licensing structure to benefit the State rather than the holders of licenses; it angers me, as a taxpayer, every time I hear of a restaurant license sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars that the State should be getting). Even if that's generous, and the windfall is only $500 million, that would go a long way towards plugging the current budget deficit, and tax revenues should increase dramatically. It's a win for almost everyone, excepting current PLCB employees. Some of the windfall could perhaps go for early retirement packages and re-training for the clerks and managers, they could be given preference on other state jobs, and perhaps even low-interest loans to open their own, private stores.

There may never be a better time for privatization to succeed; times such as these favor bold solutions. Pennsylvania could find new jobs and new tax revenues while pleasing the majority of the citizenry. Please consider this in the coming session.

Sincerely,

Lewis Bryson

Reason #14: It Makes No Difference

The Liquor Control Board is a drag. It's a pain to have such a small number of booze outlets, dealing with the state's cumbersome, unfriendly wholesale operation is a hassle for taverns and restaurants, and do I have to remind you: the case law*? If you want a real selection of booze, a big selection, a selection that wasn't made by people in Harrisburg guessing what's best for you (which is apparently a ton of vodkas and Yellowtail), you have to leave the state ("go out of Control," as Carolyn so aptly put it).

You can't get good wine advice, the beer stores are dingy because of the case law (sorry, guys, but they are), and all we can buy at a supermarket/drug store/gas station is Diet Freakin' Pepsi. What's worst, maybe, is the thought that just across the border things are different, things are better: the citizens are treated like adults.

But all this is understandable and bearable, we're told, because the State is keeping us safe, keeping alcoholism under check, by an agency designed...how's The Almighty Liquor Code put it?

for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.

Yeah, that's it. See, they're protecting our welfare, health, peace, and morals. And prohibiting forever the open saloon, whatever the hell that means. So, it's, like, worth it, right?

Whether or not the 'deal' is worth it or not is a question we'll have to postpone, because they're not protecting our welfare, health, peace, and morals, or at least not significantly better than non-Control states do. How do I know this? The PLCB told me.

Reason #14:

The "Control" Part Isn't Working Worth a Damn.

First point: one of the things the PLCB is responsible for is the control of underage drinking. In fact, one of the official responsibilities the PLCB has is to create a report "on High Risk and Underage Drinking" and deliver it to the state General Assembly every two years. This is a result of a change to The Almighty Liquor Code passed in 2006; here's what was added:

Section 217. Biennial Reports.--(a) The board's Bureau of Alcohol Education shall prepare a report on underage alcohol drinking and high risk college alcohol drinking in this Commonwealth.
(b) A report shall be prepared biennially and shall address the following:
(1) Current levels and trends of underage alcohol drinking and high risk college alcohol drinking in this Commonwealth.
(2) Current programs conducted by State agencies to prevent underage alcohol drinking and high risk college alcohol drinking.
(3) Current science that better defines and suggests proven prevention strategies for underage alcohol drinking and high risk college alcohol drinking.
(c) The first report to the General Assembly shall be presented prior to February 1, 2007. Additional reports shall be presented every two years thereafter. [details of who gets the report follow]

The PLCB managed to churn out the first report only 6 weeks late (March 14, 2007), and despite having two years to get their act together, this year's report is already nine days late. Still, they're happy to do it, because according to Board member Tom Goldsmith when the first report finally came out: “The PLCB is proud to lead the fight against underage and high-risk drinking in our commonwealth.”

You would think that with all the control measures the PLCB has put in place to hamper efforts of underage drinkers to get booze -- which also inevitably hamper the efforts of legal-aged drinkers to purchase and enjoy what is, for them, something as legal and proper as groceries -- that the "fight" would be going well, especially compared to those lax bastards across the state borders, where they don't have our morally enlightened measures in place.

You would be wrong. According to figures found in that same PLCB report (which is, by the way, absolutely stuffed with New Dry bumf), college drinking in Pennsylvania takes place at essentially the same rate as it does across the nation. A variety of questions -- have you consumed alcohol in the past year/30 days, did you binge drink, are you aware of drinking around you, do you drink and do the wild thing -- all reveal that students in Pennsylvania are doing...whatever alcohol-related thing you'd care to mention about as often as students anywhere.

Indeed, the report's summary admits it (right on page 10): "When compared to college students across the nation, Pennsylvania students are very similar. Eighty four percent (84%) of students in the nation and Pennsylvania stated they have used alcohol at least once in their life. When it comes to use of alcohol in the past thirty days, Pennsylvania students registered at seventy percent (70%) versus seventy two percent (72%) for the nation." When you consider that there has historically been a higher occurrence of student drinking in the northeastern U.S. -- again, it's right there on page 10 -- the similarity blends to almost unity.

There is one thing. Pennsylvania's younger students, in middle schools, drink at a lower rate than nationally -- bravo, L.C. Bee. But they catch up by junior and senior year.

So what is it that's so great about control?

Second point: if underage drinking isn't the first boozing indicator people look at -- and I happen to think it would be a lot less of a problem if we look the legal drinking age to 18, but that's another story -- they point to drunk driving. It's a serious and real issue, and it affects everyone quite personally, especially if you're on the road on a Saturday night.

Pennsylvania combats drunk driving with a variety of programs. RAMP (Responsible Alcohol Management Program) is the main one. It was created by the PLCB to educate licensees and their employees about alcohol management. The PLCB describes it like this: "RAMP training teaches employees how to serve alcohol responsibly, how to detect fake identification, to not sell alcohol to minors and visibly intoxicated patrons, and to reduce alcohol-related problems at licensee establishments." Good idea, similar to the TIPS program in use across the country, though cynics among us often say that these programs are more about limiting liability than they are about limiting risky drinking. And, of course, there's control. Which is...what, again? The limited number of stores? The half-assed selection? The case law? Are they trying to annoy us into drinking less?

Enough. I'm only making fun of the idea of control because it's clearly not working in the case of drunk driving, either. The latest drunk driving stats I could get are from 2006 and only cover "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities as a percentage of all traffic fatalities -- and I'll be happy to update this if someone can get me better ones -- but the figures are illuminating. Pennsylvania's percentages of "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities sit right at the national average, 37%. The states that border the Commonwealth? New York: 33%. New Jersey: 37%. Delaware: 34%. Maryland: 36%. West Virginia: 38%. Ohio: 37%. Lest you think that every state's about the same, Kentucky's rate is 28%, Wisconsin's is 49%. (I'd like to have stats that show the number of "alcohol-related" accidents and DUI arrests as a percentage of state population; if you find those, please let me know.)

The PLCB should be abolished because it is ineffective at a mission so important to its existence that it is in its name. All this hassle, the ridiculous usurpation of liquor and wine retail by the State, all the moralistic preaching, all the programs, all the enforcement, all the eight foot tall bees (with antenna), all turn out to be no better, no more effective than what they do in other states. Don't tell me about policy projections, show me the numbers. And the numbers say that control is bullshit.

Not to mention...there are plenty of open saloons in Pennsylvania. I'm very disappointed.


*No, of course, I haven't forgotten the case law. I think of it daily. It's definitely a Reason, and I'll get to it soon.