Why This Isn't Already Done

This is something I just posted on the "Abolish the PLCB - Rewrite The Code!" Facebook group page (a group you're certainly encouraged and welcome to join). A new member was full of righteous rage and wanted to know how to get privatization and said we needed to force Harrisburg to change this. Frankly, I wish we could. But 12 years of writing and editing this blog, and all the activity that went with it, has taught me patience, the patience needed to wear away a stone. Here's what I've learned, here's how it's got to be done.  

For the new readers: I've been trying to push this rock for twelve years. I've been to Harrisburg to attend hearings and lobbying meetings, I've testified before a joint committee of the legislature once, I've made friends with a number of reporters and fed them info and ideas. Some small progress has been made, but...a reality check is needed. This is an uphill fight, although the PLCB's huge failures in the past month are a great opportunity.

Here's why.

I was so spunky back then.

I had a lot of schemes and ideas when I started working on this back in 2008. The tough truth is that there isn't anything that can be done until a MUCH larger number of voters are actively engaged on the issue. And that's not easy, because of a few factors.

1. People are liable to be embarrassed to stand up for their booze rights. "It's only a drink, it's not important." Polls usually show that people are willing to be taxed more for drinks, even though they already are.

2. Many Pennsylvanians just don't know any better. They've never gone out of state to buy booze, so the State Stores' adequacy is all they know.

Dezinformatsiya...UFCW style

3. The other side, largely through the union that represents the State Store clerks, UFCW Chapter 1776, does a great job of shaming anyone who supports privatization: "You're a drunk! You just want more alcohol! This will cost thousands of family-supporting jobs! The PLCB gives MILLIONS to the state, to police, to communities! There are much more important things that need to be done!" And people back off, because that SOUNDS reasonable.

4. There's a LOT of deeply-believed misinformation and ignorance about the situation. That the PLCB is a cash cow (it's not), that it serves us well (with only 600 stores in a state where 5,000 would be average, how can they?), that it's not illegal to buy booze out of state (it absolutely is). People are constantly amazed about the existence of the Johnstown Flood Tax, they believe it's illegal because "it's a tax on a tax" (completely not illegal to do that), without ever realizing the huge layer cake of taxes and fees that boost the shelf price of booze in PA.

5. The PLCB is absolutely brilliant at assessing the threat of privatization, and doing just enough to make people think they're improving, and the threat decreases.

Despite all this, we will have to get millions of them on board, because the Legislature cannot be moved otherwise.

Democratic legislators block-vote against this; in over 10 years, not one has ever broken ranks that I can recall. Republicans from southeast PA are likely to flip-flop on it: they face more pressure from unions here, and from a highly-organized group of beer sellers who'd just as soon see their competition run incompetently. It's a powerful combo. Speaker Turzai has tirelessly campaigned for privatization (he's retiring after this term), but the Senate has balked on it, and Wolf will not sign a full privatization bill. Without Democratic votes, there's no way to override him.

Privatization? No. HELL no.

The courts won't do anything because of the 21st amendment; states have very broad power to regulate alcohol.

The Board itself is, naturally, only interested in preserving the agency. The three members are traditionally appointed 1 each by the legislative GOP, Dems, and the governor, so no real help there.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK is getting fellow citizens involved. Writing letters to newspapers, reminding people how badly the PLCB handled literally everything in this crisis, reposting on Facebook.

Like it says at the top of the blog,

"...there was [in 1997] no overarching passion within the General Assembly, or in the public at large, for privatization. Unless and until there is a general hue and cry, it is very unlikely there will be a privatization initiative that succeeds." -- John E. Jones III, former PLCB chairman

Reason #16: Scary Booze!!!

In Quakertonia, all gasoline and diesel fuel sales are made by the state's Fuel Control Board; kerosene and propane are sold by private businesses (fuel distributors can only sell 55 gallon drums of kerosene and 500 lb. tanks of propane; grill stores can sell 20 lb. grill tanks and five gallon cans of kerosene. No one knows why). Every town of 3,000 people gets a Fuel Shop; the price is the same in every town -- high -- diesel is only available in special stations on the highways, and the sales clerks are only allowed to sell fuel to licensed drivers. Fuel sales are "controlled" by the state because gasoline is highly flammable and the vapors are explosive (and carcinogenic), and because uncontrolled gasoline sales could lead to people driving all over the place (which apparently has no ill effects in neighboring, "uncontrolled" states) and because the taxes are a huge source of revenue.

In New Cornwall, all cigarette and cigar sales are made by the state's Tobacco Control Board; pipe and chewing tobacco are sold by private businesses (leaf shops sell Prince Albert in the can (hee hee!) and 20-packs of Skoal; gas stations can sell bags of Red Man and single cans of Copenhagen. No one knows why). Every town of 3,000 people gets a Smoke Shop; the prices are the same in every town -- high -- cigars are only available in stores in big cities, and the sales clerks are only allowed to sell smokes to 16 year olds and up. Tobacco sales are "controlled" by the state because tobacco is a health hazard (which apparently is no worse in neighboring, "uncontrolled" states than in New Cornwall) and because the taxes are a huge source of revenue.

In Minnewaska, all prescription drugs -- no, wait -- all guns are sold by -- no, hang on, how about all the cars, yeah, the state sells all the cars and you're not allowed to buy cars in another state... and coffee, too. And power tools. And energy drinks. And horny goat weed.

You get the picture. Why is wine and spirits the only retail business the State is in? What makes booze so special?

Reason #16:

There is no convincing reason that wine and spirits should be "controlled" more than anything else.

The basis for "control" is, first of all, over 75 years out of date. It goes back to the idea that drinking, any amount of drinking, was dangerous for anyone, not just alcoholics. More to the point, control of alcohol was more about morals than it was about anything else. Here's what The Almighty Liquor Code says about why the PLCB was founded:

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.

You know what? Back in those days there were all kinds of laws about morality. Depending on the state or town, you could be busted for selling a condom (now they sell 'em in vending machines), stores didn't open on Sundays (even the State Stores are open on Sundays now), you couldn't sell porno through the mail (they give it away on the Internet...), you couldn't even swear on TV. All that went away, and lots of other things from that same kind of thinking, but Pennsylvanians still have to put up with the State selling them booze, and protecting their health, peace, and morals.

Come on! I can buy a can of diesel fuel at the Sunoco station, a bag of fertilizer at the Agway, and The Anarchist Cookbook off Amazon. I can buy a gun (we get constant wrong numbers for a local gunshop), I can buy everything I need to cook up crystal meth (or so they tell me), I can buy a tank of propane, I can buy cigarettes, I can buy an aluminum baseball bat, I have bought long kitchen knives. Compared to this stuff, what is so damned dangerous about a bottle of merlot that the state has to control my access to it?

The entire idea of control is pointless. We do not have border controls; New Jersey's got stores full of whiskey and wine right over there and they don't control me. We can buy a case of 11% beer at the privately-owned distributor. We can go to a bar and drink whatever they have. The only thing "control" does...is make buying booze a pain in the ass.

The PLCB should be abolished because the idea that sales of wine and spirits need to be "controlled" makes no sense when compared to other products: guns, explosives, drugs, tobacco, cars, airplanes, knives, power tools... The State collects taxes on wine and spirits, but it collects taxes on beer, too: through the distributors. The State makes its mark-up on wine and spirits; why not have the State sell everything, then, from groceries to fishing rods? It makes no sense, and if it weren't for the blanket interpretation of the 21st Amendment that states can do whatever they want with alcohol, it would be gone.

Let's get rid of this dinosaur. Is it just about the money? Then make it about the money. Sell it -- make money -- auction off booze store licenses -- make money -- and PA stores will be selling all that booze that the superstores over the border are selling now -- and making money.

There's no real reason not to do it.

If you Read About this Blog in Michael Klein's column in the Inquirer...

Greetings, and thanks for coming by. Let me give you a little navigation help.

• The discussion of the PLCB opening a 'store' in Jose Garces's planned new cafe is down here.
• If you're interested in the controversy over the PLCB's new "charm offensive," designed to teach State Store clerks how to say "hello" and "thank you," you can find that here and here.
• If you'd like to read about the controversy over how the contract for the training in the charm offensive was awarded to a company run by the husband of a high-ranking PLCB manager, that's here (one of my favorite post titles, too), here, and here.

Or you could just roam around, hopefully learning more of my Reasons why the PLCB should be abolished. Cheers, welcome!

And if you haven't seen Klein's column, which includes discussion of the whole Jose Garces/PLCB issue, it's here. Thanks for covering this, Michael!

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.

Reason #13: Who Needs 'Em?

Thank you, Michael Hudson.

Who is Michael Hudson, of Pottstown, PA, and why am I indebted to him? He's a Philadelphia Inquirer reader I've never met, but he wrote the following letter to the Inky's editor that posted today, and goaded me into reviving this sadly moribund blog:

Gov. Rendell's decision to push the state's budget shortfall both down and up the food chain at the same time - i.e., on to local taxpayers and the federal government - reflects the cowardice and poor judgment that are the hallmarks of his administration. Someone is going to hurt the economy by raising taxes, just not good old Ed. The right answer for the state is to cut costs (employees) and sell assets (state liquor system) to balance the budget.

Well, hello Michael! You're my new best friend. Because you've put your finger on the dirty secret the PLCB and the State have been hiding right out in the open for decades.


Reason #13:

We don't need the State Store System to make a lot of money off booze


Let's take a look at just how much that works.

The first screech about privatizing the State Store System is always about how much money -- excuse me, how much revenue it brings to the state. We won't be able to replace that revenue flow, the argument goes, without more taxes, and contrary to popular notion, the Legislature doesn't really like raising taxes: it gets them voted out of office. Interrupts their revenue flow, you know?

Let's take a look at that flow. Here's (actually, they've updated it; that now points to the next year, but it still has these numbers; look under 52 weeks ended June 26, 07) the latest state Auditor General audit of the PLCB and their State Store System operations. There's some interesting stuff here for future posts, but for now, riffle back to page 12 (jump to page 18 in the PDF controls), and feast your eyes on some numbers:

• Right up near the top, the total taxes collected: $336,980,000. That is a buttload of bucks, incoming to the state's operating funds. Yummy revenue stream...
• Jump down a bit, to the total operating expenses: $335,427,000. That, too, is a buttload of bucks, outgoing from the state's operating funds (and please note: it appears that's just the operating costs for The State Store System, not the PLCB's lawyers and administrative staff and enforcement agents and board and CEO.)
• "Operating profit from state stores": $106,352,000. Not bad, but not as big a nut as the taxes, is it?

Pretty much every number south of that on the page wouldn't change if we shut down the SSS tomorrow, except the "Interest income," and the state can invest any money it has for interest, it doesn't need the PLCB to do it (not to mention that the PLCB gets an annual loan from the state's general fund of about $80 million for operating expenses).

There would still be income from license fees and fines, we'd still have to pay for licensing and inspections costs and enforcement costs (the PLCB shoots about $20 million to the PA State Police for that -- out of the total income, that's considered a transfer, not an expense). So the important numbers:

• $336,980,000 coming in from tax collection.
• $335,427,000 in operating expenses.
• $106,352,000 in "operating profit."

Now...I'm not an accountant, I'm a very slapdash "businessman." But it sure as hell looks to me like this is a no-brainer...for shutting down the State Store System tomorrow. If we could turn a key right now that transferred control of every State Store over to private businesses tomorrow -- completely aside from the one-time windfall that those businesses would line up to pay for that privilege, and what we would get for selling off over $185 million in inventory, and the machinery, land, and other assets -- we would still get about $336 million in taxes without any cost -- or liability or risk -- to the State. Because the onus and cost of collecting those taxes would all be on the private businesses, as it already is in states where they run things normally.

That's $336 million free and clear. We don't have to pay anyone to collect it and send it to Harrisburg. We just pass a law that says they have to, put enforcement and inspection clauses in it and hand it over to Department of Revenue to handle with their existing sales tax collection mechanism (with an added widget for collecting the damnable Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax), and whoosh, you got revenue flow.

We have this big state-owned retail store system for collecting taxes from sales we don't need to be making, and all it's netting us is $106 million? A system that is unresponsive to the citizens of the state, a monopoly system that most people who buy booze in the state despise?

The PLCB should be abolished because it costs us money. The operating costs are so high that it's probably one of the major reasons we have so few State Stores: if they opened a reasonable number of stores, the state would be bankrupt. Yet somehow, liquor stores in other states manage to run at a profit, and deliver a constant flow of taxes to the states. If we went all private and sold more licenses, my God, how the money would roll in. Just think of the money we'd make from people no longer crossing state lines to buy booze in states with rational booze retail and real selection! Think of the boon to Pennsylvania's restaurants! Think of the jobs created!

And please, don't lean on the weak reed of "more stores would mean more alcohol abuse!" Prove it, convincingly. There is no definite link between the number, the density of booze stores and the amount of alcohol-related problems. Pennsylvania does not rank particularly low in alcohol problems among the other states; we're about average.

We have private, licensed beer distributors, hobbled though they are by the case law. They work. Selling wine and spirits is so much different?

Reason #12: Show Me The Money

Sorry about the long hiatus. I got side-tracked during August when we were traveling and vacationing, and then September got really busy. One of the two blogs had to take a backseat, and STAG won out. I was thinking about more Reasons, though, and now I’m ready to give them to you. The fight carries on; the Reasons continue to build...and here's the latest.

You may have picked up by now that when it comes to government, I lean heavily libertarian. Shrink government, stay out of other country's affairs, and give citizens the privacy and latitude they deserve. Still, we do need regulations on the alcohol serving and retail industry, just as we need them in other industries. Meat and dairy alone should prove that. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle set off a national furor about the conditions of America’s food supply (not, of course, the furor Sinclair wanted to set off about the miserable working conditions of America’s poor, but that’s unenlightened self-interest for you), and there seems to be a similar, if less frenzied, reaction to the revelations in Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, and the revelations that came out of mad cow disease.

The Almighty Liquor Code does have some consumer-friendly provisions. Bars and restaurants are required to keep the proper tap markers on draft beer (which kind of makes the state’s nebulous growler regs a bit more re-assuring: who needs labels on growlers when you can see the damned thing being filled?); they are also required to break all liquor bottles when they are empty to prevent them being refilled with something cheaper. Yay.

Perhaps the most notably consumer-friendly regulation in The Almighty Liquor Code is the one about keeping beer taps clean. Here it is:

5.51. Cleaning of coils, tap rods and connections.
(a) Coils, tap rods and connections, used in drawing malt or brewed beverages in licensed establishments, shall be thoroughly cleaned at least once every 7 days at the sole expense of the licensee dispensing the beverages on draft. The cleaning of coils, tap rods and connections by one licensee for another licensee is prohibited.
(b) The following methods of cleaning coils, tap rods and connections have been approved by the Board:
(1) Live steam.
(2) Hot water and soda solution, followed by thorough rinsing with hot water.
(3) Another method which thoroughly cleans the coils, tap rods and connections, and leaves them in a sanitary condition. (Okay, actually, this is just stupid, but you get the point.)

5.52. Certificate or record required.
(a) Coils, tap rods and connections may be cleaned for the licensee by a person, other than another licensee, thoroughly equipped to do so by a method enumerated in § 5.51 (relating to cleaning of coils, tap rods and connections). The licensee should obtain from the cleaner a certificate showing the date cleaned, the name of the person by whom cleaned and the method utilized. The certificate shall be kept on file at all times for inspection by the Board.
(b) Coils, tap rods and connections may be cleaned by the licensee himself by a method enumerated in 5.51. The licensee shall maintain and keep a record of the date of each cleaning and the method utilized. This record shall also be kept on file at all times for inspection by the Board.

5.54. Responsibility for condition of equipment.
The licensee has the sole responsibility of maintaining equipment used in dispensing malt or brewed beverages on draft in a clean and sanitary condition. The mere fact that records of licensees indicating that coils, tap rods and connections have been cleaned are no defense to disciplinary action under the law and the provisions of this subchapter if the coils, tap rods or connections are at any time found to be in an insanitary condition.

This is one of the best regs about draft beer in the U.S.; other states either have no regs about it, or point proudly to a requirement to clean lines once a month. We should be proud to live in a state that looks out for their beer drinkers this way.

And we would be, if the state gave a damn about enforcing it.

Reason #12:

Like They Care

Hey, I used to tend bar. I "cleaned" the taps and kept the cleaning log. This consisted of disconnecting the tap from the keg, flushing the line with hot water (as hot as I could stand...or get...or felt like), and shoving a brush up the faucet. Then I’d write the date in the log and sign it...and maybe write in last week’s date, too, and sign that. And when the PLCB Inspector came around (the one time he did in 15 months), all he wanted to see was our inventory and tax paperwork. I asked him if he wanted to see the log (because I actually took it a lot more seriously than I implied above), and he said, "No, that’s okay." Great…*

It’s not just at the retail level, either. I remember walking through a brewery cold room a few years ago with a head brewer. He stopped beside a keg and said, "You know, I could take the cap off and piss in there, and send it out, and I wouldn’t actually be breaking any laws. If I were a farmer, and I did that to a milkcan, they’d throw me in jail!"

So…glass of draft? Or maybe a White Russian instead. Just keep in mind: those open cartons of cream sit in the bar fridge for over a week sometimes…

It shouldn’t really come as such a shock that the PLCB doesn’t spend a lot of time on enforcing laws that protect the consumer’s expectations of good quality booze for their money. After all, what’s their two-fold major mission? Making the state money by selling booze, and protecting the citizens of the state from drinking too much. They’re already protecting us from Demon Rum; why bother to make sure that Demon Rum washed his hands after using the little incubi’s room?

What do they enforce, other than laws about the money? Well, they do enforce laws about nuisance bars – noise violations, public urination, crime, prostitution – and that’s a good thing. The last thing we need is letting freaks take over our bars more than they already have. I blame the dope-ass licensing system enshrined in The Almighty Liquor Code for creating an atmosphere that practically ensures that there will be nuisance bars, but that’s grist for a future Reason, and the PLCB deals with the mess as best they can.

They enforce lewd display laws…’nuff said. They enforce underage drinking laws quite vociferously, although under-21s in the State don’t seem to have any more or less trouble getting booze than in other states. (Funny how that is…) And, of course, they enforce that all-important reg about not having domestic animals on the premises (sorry, Penderyn).

The PLCB should be abolished, and the whole Stalinist State Store System taken down, because it is geared towards nothing more than enforcing laws that benefit the bureaucracy; any benefit to the citizens is indirect. Its useful functions – health regulation, taxation, education, and enforcement – would slot right into state agencies that are already quite competent at those jobs. The few consumer-protection regs on the books are only laxly enforced.

Wouldn’t it be even better if The Almighty Liquor Code were re-written for the benefit of the drinking taxpayers, and focused on making sure we got good quality drinks, in clean and healthy premises? (Er…but not too squeaky clean.) A new Code, streamlined, consumer-friendly, understandable, clear.

And maybe lighten up on the domestic animal thing, so we could bring our dogs to the neighborhood bar if it’s okay with the owner. Because that would be nice.



*Look, don’t get nervous about the quality of your draft beer. Some bars definitely take this very seriously. Some have invested in expensive cleaning hardware (you wouldn’t believe some of this stuff: ultrasonics, force-pumped sponge pellets, light beams…) and the training to use it, others hire accomplished services that come around and clean their lines every week. Keep in mind that cleaning tap lines is expensive. You’re talking about dumping all the beer in the lines between keg and tap, lines that sometimes run more than 30 feet, a loss of beer that quickly adds up when you’re looking at Belgian drafts that run $200 and up for a keg.

But the reason they take it so seriously isn’t because of the regs. They do it because they know that properly maintained draft lines mean properly kept beer that tastes the way it’s supposed to, and that means that discerning customers will return and that means more profit.

Reason #11: It's Your Move

Try to imagine something more frustrating for a licensee, a business owner, than trying, trying honestly and energetically, to do the right thing by The Almighty Liquor Code, only to have the rules change or be re-interpreted, or find out that there's another set of rules you didn't even know about. You'll be crossing your eyes, ready to scream about how you just want to do the right thing if only you could figure out what the right thing is. Hey, that's what lawyers are for, y'know? So pony up, buy one, and go do battle. That's how things get done.

Then you can really lose your mind when your lawyer writes up your paperwork, sends it to Harrisburg, and...
...........

............
..

..... ..

........

...........
........

..........

........................................ nothing happens .....

Reason #11:

Harrisburg Is A Black Hole

I've heard the same story many times from licensees. They've got a perfectly reasonable request, one that's clearly allowed under The Almighty Liquor Code, and they properly make it through channels, and they sit, and sit, and sit waiting for a response. Repeated telephone calls, visits, letters seem to have no effect...and sometimes it just goes too long. An event they needed a special permit for, a beer they tried to get registered -- with the willing assistance of the brewer or importer -- a routine license approval that was the only thing keeping them from opening their doors and doing business...whoops. Sat on the desk too long.

It's an arbitrary time period for these things. Or maybe not; there have been rumors of state legislators using influence to speed up or delay applications. I don't know if any of it's true, but it certainly happens at the federal level -- I used it to get a quicker passport for a sudden business trip a while back -- and what's sauce for the Congressional goose is sure to be sauce for the State Senate gander.

If there has been influence used to speed things up, more power to 'em, anything to push things, but using influence to slow things down? Arrest-worthy. Legislators are public servants, and if they want to serve the public by lighting a fire under some bureaucrat, bully for them. But if you're slowing things down because you've got some squealy New Dry in your district scared of a bar opening on Sunday afternoons, well, sorry, but there's clear law on that in The Almighty Liquor Code: it's legal, get out of the way. And if you're slowing things down to benefit another constituent's business, well, remember what your fifth-grade teacher used to say: "I hope you've got enough of that sweet influence for everyone, Miss Smith."
However, there shouldn't be any influence needed. All that's needed is triage. Some bar wants an exemption to open early once on a Sunday in order to show live Tour de France to patrons? Quick decision, and it ought to be yes: where's the harm? Some restaurant asks for a quick registration on a brand for a new beer they'd like to get for a dinner? That's good for a Pennsylvania business and hurts no one: quick decision, and how much work does it take? (Hint: if it takes too much...your system is screwed, because "brand registration" is just an easy source of money for The State anyway.) Those are quick, clear 'em, just hit 'em with your big "HELL YEAH!" stamp and send 'em back; better yet, do it by freakin' e-mail.

Say there are neighborhood complaints about a nuisance bar: top of the pile, get that crap straightened out. Someone wants to transfer a license: have a set time period for a decision, including public hearings if needed, and stick to it.

We have a PLCB CEO now, right? So why aren't performance standards in place? I hear too many stories from licensees about things sent to Harrisburg and not a word back in weeks or months. These people are not drug dealers, they're business people who want to hire Pennsylvanians.

The PLCB should be abolished because it doesn't even work as well as PENNDOT. Let me tell you: I've lived in six other states, and getting licenses, tags, and titles there was -- every one of them -- a chore, a freaking nightmare. At one point, I told my friends that I was probably going to drop dead in a Maryland DMV line, either from a stroke or old age. Getting things done with driver and vehicle registration is one of the best things Pennsylvania government does, and they do it with a beautiful combination of private business and efficient bureaucracy. Why can't the PLCB learn a lesson?

Handle the paperwork, make the decisions, keep records, and get more things online. It's 2008, fergodssake, and you can't even create an online ordering system that works; Amazon's been doing it for over ten years!

If things take so long because there are so many ambiguities in The Almighty Liquor Code, could you tell us? Then maybe we'd push the legislature to fix it. Things can be efficient and still be fair. But when things are this slow, it's not fair to anyone.

Reason #10: 623 Reasons (wait, make that 596!)

There are approximately 450 liquor stores in Washington, DC, for 581,000 people, in 61 square miles.

There are 627 liquor stores listed in the Chicago phonebook, for 2,869,121 people, in 227 square miles.

There are approximately 2,500 liquor stores in New York state, covering 47,213 square miles of land.

The entire state of Pennsylvania, with a population four times that of Chicago, spread out over 44,820 square miles of land (94% the size of New York), including Philadelphia (the fifth-largest city in the country), has 623* liquor stores. [Update: as of 6/1/2013, there are now only 596 State Stores in Pennsylvania. No one will say why they've closed 27 stores in five years...but it does give me hope.]

Huh?
Reason #10:

We're Seriously Under-served

This is a problem with multiple sources, and multiple effects. It comes from parsimony -- when you're paying for the stores and the employees and the transport of booze to them, you don't want too many cost centers -- it comes from patronage -- more votes, more state employment bucks in the district, and the boonies get the shaft -- but never doubt that the main reason goes back to the Two-Headed Monster: it's about "temperance."

Specifically, it comes down to "control of access." The New Drys, having officially given up on prohibition, have latched on to the idea that fewer booze stores means less drinking. As usual, I think their cause-and-effect thinking is ass-backwards: less drinking means fewer booze stores, that's just capitalism. But they have a point: if they make it as big a pain in the butt as possible to buy booze, people will probably buy less booze. (In Pennsylvania, anyway: there's a reason you see so many PA plates in the parking lots at Delaware and New Jersey booze stores.)

After all, when it comes right down to it, you don't need that many booze stores. The State's got it all figured out, just how many stores is enough...and, obviously, exactly what you need in those stores. Amazing, really, how the market has figured out a completely different number in New York, 4 times as many, but that's the mind power of the PLCB for you. You only need to buy so much booze, so you only need so many stores.

You know, they're right, to a certain extent. I have way more booze than I need. It's because when I get out of State -- "out of Control," as Carolyn so brilliantly put it -- I see stuff I can't get at home (or don't find because the organization and signage is so pathetic) and I buy it. Now...that's probably booze I didn't need. But you know, I don't need 30 different kinds of cheese either, or five different kinds of bacon, or (God help me) 45 different kinds of mustard. But there's no pack of ying-yangs in Harrisburg making that decision for me, and there's no group of commissars on the Susquehanna deciding that Bucks County only needs ten supermarkets.

Why is there one for booze stores?

The PLCB should be abolished because the number of State Stores in Pennsylvania -- as set by the PLCB -- follows no logic, no rhyme or reason, no market demand or niche. It is simply a decision, an arbitrary decision...as is much of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. There is no need for the PLCB -- the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board -- to set limits like this. There is no legislation to limit numbers of gun shops, gas stations, fast food outlets, pet stores, tanning parlors, or supermarkets. Why are there limits on the number of booze stores, who sets those limits, and what arcane formulae do they use to determine them? I suspect the answers to those questions are "Just 'cuz," "us," and "that's all you need." I strongly suspect that.

I don't need a booze store on every corner, to be sure. But I also don't need a State bureaucracy telling me just how many they think I do need, especially when it's a number that's obviously out of whack with the rest of the Union.

*It may be a few more or less: the PLCB has been opening and closing stores recently in some mad rationalizing process. Needless to say, there is no apparent pattern to these openings and closings.

Reason #9: Can I Get A Ruling?

Anyone know about growlers? Growlers are jugs of draft beer, filled and capped at the retailer level (bar, restaurant, club, brewpub), that have become popular since the rise of craft-brewed beer. I've got one in my fridge right now; some Grisette I bought at Sly Fox last week (and very nice: dry, refreshing, kind of like a spicier, brisker saison, just had some with lunch).

I remember buying beer by the pound this way in Kentucky back in the 1980s: bring in your jug (I had a plastic milk jug, cleaned out and dried), have it weighed empty, fill it from the tap of your choice (I got Busch, just for the experience), have it weighed full, and pay the poundage fee on the difference. Brewpubs and the bars and bottleshops that do sell growlers in the Commonwealth generally only fill two sizes, half-gallon and two-liter, which simplifies the pricing.

The devil is in the details. Some places will fill practically anything; my Sly Fox Grisette, for instance, is in a growler clearly labeled as Iron Hill. Some places will not fill anything but their own growlers; not even unlabeled ones. Some compromise by slapping their own label on whatever growler you bring in. Some places insist on "sealing" the screw-on caps with a heat-shrink plastic band or tape; some don't. Some places won't do it. Weyerbacher, for a while, would only fill gallon growlers.

Why all the confusion? Check the Code...I dare ya.

Reason #9:

What to do about growlers?

This is a very small thing, to be sure. Growlers are a tiny little part of a relatively small niche of Pennsylvania's beer sales, which are about as privatized as it gets in the Commonwealth...but even here, the PLCB gets involved. Talk to different brewpub servers and brewers, talk to bar owners, talk to deli license guys, and you'll soon find out that the PLCB has all kinds of rules about growlers.

Or do they? I've been combing the PA Liquor Code for the past week, and I've got a request into the LCB itself. But I can't find any reference to this kind of off-premises sale of draft beer --about labeling, or sealing -- except for this, about containers and packages from the manufacturer which does kind of mention it, in context of sales at breweries and brewpubs:

SECTION 4-440. Sales by manufacturers of malt or brewed beverages; minimum quantities

No manufacturer shall sell any malt or brewed beverages for consumption on the premises where sold, nor sell or deliver any such malt or brewed beverages in other than original containers approved as to capacity by the board, nor in quantities of less than a case or original containers containing sixty-four ounces or more which may be sold separately; nor shall any manufacturer maintain or operate within the Commonwealth any place or places other than the place or places covered by his or its license where malt or brewed beverages are sold or where orders are taken.

As for actual filling and selling... There's language about cleaning the taplines, about putting clear labeling on the tap knobs, about off-premise sales...but nothing about growlers.

Until I hear otherwise from the PLCB, I'm going to have to assume that there is no allowance for growlers in the Code other than that they should be at least 64 oz. That in itself would be fine: why exactly do we need such regulation? The bartender almost always fills the thing right in front of you, so you know what you're getting and labeling would be superfluous (though useful if you were getting multiples: "Licensee shall provide a Sharpie and labels so customer doesn't open the Pilsner instead of the Maibock", now that would be a good law), the cleaning is usually up to you as much as to them.

But the problem is...if there is no law about growlers, what's all this stuff brewers tell me they're hearing from their local enforcement officer? "Interpretation"? Of what? Tea leaves? There is no law to interpret! All you're really doing is selling a big glass (or small glass keg), so there's no regulation needed, but where do these guys get away making stuff up?

The PLCB should be abolished because of the arbitrary nature of the interpretation of the PA Liquor Code, brought on by the density of the Code and the nigh-unrestricted power of the local PLCB enforcement agents. Growlers are harmless sales of beer; any policy on their sale should be left up to the individual licensee.

Common sense in the Code, common sense in its enforcement. That's what's needed.

Photo credit: Adem Tepedelen (thanks to Scott @ East End for permission!) *and I did edit the original post: thanks to Scott again for pointing me to that 64 oz. reference.

Reason #8: The Octopus

You remember the brilliant "winebot" idea? How the PLCB was going to get a contractor to open automated "wine kiosks" in grocery stores? I told you how they were going to use fingerprints and other biometrics to identify you and confirm your age.

Subject...identified...Nate "The Wino" Kraupsberger...of...no fixed address...please wait a minimum of...30 seconds...before handing your purchase to the underage person standing beside you with the cash in...his...hand...thank you for shopping at the Wine Kiosk!

But I missed something, which I just noticed in a Chicago Tribune reprint of a Morning Call story. Check this out.

Union head [Wendell] Young [IV, president of Local 1776 of the Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents state store clerks and assistant managers] said the bottles would be etched at the time of sale with identification numbers that could be traced back to the buyer.

Uh-oh.

Reason #8:

Too Much Information

Like that idea? After all, who needs to register guns when you can register bottles of wine? Once they register the bottles that are being sold in the kiosks, why would they not register every bottle sold in the store? And then...anyone remember the guy in Lebanon, PA, who told his doc he had "a few beers after work" and the doctor dropped a dime on him and had his driver's license suspended, based on a DUI conviction from three decades before?

I testified about the futility of keg registration before a joint committee of the PA legislature back a few years. One of the other people testifying was a guy who'd lost his underage son in a drunk driving accident. He wanted the State to tag every bottle of liquor and wine sold at State Stores, every keg and case sold at beer distributors, on credit or cash, so that any empty could be traced back to when/where/who bought it.

I thought that was crazy at the time -- I still do! -- and the legislators didn't seem wild about it either. But with the wine kiosk thing, it appears that the PLCB doesn't think it's necessary to get legislation to do the identistuff, which is seriously troubling.

But how far off is it now? When I buy booze at the State Store, I use my debit or credit card, and I get a receipt with every bottle listed on it. How do I know that information isn't saved? It may be paranoid to think they save it, but it may be optimistic to think that they don't. And once again, we have no other options.

I'm no conspiracy theorist. But when it comes to not keeping info on what I'm buying, booze-wise, I'll trust the corner booze store before I trust the State. For one thing, if I've got corner booze stores, I can buy at any one I want, and the info doesn't get compiled from the aggregate; if I buy anywhere in PA, that's potentially on my record. For another, there are more ways to opt out of privately-owned data-gathering schemes.

The PLCB should be abolished because granting the State too much information, more information than it needs, is not a good idea in these days of data-mining and info-insecurity. How much booze I buy, what booze I buy, and where I buy it is no one's business but my own...until I start abusing it. I've got nothing to hide, but it's not everyone's business.The PLCB clearly has a mindset that disagrees with that.

This reason may seem a bit whacky, a little hard-shelled. Me, I find the idea of this state agency that doesn't seem to feel that it needs further legislative authorization to start gathering this kind of information about me...troubling. We could write that into law, but it would be easier to just do the right thing: privatize booze sales in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Reason #7: One Problem, Everyone's Problem

Take a look at this story. The PLCB's special order system broke down, and restaurants and taverns have been unable to place weekly booze orders. That specific problem is bad enough, but what makes it worse is the universality of it.

Reason #7:

A Monopoly of Errors

When the PLCB screws something up, it's screwed up for everyone, across the Commonwealth.

When the PLCB "de-lists" something, no one can get it any more.

When the PLCB puts something on "special order" status, that's how everyone has to get it.

When your local State Store has a great set of clerks (or just one real gem), you're well-off; but if it is staffed by wine-ignorant drones, you're simply screwed.

All of these are true because we have no choice. None. The PLCB State Stores are the only legal choice for booze purchases for every Pennsylvania licensee, and unless a citizen goes outside the state to drink, or purchases booze out of state and then drinks it out of state, everything we drink in the way of spirits and wine (excepting always Pennsylvania wines, which may be bought at the vineyard or the vineyard's stores) must come from the State Stores.

If a tavern-owner in some other state is disappointed in the service he gets from his supplier, well, he either gives them specific hell and expects results, or he changes suppliers. If a restaurant owner in some other state wishes to drop a load of bucks to amplify his wine cellar, he can bid on collections at auction. If either one is in Pennsylvania? Forget it. You're dealing with the PLCB, and you cannot switch suppliers, nor can you buy wine from private sources, because the PLCB is a state-owned and state-regulated monopoly, and if you try to get around that monopoly, not only will you find that it's hard to do, it's illegal, and you stand a very good chance of losing your license, your business, and your personal freedom.

Now, there will be those who say, "Exactly. It's the law, and you knew that when you bought the license. Why are you complaining now?" Did you read this? Do you really think it's right that when this sole-source supplier screws up, you have no recourse? That would seem to be a basic right of businesspeople.

The PLCB should be abolished because it is a monopoly, and leaves tavern/restaurant operators, and private citizens, no choices in what is supposed to be a free market economy. We have choices in food purchases, choices in gasoline, in churches, in clothing, in insurance, in banks, even in which hospital emergency room we are taken to...but if the PLCB stops carrying something -- Elijah Craig 12 Year Old bourbon, for instance, a delicious award-winner and a personal favorite -- or puts it on special order status -- Cycles Gladiator Cabernet Sauvignon, for instance, a former special that was quite nice at $10, but is now a 12-bottle minimum order -- that is how it goes and you have no other choice. You cannot walk down the street or drive to the next town: you're hosed across the Commonwealth.

All because Repeal seemed like a bad idea, and because keeping the profits from selling booze seems like such a good one, public good and taxpayer convenience be damned.

Reason #6: the Pennsylvania Legislature

I have to be fair about this; I don't like to, but I have to. The PLCB's constant refrain to criticism -- "We just enforce the rules, we don't make them." -- has a strong underlying validity to it. Yes, there's a certain latitude of interpretation to that enforcement that is sometimes mean-spirited and sometimes mindlessly arbitrary (I've got a story to tell you one of these days that will absolutely curl your hair on that aspect); yes, the PA Liquor Code -- "the rules" -- is positively byzantine in its overwrought complexity; and yes, they are hampered by their duality of mission. But at the base of that, the PLCB can indeed point to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, Title 40 of Pennsylvania law, and claim "We were only following orders."

And whose fault is that?

Reason #6:

The Politicians' Plaything

The Pennsylvania Liquor Code (hereafter referred to as "the Code") is a plaything of various interests in the Pennsylvania legislature. The most recent example of this kind of thinking is the whole Sheetz/Wegmans uproar, in which politicians who are aligned with either the beer distributors or the New Drys say they are contemplating changes to the Code to keep beer out of grocery stores. Now you'll note that nothing has actually happened yet...and you'll also note that the "six-pack bill" is still diddle-fiddling around in committee.

It's been my experience that no changes to the Code are ever simple. I remember that when the Code was changed to allow beer distributors to accept credit cards -- wow! -- I talked to the legislator who introduced the bill. She told me that it was initially one sentence that would be added. By the time everyone was done tacking things on? "Pages," she said.

The legislators appear simultaneously fascinated and terrified by changing the Code. Fascinated, because the State's monopoly power with wine and liquor sales (and yes, "monopoly" power over beer sales, because you cannot sell beer in PA without a state-issued license) gives the legislators such opportunities to reward or punish groups and individuals, or raise oodles of tax revenue (the PLCB, after all, didn't institute or increase the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax). Terrified, because almost anything you do to booze law is going to piss off some constituency.

Sometimes it's not the Legislature, it's the Governor. For reasons unknown (because I'm pretty sure the reasons stated weren't the most important), Governor Rendell suddenly added a highly-paid CEO to the PLCB's towering structure of managing bureaucrats in late 2006, a post that was filled by an out-of-work legislator, apparently with no interview process. The appointment stunk of patronage, and precipitated the resignation of Jonathan Newman, possibly the PLCB's most popular Chairman ever (words that might otherwise never have been strung together in that order...I mean, the mind boggles). It's unclear why the position was needed, but at $100,000+ a year, we've got it to pay for, you and me, taxpayers. Plaything. Patronage source.

And some of the stuff doesn't even make sense. Take a look at this one, for example, a change that was added to the infamous "case law" section of the malt beverage sales part of the Code in 1996:

(1) To salvage one or more salable cases from one or more damaged cases, cartons or packages of malt or brewed beverages, a distributor or importing distributor may repackage consequent to inadvertent damage and sell a case, carton or package of identical units of malt or brewed beverages.
(2) Repackaging is permissible only to the extent made necessary by inadvertent damage. Repackaging not consequent to damage is prohibited.
(3) The term "identical units" as used in this subsection means undamaged bottles or cans of identical brand, package and volume.

So...what this means is that if a distributor dropped a case of Sly Fox Dunkel Lager and a case of Sly Fox Pikeland Pils, for example, and three cans from each case burst, he would be forbidden by law to combine those two cases and sell a mixed case. He would be forced to send them back to the wholesaler. God help him if he were crazy enough to mix the cases on purpose, because, you know, chaos might result.

What drives this kind of meddling, making the requirements of a wholly unloved law even stricter? I don't know, because the legislator who proposed it retired and went into lobbying (for a medical group, so the obvious answer doesn't apply).

What I do know is that the Code has rarely been touched by the legislature with results that made things simpler or better for the consumer...the consumer, of course, better known as the taxpayer, or the voter, or you. The upside of this is that while we are virtually powerless to affect the actions of the bureaucrats at the PLCB, we can do something about the legislators. All that's required is passion. Passion for privatization, passion for simplification, a passion for Pennsylvania's alcohol policy to enter the 21st Century. As it is, we're barely past 1934.

The PLCB should be abolished because the Code would be better off simplified and streamlined, without an entrenched, unneccesary, and expensive bureaucracy to serve as a patronage pit for politicians. Do away with the PLCB: privatize booze sales, put licensing and inspection in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, tax collection in the purview of the Dept. of Revenue (they've got some experience with that), put the anti-alcoholism and underage drinking prevention programs under the Dept. of Health, and fully hand over enforcement to the State Police. Give a re-write of the Code over to a commission that includes interested consumers for a change, and charge them with writing a simpler, more understandable Code.

You'll lose the revenue stream from the mark-up in the State Stores (and we could stand to change the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax to a more reasonable amount (and God knows, a better name)), but you'd make up a lot of it by getting the PLCB payroll and lease payments off the books, and getting more taxes on sales made in PA rather than across the border. Offer early retirement to PLCB employees, bump them up in hiring preference for other state jobs, offer them low/no-interest loans to start their own stores, and, eventually, realize that this was a business that the State should never have been in at all, and that this is not an employment plan.

It would be complicated, and probably messy, but only for a while. More to the point, it would be the right thing to do. There's a feeling of reform in the air in Pennsylvania; why not blow that wind of change through the barroom and liquor store, while we're at it?

Reason #5: For Us, Okay; For You, Forget It

We already discussed how the PLCB has a personality split. One side of the agency wants to sell you booze (gotta make money at the State Store!), the other side wants to control how much you buy and how you drink it. Brilliant idea for a state agency.

But there's another two-sided bedevilment going on at the PLCB. The PLCB always says that they don't make the liquor laws in Pennsylvania, they just enforce them. Yes, that's true...to an extent. Because when they enforce them, they also interpret them. So you'll get interpretations on just what a "case" of beer is, and about how licenses can be apportioned within a county, and ... and what constitutes a State Store, apparently. Because while the PLCB is currently "enforcing" laws that make it illegal to sell beer or liquor at a grocery store, they are also currently considering an "interpretation" that will justify them putting 100 wine vending machines in grocery stores. Really.

Reason #5:

The Liquor Code serves the PLCB, not the citizens of the Commonwealth.

The PLCB is not stupid; not entirely. They see the great opportunities for selling booze in supermarkets; they'd have to be truly blind not t0. The Pennsylvania Liquor code does not allow selling beer in supermarkets (the current fight over supermarket six-pack sales is not really that; it's over whether supermarkets or convenience stores that have restaurant spaces can get a license. I don't see the issue: it's a restaurant that happens to be in a grocery store. Restaurants are eligible to apply for a liquor license. What's the issue?), it limits the retail sale of liquor to State Stores, and limits wine sales to State Stores and Pennsylvania wineries.

But the PLCB wants to get those supermarket wine sales (it doesn't care about beer sales, because it doesn't sell beer). What to do? Someone got a brainstorm: re-define "State Store" to include off-site, remotely-monitored (wait till you hear that explanation), automated self-service wine kiosks. The PLCB wine robots will hold 500 bottles of wine, and the Board wants these automated stands to have measures in place so that no sales will be made to underage or intoxicated people.

How will they do that? Glad you asked. What I understand is that they want you to register to use the kiosks, providing biometric information, like a scan of your fingerprints. Then each kiosk will be remotely monitored -- a person at a remote site will use video and audio links to check you out and make sure you're not drunk before you buy. Because there are a lot of drunks who want to buy bottles of wine in supermarkets, apparently.

Most ludicrous of all, "because the kiosks will be in public settings, 'the PLCB is seeking a solution that prevents the viewing of wines in the wine kiosks by minors.'" (that's from Steve Twedt's article on this in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). Because we'd hate for a kid to see a bottle of wine. And get scared. Or excited. Or aroused. Or, God forbid, educated.

Privately-run, no beer solution, no liquor possibility, a limited selection of "popular choice" wines, and an unfair advantage -- AGAIN -- to the state monopoly. What's okay for them -- by their interpretation -- is one thing. And once again, we're all going to be so happy that we get this smidgen of service, that we'll forget what a ridiculous system this is.

The PLCB should be abolished because the PA Liquor Code engenders ridiculous and bizarre ideas like this. Wine vending kiosks are actually advanced retail technology; does anyone think an agency that can't even bring itself to recommend a particular wine or vintage will be able to handle it?

Do you want to buy wine in the supermarket? Do you want to buy wine from merchants who carry the wine you want to buy, when you want to buy it, and who will be only too happy to assist you to pick a great wine to meet your needs, your liking, your budget? Well, my friends, if you do, the answer is not automated kiosks teleoperated by some computer geek hundreds of miles away, recording your fingerprints and every single bottle of wine you purchase...

It's privatization, doing away with the archaic State Store System and allowing liquor stores to open, do business, and flourish or fail on their merits. If one of them has the bright idea of an automated wine kiosk, great, let them run it. But to have the State do it? Are you kidding?

Reason #4 -- the 18% Emergency Tax

I remember the first time I visited Johnstown. I was driving in from Pittsburgh, and it had been raining heavily. The sky was still gray and threatening, and local streams and creeks were swollen, brim-full. I mentioned this to a Johnstown resident, and his dead-serious response was, "You might not want to talk about that. We're kind of touchy about that."

Say the name, "Johnstown," and people think "flood." The flood they're thinking of was in 1889, a catastrophe caused by a dam failure, but there were other floods in Johnstown, in 1894, 1907, 1924, and 1977. The biggest flood after the 1889 event, though, was the "St. Patrick's Day Flood" in 1936. Damage was extensive, and the State responded with clean-up and recovery aid. The expenditures were covered by a quickly-imposed Emergency Tax of 10% on all wine and liquor sold in the State Stores.

You may have heard that we're still paying this Emergency Tax. Well, that's not really true; we're no longer paying a 10% Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax. Don't be silly; that was over 70 years ago! No, we're paying an 18% Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax for an "emergency" that ended 71 years ago, because the State raised the tax to 15% in 1963 and then again to 18% in 1968. That's some emergency.

Reason #4:

The Ridiculous 72-Year Old Emergency Tax

You may find this hard to believe, so here's the proof, right off "e-TIDES" (PA's Electronic Tax Information and Data Exchange System). You'll see at the bottom of the page that the cite is "Emergency Liquor Sales Tax Act, Act of June 9, 1936." The emergency has been over for 70 years, and of course, the money hasn't gone to the citizens of Johnstown (or...the contractors hired to help the citizens of Johnstown) for many, many years: it goes to the General Fund. It's just money the State is taking from you every time you buy booze.

The Emergency Tax is an amazing thing, kind of the creamy center of a towering cake of taxes Pennsylvanians pay when they buy booze. First, there's the actual cost of the packaged beverage. The federal excise tax is added at the producer/importer level. Then the fun starts. The State imposes its set mark-up (for "profit", which in the case of so-called "control states" is really an additional tax, since it all goes to the State) of 30%. Now put that luscious Emergency Tax in there, adding 18% of the cost, the federal excise tax, and the 30% mark-up onto your bill. Think that's rapacious? Wait, there's more! That's right, folks, now you get to add the 6% State sales tax (7% in Philadelphia County)!

Let's look at that. Say you get a bottle of 100 proof bottled-in-bond bourbon. Cost from producer: $10. Federal excise tax of just about $2.50 (it's a set amount per gallon of 100 proof liquor; that's why we bought bottled-in-bond):$12.50. The State's mark-up of 30% is $3.75: $16.25. Now add the 18% Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax of $2.93 (note that it's more than the federal tax): $19.18. Top it all off with the 6% sales tax you pay on computers, cars, books, pets, toilet paper (whoops -- turns out PA doesn't tax toilet paper; make that kleenex...which, believe it or not, was what I had there originally, and for some reason, changed it)-- $1.15 -- and you get a grand total of $20.33. That is more than twice the cost of the whiskey.

Please note three things. First, there may be some additional charges in there that I've missed: the PLCB's site does not make it easy to get a total breakdown of charges. If I get better data, I'll add it. Second, this is what's called a "regressive tax." As a flat percentage, it hits poorer people harder by taking a proportionally larger part of their income. (Thanks to Grey Lodge Pub owner Mike Scotese for pointing that out.)

Finally, I hope you noticed that the Emergency Tax taxes the tax: you're paying 18% of both the federal excise tax and the State's "mark-up". Of course, the State sales tax then does that too, taxing the Emergency tax, and effectively taxing the federal tax and the State's mark-up twice. It's sweet, what you can do in business when you write the rules.

Is the Emergency Tax higher than other states' booze taxes? It's actually hard to compare state liquor taxes. Many of them (but not all) are imposed on gallons at a set rate, rather than a percentage, so the tax load is actually lower on high-end booze. Not the case in Pennsylvania, where you're expected to pay 18% on $500 bottles of single malt (and that nifty 30% "mark-up," don't forget that).

The Pennsylvania Tourism & Lodging Association has an official position supporting repeal of the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax. They point out that the tax, along with the State's monopoly pricing and minimal bulk discounts, puts Pennsylvania restaurants and bars at a distinct price disadvantage.

I can't realistically expect that the state will repeal the Johnstown Flood Tax and leave us with no excise tax on liquor and wine at all. What I would like to see is something more in line with other states. Something like this:

The PLCB should be abolished so that the current compound tax situation of an artificially imposed state "mark-up" of 30% -- a de facto tax -- plus the ludicrously outdated "Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax" could be replaced by a tax system more in line with neighboring states.

Collecting those taxes could be a lot easier, too...but we've got plenty of Reasons to address that. For now, let's zero in on admitting that the Johnstown Flood Emergency...is over. The emergency is a state legislature with a drinking tax problem.

Reason #3 -- Where's the Beer?

It's always a struggle when I try to explain Pennsylvania's booze-selling "system" to folks from outside the state. We don't have the 3.2 beer dichotomy some states have, or the ridiculous beer taxes they have in the South (your beer taxes are flippin' ridiculous, and you should tell your state legislature to lower them...er, good luck), or a useless keg registration law. What we have are the State Stores, where you have to go if you want to buy wine and liquor (except for buying direct at Pennsylvania wineries), and that's weird enough.

But when I tell them that you have to go to a different store to buy beer, a privately-owned store called a "distributor," and buy it by the case; or go to a bar and buy it by the six-pack (but only two six-packs at a time)... They look at me like I'm nuts.

Hey, guys, it's not me: it's the Pennsylvania Liquor Code that's crazy.

Reason #3:

Beer, wine, and spirits cannot be sold in the same store.

Why don't the State Stores sell beer? It's not that I want them to. I just don't understand why they don't. Of course, I don't understand why beer distributors can't sell wine.

I can guess. I suspect it's because the State didn't want to be in the business of keeping anything refrigerated, which even they must realize has to be done with unpasteurized draft beer. It might have had something to do with the sheer bulk of beer: $500 worth of beer takes up a lot more room than $500 worth of liquor or wine.

Whatever it is, it's as screwy as every other part of the PLCB and the Liquor Code. (Why do we call it "Liquor Code" and Pennsylvania "Liquor" Control Board, anyway? Wine and beer are great, but they're not "liquor." Boobs. Philistines. Know-nothings. But we knew that.) It's arbitrary, it makes no sense. Perfect!

Tell you the truth, I'd like to see a system of privately-owned "package stores," selling all kinds of booze (any way you want it: cases, singles, kegs, cold, warm, whatever), snacks, maybe a deli, booze paraphernalia (glassware, towels, books, magazines, etc.), and maybe lottery tickets and smokes. If that was as common as a drugstore, I wouldn't care if it wasn't in the supermarket. I'd really rather see booze as a specialty store...but I'm just one guy. I think we can all agree that it would make a lot more sense to have wine, beer, and spirits sales all under one roof, whatever that privately-owned and operated roof might be.

This reason really bugs me because it's arbitrary, because there's no reason given. It also has lead to beer being the red-headed stepchild. For example, the State Stores took credit cards for wine and liquor sales for years before beer distributors were allowed to. The vaunted Chairman, John Newman of Sainted Memory, did wonderful things for wine-buyers in the State: beer got the back of his hand, except for Sunday sales at distributors.

The PLCB should be abolished and the Liquor Code rewritten to put all the booze -- spirits, wine, and beer -- where it belongs: in one place, for sale in any quantity, by private businesses.

This one's pretty simple. Which makes it all the more frustrating.

Reason #2 -- The Two-Headed Monster

Mutations occur all the time in nature. Two-headed calves, wingless birds, albino alligators: they're not normal, they're not how things were meant to be, and they rarely survive without being kept alive by human interference.

Kinda like the two-headed monster called the PLCB.

Reason #2:

Buy More Booze! (But Don't Drink It!)

Is it any wonder that the PLCB is such a second-rate purveyor of booze? It's like Wang Chi says in Big Trouble in Little China: "My mind and my spirit are going north and south!" On the one hand, the PLCB is supposed to be making sure that Pennsylvanians don't drink booze in any illegal (or immoral) ways, or drink too much of it, or drink it before they're of legal age, or buy it without paying the full load of taxes. But on the other hand, the PLCB sells all the wine and liquor in the state (except for the small amount sold at Pennsylvania's wineries), and the more they sell, the more money they can give to the state (and insure their continued job survival).

Or, as they put it in the PA Liquor Code:

This act shall be deemed 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 and to prohibit forever the open saloon (can you say "Repeal-era language"?), and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose. ("Liberally construed" means, I assume, that if the local enforcement agent can find a way to hassle you, he will...and more about that in the future.)

and furthermore,

The provisions of this act are intended to create a system for distribution that shall include the fixing of prices for liquor and alcohol and controls placed on prices for malt and brewed beverages, and each of which shall be construed as integral to the preservation of the system, without which system the Commonwealth's control of the sale of liquor and alcohol and malt and brewed beverages and the Commonwealth's promotion of its policy of temperance and responsible conduct with respect to alcoholic beverages would not be possible.

(I would invite all the Christian folks who find a religious bias against booze to consider the contradictions inherent in this situation, specifically in Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Sounds like the quandary of the PLCB, right there in the holy writ.)

What's it gonna be, guys: sell sell sell, or are we putting an end to the scourge of demon rum? I don't think it's fair to ask an agency to do both. It's got to cause strain on the brain. I know it does for me. In politics, in research, this is called conflict of interest (yes, in journalism, too, but let's keep that riveting discussion to other blogs), and this is a direct, no-question-about-it conflict of interest: Buy our booze so we make money for the state, but don't buy booze so the (how'd they put it?) "public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth" are protected.

This conflict of interest is enshrined in statute. The PLCB is tasked with both jobs. It would be like tasking the PA Department of Agriculture with selling a ton more PA-produced cheese and meat and butter while also making them responsible for encouraging Pennsylvanians to eat a healthy diet full of green leafies. We don't do that: the PA Dept. of Health is responsible for that kind of diet recommendation. Besides, a healthy diet can include cheese, meat, and butter; it's the amounts that are the issue... just like alcohol consumption.

So why isn't that "consume alcohol in a responsible manner" job part of the Department of Health? Why isn't enforcement of licensing part of the Department of Revenue? Why don't we leave criminal enforcement to the State Police and local law enforcement instead of running it through the all-too-autonomous Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement and the PLCB's all-too-lazy judges?

There are a number of reasons, but I believe, at the base of it, it goes back to two things. First, Pennsylvania's liquor code is still mired in the era of Prohibition and Repeal, and the same patronizing attitude towards "public morality" that I noted in Reason #1. But second, and just as important, is that the State Store System provides a huge chunk of cash to run an anti-alcohol bureaucracy, something that makes it look like this is all self-funding.

Wrong. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that government revenue is fungible. The money coming into the PLCB coffers could just as easily go to the Department of Health as stay in PLCB hands for anti-alcohol programs; it's an entry in a spreadsheet, not a bag full of cash. Split off those functions -- after first determining whether any of them are worthwhile (this college-focused program actually has some excellent components), or if they're ridiculous anti-alcohol propaganda -- and assign them elsewhere. Then the agency won't be going in two different directions at once.

Even better...split off those functions and do away with the PLCB's retail function altogether, so the State isn't in the booze business.

But that's a topic for another day. For now, let's stick to putting the two-headed monster out of its misery.

The PLCB should be abolished because it is simultaneously responsible for selling legal alcohol beverages, and for discouraging their purchase. The health functions of the agency should be assigned to the Department of Health; the enforcement functions should be divided between the Department of Revenue and the State Police; a greatly overhauled and simplified licensing function could be the job of a much smaller sub-agency at Revenue. Taxation, of course, would be handled by Revenue and the individual privately-owned licensed retail booze outlets.

All of this pre-supposes a complete re-writing of the PA Liquor Code. All I can say is that it's about time...and yes, that's also a topic for another day; quite a few other days, actually.

Reason #1 -- We're Adults

Oh, where to begin?

I knew when I started this that the tough part would be picking the first reason to abolish the PLCB. Should it be the government retail monopoly, or the crap selection, or the loss of revenue to bordering states, or the 18% Emergency Tax, or the lack of service to retail accounts, or the costs of the State Store system, or the licensing system... The list just goes on and on, and they're all terrible.

But when you get down to the root of it, the base cause and source of the problems with the PLCB is that it reeks of the patronizing attitude of do-gooders. We, the itty-bitty wittle citizens of the Commonwealth, just can't handle our liquor -- or wine -- so the State has to do that for us.

Reason #1 on why the PLCB should be abolished:

We deserve to be treated like adults.

Just look at the name of the organization: the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. They are in place to control our access to booze*, to control the price of it, to control where and when we can buy it, to control who makes all the money off the sale of it, to control what kinds of booze we're allowed to have**. The state's Liquor Code even controls our choice to buy booze out of state; although the liquor stores right across the border may be closer, may have better prices, better selections, better service, better stores, we are not allowed to buy booze there and bring it home. If we do, the State will -- if they can -- arrest us, fine us, seize the booze and destroy it.

The PLCB's not Big Brother: it's Daddy.

I've often said, in reference to various liquor laws (but most often Pennsylvania's), all I want is to be treated like an adult. Don't tell me I can't have a beer because it's got a picture of Santa on the label, don't tell me I can't buy booze on a Sunday, don't tell me I can only buy two sixpacks at a time in a bar and no sixpacks in a beer store, and don't tell me that the State has to control the sale of booze because otherwise I'd go crazy with it.

Don't tell me that, because it's pure D horseshit. Maryland doesn't control it, I can buy a bottle of rye whiskey in a drugstore (and I have, by God), and the Free State† seems to have a pleasantly civilized populace. New Jersey doesn't control it, and in the months I spent researching New Jersey Breweries I didn't see any evidence of a state that was drinking itself to ruin.

This is, we're told over and over, a free country. I once heard a priest ask in a July 4th homily "Is any one of us truly free?" and I was so irked I still remember it bitterly. Yes, within the responsibilities I have undertaken and the accountability honor and law require, by my lights I am free. Just the fact that I'm writing this blog, an opinion, openly stated, against the laws of the State, proves that to some degree.

If we're free, how does the State get away with telling us where we can buy booze? What's so dangerous about booze -- compared to other dangerous things like cars, guns, propane, cigarettes, diesel fuel and ammonia fertilizer, power tools, gasoline, and horny goat weed -- that the State forbids private citizens to sell it? It's pure bluenosed patrician elitism, a ludicrous hangover from Prohibition and Repeal, an attitude that should have been washed away years ago.

The PLCB should be abolished because it assumes the citizens of Pennsylvania are incompetent to handle their own affairs: a deadly insult to our honor and intelligence in a democratic nation. We deserve laws about booze that rightly assume adult citizens will drink responsibly, as the majority of drinkers do.

More to come.


*I'm going to refer to liquor and wine where interchangeable as "booze." Usually I refer to beer separately in this blog's context because of the division imposed by the state's two retail regimes, but I'll sometimes use "booze" to refer to all three because I like it better than "alcohol beverages," and a lot better than "alcoholic beverages."

**Note to the PLCB: two of the reasons I started this blog was because you stopped carrying Connemara Irish whiskey, and you stopped carrying Elijah Craig 12 year old in 750 ml bottles. Shouldn't have done that...

†"This nickname originated in an article written by Hamilton Owens, the editor or the Baltimore Sun. In 1923, a Georgia Congressman, William D. Upshaw, attacked Maryland as a traitor to the union because it never passed a State enforcement act supporting Prohibition. Hamilton Owens' article, "The Maryland Free State" was a mocking response to Mr. Upshaw, suggesting that Maryland should secede from the Union before acting to prohibit the sale of liquor. This article was never published but Mr. Owens referred to Maryland as "The Free State" in later editorials."

I love footnotes...