Posted on 01/05/2011 10:17:20 AM PST by Kaslin
Last year, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board installed "wine kiosks" in 31 grocery stores. Last month, it shut the machines down for repairs, just in time for the holidays.
The kiosks, a bungled, half-hearted attempt to accommodate consumers who heretofore could buy wine only at government-run stores, encapsulate the dilemma faced by state alcohol monopolies, as cash-strapped legislators consider privatizing them to raise money and cut costs in this year of gaping budget deficits.
To the extent that the state systems resist privatization by becoming more customer-friendly, they undermine their reason for existing, which is to deter alcohol consumption by making it more expensive, less appealing and less convenient.
Pennsylvania is one of 18 states that control the distribution of alcoholic beverages and one of 12 that operate retail stores directly or by contract. These systems, established after the repeal of Prohibition, are expressly designed to make alcohol less accessible -- not just to minors, but to adults who might drink too much.
Joe Conti, chief executive of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), recently told The New York Times that PLCB employees "aren't incentivized to sell." Unlike consumers facing lethargic clerks who can barely be bothered to ring up their purchases, let alone advise them about the best wine to pair with lamb, Conti considers this indifference a virtue.
Yet in the same interview, Conti bragged that the PLCB, which recently decided to raise its "handling fees" by $1.50 or so a bottle, has "modernized some of its 620 stores and expanded their hours." It now has 75 "premium" outlets that Conti claimed are "as good as you would find anywhere in the country." Not only that, but "he hopes to start a pilot project soon to give them names instead of numbers."
Despite Conti's perestroika, Paul Davies, deputy editorial page editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that "most state stores still look and feel like military commissaries," with unhelpful employees, limited selections, poor inventory management and high prices. Fear of privatization, which is supported by incoming Gov. Tom Corbett and incoming state House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, may spur the PLCB to act a little more like a real business, but consumer satisfaction will never be its top priority.
Consider the wine kiosks, which Turzai calls "a silly type of an idea that only a government bureaucracy could come up with." That's literally true, since the machines were invented specifically to satisfy the PLCB's peculiar demands.
Each kiosk holds 1,000 bottles of 53 (count 'em) different wines, which you can buy with a credit card if you swipe your driver's license to prove you are 21 or older, look into a camera monitored by a state employee in Harrisburg to prove you are the person you say you are and breathe into an alcohol sensor to prove you have not been drinking. The machines operate from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and are closed on Sundays and holidays. They charge shoppers a $1 "convenience fee" for the privilege of buying wine at the supermarket, a freedom that residents of most states take for granted.
The states where wine (and beer) can be purchased along with groceries, but nevertheless confine the sale of distilled spirits to government stores, include Virginia, North Carolina and Washington. This year, legislators in all three states are considering abolishing that monopoly, with support from the governor in the first two and possibly in the third, as well.
The opposition to these proposals comes from labor unions representing state liquor store workers, anti-alcohol groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and businesses that profit from the lack of competition. In Washington last year, beer and wine companies were the biggest donors to the campaigns against two unsuccessful ballot initiatives that would have privatized sales of distilled spirits.
What all these special interests have in common is a disdain for consumers -- which is fitting, because that is the inescapable rationale for state alcohol monopolies.
I assume they staff as many people as are needed. The transaction does not happen until it is authorized by the central command center, or whatever they are calling it.
The driver’s licenses have a barcode or magnetic strip on them. The photo of you is stored on the computers from when the photo was taken to print your license. To fake the system, you would have to plant fake data and a fake picture in the central database from the BMV. Then create a barcode to access that data.
Sounds like a lot of work.
It’s a ludicrous system compared to having actual human beings selling wine in person, but I think they have the technical details down. It’s the dispensing of the wine bottles, which vary in size and shape that is causing the trouble now.
Nothing like blaming the murder on the gun, rather than on the one pulling the trigger.
A drivers license shouldn’t give you the right to vote anyway, unless you are a citizen, either born here to American citizen, or naturalized like I was. I wasn’t a citizen when I made my drivers license in October 1967, but I was a legal resident.
I too patronize my local Class VI store here at Fort Jackson SC although the downtown discount stores are occasionally competitive and do have a much larger selection.
But you can’t buy minibottles in SC unless you have a restauranteur license. Dispensed drinks are still verboten (more tax per ounce in a minibottle than a 1.75L).
But it’s so much better here than in PA, which BTW lets you own semiautomatic firearms but you can’t hunt with them.
Because Philadelphia rules PA the way Chicago rules Illinois and Milwaukee rules Wisconsin. Just sayin’.
I hate state (or in my case provincial) controlled liquor agencies. Besides the hassle of having to go to a gov’t liquor store to buy beer, wine or liquor, at whatever hours they deign to operate, my biggest complaint is the lack of selection. In particular, I like some high-end beers from around the world, and I’m limited to whatever the LLBO (Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario) head office decides to bring in - no alternative whatsoever. On occasion they’ve brought in a seasonal offering that I really liked, only to find they had delisted it, after which I could never get it again. They’re a little more accomodating on wine, presumbably because the powerful and connected like their nice wines. What a crappy system.
Yeah, I saw that. Sounds a lot like the private-sector "law enforcement" of the red-light cameras and the like.
I'd be sorely tempted to squeeze some freshly-mixed 5-minute JB Weld into the card-swipe slot. While wearing my "Groucho" nose and glasses, of course.
Ping
(If FR gets back to life.)
Pity the Pennsylvanians who live far from Delaware ping
Here’s oddball. Indiana. You can get hard alcohol and wine and beer at private stores. But the beer CAN’T be sold chilled. You can get cold beer at grocery stores, and cold wines (If they need to be chilled) and at gas stations. But no alcohol at ALL for carryout on Sundays. But bars are open, so lots of drunk driving on Sundays, because you can’t get a six pack and drink at home (unless you stock up). Needless to say there are a lot of sunday “bootleggers” who will sell you a case, for a hefty premium.
Yes, PA is ridiculous — and pointless. I’m a tax refugee from a pricier state but back there the liquor stores were privately owned. Can’t get used to it. If it’s such a vice, where are the state-run tobacconists and bordellos?
Ditto that my FRiend !
Hey, I can’t remember the name right now, but I know of a mail order wine selection service. Pretty sure they’re out of California.
“The opposition to these proposals comes from labor unions representing state liquor store workers....”
State Liquor Store Workers?
This stuff is right out of a George Orwell novel.
Want to bet they don’t ship to PA?
whatizzit? Occam’s razor? The simplest method is usually the best?
apparently these guys haven’t heard of it. don’t assume proper staffing levels, it’ll be more like repressentative sampling, and rubber stamping, and if something bad happens, they have a scapegoat.
in CT you have to show an ID to vote, either a driver’s license, or other government issued ID. I usually show them my pistol permit - just to shake them up. in some state where they’re considering this, the left whines about the poor not being able to afford an ID, even if it’s free.
I, for one wouldn’t mind the purple fingers - asuring that people vote only once.
In TN, I have to show your voters registration card, but to get a voters registration card I had to show my drivers license, I also showed my passport. Then when you go vote, they look it up, and ask you if your address on the card is current
and all liquor stores charged a fee for cold beer, except the singles and qts...
if only we had started using the purple finger method a few decades ago...8^{
ID cards are a good method, although they can be faked. I’ve seen people vote multiple times. that’s why I advocate the purple finger. that way the dems cannot be driving people from place to place, giving them fake ID’s and having them vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.