If you had a clean slate, could lay things down the way you think would be best for selling alcohol beverages in Pennsylvania...how would you do it? I heard that question asked recently at a small discussion of the prospects of PLCB privatization, and it gave me pause.
Some things were easy. Would I keep the state-owned stores? Certainly not. Would I ever have the State as the sole wholesaler, with a committee in Harrisburg deciding what would and wouldn't be sold in the state? Don't be ridiculous. Would I keep the police-enforced monopoly, making it illegal for Pennsylvanians to buy a bottle of wine across the river in New Jersey? Not on your life. Would any of us keep the nonsensical case law, or its equally ridiculous corollary, the two sixpack limit at bars? Hell no, done away with, along with "registration"!
But... Would I want anyone who wanted to be able to sell beer, wine, or spirits, by the bottle or by the drink, with no limit other than a small fee and maybe a criminal background check? Should municipalities (of whatever size) be able to control that through zoning? What about BYOB and corkage fees? Would I impose excise taxes? Wholesaler franchise laws, brewery/winery self-distribution, hell, the whole idea of the state-imposed three-tier system: keep it, modify it, or toss it out the window? Honestly, there are things that cause me some head-scratching. I like the idea of no license limitations and a small fee: I've already said that I think licensing limitations lead directly to nuisance bars. But if a majority of people in a town really want to put a limit on the number of licensed bars/restaurants/booze stores, shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their town! Truly, the Devil is in the details.
However...hard as it was for me to answer the question, the pro-PLCB side found it even harder. There are just too many contradictions in the current system to put it forward as the ideal situation with a straight face. Government control of retail? If it's good, why not government control of beer sales? Why not government control of by-the-drink sales? And believe me, no one wants the government controlling that. Can you imagine PLCB clerks as bartenders? The mind boggles. They certainly couldn't call it "the hospitality industry" anymore...
If you grant control, and manage to come up with a cogent argument for it, how on earth do you then task the very same agency with regulation, taxation, and regulation of booze sales with an eye towards -- literally -- controlling how much people drink? Does anyone really think an agency that's supposed to be keeping us from drinking too much, that was created "for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon," (as the Almighty Liquor Code puts it), is the agency that should also be advertising the idea of buying mom a bottle of vodka for Mother's Day?
I've said I wouldn't want to debate President For Life Wendell W. Young IV about privatization -- the man is just too glib a liar -- but it would almost be worth it to sandbag him with that question: if you could wipe away the Pennsylvania Liquor Code and build a new way of doing alcohol beverage retail from zero...would you create the PLCB and the State Store System, the beer distributors and tavern licensing, and the case law? Love to see a pro-PLCB answer to that one that wouldn't have the audience laughing their asses off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I felt once Massachusetts added liquor sales to some grocery stores, that they had a very reasonable system. You buy beer by the glass or buy the pitcher in a bar, along with wine and cocktails. You can buy alcohol by the bottle in some grocery stores and in liquor stores. The only current practice in Pennsylvania that I think should be maintained is the bottle shop, so you can buy a selection of varied beers by the bottle.
If I were to set a drug policy from scratch tobacco would be a schedule 1 drug like heroin and crack and alcohol and cannabis would be sold through a state control system.
Lew, I'll go one step further and suggest no license limit AND no fee. Why not go all the way?
That sounds all great and all but what about the employees? Are you ready to pay for the unemployment for over 6000 employees who will be looking for a job? How bout higher taxes? The PLCB put over 500 million dollars into the general fund last year alone. Where is that money going to come from? The governor has made severe cuts to education and other important programs. With the PLCB stores gone there will have to be even more severe cuts made to programs that are already struggling for funding. What maybe convenient for you at the time might not be in the future. Before you decided the stores must go look at all angles not just the one that benefits you at the current moment.
Anonymous (the latest one), have you not been paying attention? First, there aren't "over 6000 employees" in the State Store System. There are about 3,200 full time employees, and about 1,800 part-timers. Still, 3,200 is a lot, sure. But as I've said: if they're as good as they loudly proclaim they are, the new liquor stores that open up will be hiring. The pay and benefits will likely be less, but the State Store is paying well over the national average; that's part of the reason people question the system. See, the State Store partisans tell us that the system is self-sustaining, and that it doesn't cost us anything, but that's not really true. By overpaying employees, and with its gross inefficiencies, the State Store System is stealing money from the State budget every day, money that could be paying for education, transportation, and the bankrupt pension system.
We're also told that no new jobs will be created, which is simply silly. There are going to be 1200 liquor stores, compared to 605 now. We're told, 'those stores will just be "big box stores" that add shelves of booze and not hire anyone to staff them. Not really; the big box stores have a separate class of license that allows them to sell beer and wine, and that's likely what they'll go for; lower cost, good profit. Doubling the number of liquor stores WILL create jobs, and the State Store employees are experienced. They probably won't be union jobs...and I think that's the real issue for State Store partisans. Well, get to work and organize.
Your other argument is simply silly. The liquor/wine/beer taxes will continue to flow into the General Fund. The State Store "profits" won't, but they're nowhere near as reliable as the taxes. And what we WILL get is the taxes from the sales that are currently going to New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and New York from people like me, who would rather drive twice as far to get better selection and service than at the crappy, sucky, unfriendly State Stores. Even the PLCB admits that amounts to millions of dollars. If I have good alternatives here in PA, I'd LOVE to shop here rather than in NJ.
Like you said, you have to look at all the angles. Here's a fact for you: since Repeal, there have been states that went from "control" to private stores. There have never been states that went the other way. There's a reason for that. I want choice. I want the good service that comes from competition. I want to be like citizens of other states, not stuck with this relic of Prohibition.
Post a Comment