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.
FWIW, I decided to give up drinking just after ObaMao was sworn in. I saw what kind of taxes it would generate for the nanny state and decided I should do my part to cut it off. I thought it would be a lot harder than it turned out to be, although I drink a lot more soda pop and alcohol-based cough medicines than I used to, LOL!
Pennsylvania requires you to purchase beer in either a 12 pack or case (I can't remember) - instead of singles or a six pack - I wonder how that is considered their way of cutting back on alcohol?
ReneeLynn to aSeattleConservative
Yeah, the state should control what people drink and what they eat! Pfft. I just travel to where I usually buy groceries and get whatever I want. Screw you, PA liquor thugs.
Who said anything about controlling food? All states have liquor laws, are you for abolishing those laws as well?
As far as "screwing me": yet another reason some people shouldn't be given booze and a keyboard.
MortMan to aSeattleConservative
Nothing like blaming the murder on the gun, rather than on the one pulling the trigger.
The last time I checked, the right to keep and bear arms was a God-given Constitutional Right, laws regarding the sale of booze aren't.
Grizzled Bear to aSeattleConservative
Your dizzying logic is on par with the gun control laws.
See the above comment about Constitutional Rights.
John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798, while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Adams similarly explained:
"Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
A religious and virtuous society we no longer are. In fact, I'd describe our society as hedonistic, nihilistic and narcisstic. Return our society to one of Christian values, and I won't be concerned about the sale of liquor.
been_lurking to aSeattleConservative
Has any state run store stopped even one alcoholic from buying alcohol?
You'd have to ask the 12 million alcoholics in America that question. I do know that with convenience comes abuse. While I'm not comparing the consumption of alcohol with abortion (drinking alcohol isn't a sin, getting drunk is), do you think that there were more or less abortions in any 37 year period prior to Roe v Wade?
How does the state run store determine who is an alcoholic?.
Easier access to hard liquor (or any liquor for that matter) would lead an irresponsible person towards alcoholism wouldn't you say?
Your reason for voting as you did is akin to voting for state sold automobiles to reduce the number of speeders.
Comparing the abuse of alcohol with a mode of transportation? Leave it to a Liberaltarian to come up with that comparison.
Clearly you haven't thought through your opinion on the matter very carefully.
If you and your fellow Liberaltarians are that concerned about a post by a conservative from Seattle regarding the sale of hard liquor, then perhaps you should give a closer look at your own lifestyle.
Responsible consumption of an alcoholic beverage isn't sinful (or against the law), using recreational drugs has one purpose: getting hiiiiiiiigh.
Quit lumping a person who responsibly drinks a glass of wine with a heroin user.
Utah only allows 3.2 beer in convenience stores correct?
Oklahoma has some pretty dumb laws. 3.2 beer is all that can be sold cold in convenience and grocery stores. Full strength beer must be sold at room temperature and shipped that way I believe. This prevents us from having Fat Tire among other beers.
Liquor stores are the only ones who can sell full strength beer, wine and liquor. They close at 9 and all day Sundays. Some cities require bars be closed on Sundays as well.
Changing these laws can get no traction because of the liquor store owners association who don’t want the competition or to install refrigerators. I wouldn’t mind having to go to liquor stores to get these things if I could have a cold Fat Tire when I got home from there. Or Yuengling now that it looks like they are expanding to Memphis and points west.
I was absolutely shocked that failed. Of course all those Gov employees voted against it, but they should have been sorely outnumbered by both the left that would assumedly want more access, and the right that want less gov and union involvement.
Because it lost by such a wide margin it leaves me only two possible conclusions. Either there are an awful lot of fundamental religious types hiding in those hills, or the Dem machine screwed up the memo on just how many absentee ballots needed to be fabricated.
I wrote, “Screw you, PA liquor thugs.”
If you want to take that personally you must work for the state. Which is odd considering you are ‘aSeattleConservative’.
The rest of your post? If you want the state telling you what you may or may not but and setting the price, as some sort of device to curb drinking because you don’t like people having a drink, you’re a nanny stater and NOT a conservative.
My condolences, I'm sure you Liberaltarian types are still in mourning over the loss of such an "important" intitiative.
This "fundamental religious type" (who incidentally came out from hiding in the hills years ago), sided with the dems and unions on this intitiative, but for completely different reasons (theirs was financial, mine was social).
Cheers.
I'll say it again for the morally impaired Liberaltarians out there:
Start advocating things such as morality and personal responsibility, and you won't be seeing posts like this from me any longer.
Let me rephrase my point so that it is less subtle:
Alcoholism is not caused by the existence of alcohol. It is caused by the interaction of a specific individual with alcohol.
Making alcohol harder to get for everyone because SOMEONE has a problem for it is the antithesis of personal responsibility. In my view, personal responsibility is a hallmark of conservatism.
Does that clarify my previous remarks?
Now it's an "important" intitiative. and I'm a Libertarian.
LOL!!!
I wasn’t trying to lump a casual drinker with a drug user. I was saying that making the product hard to get doesn’t deter someone from using it. I’m sorry if my comment was too hard for you to understand
Any serious drinker knows how to plan ahead. So having to stop at a special store, as opposed to buying booze at a grocery store is no big deal. In my experience, the selection of booze at supermarkets (in other states) is lacking compared to any PA state store. Supermarkets sell what is popular and that’s it.
And you can buy 6/12 packs in PA, or buy cases. But not in the same kind of store.
They’ve actually got beer for sale in some supermarkets now, but it’s because they have jumped through the legal hoops to establish a “restaurant” in the middle of the store that is a separate legal business. So you can’t buy beer from the supermarket, but you can buy beer from the restaurant in the middle of the supermarket that just happens to be owned by the same parent company as the supermarket.
Really? Convenience has nothing to do with abuse?
“Does that clarify my previous remarks?”
I hate to step in and help you out, since you are obviously intelligent. I recently had liberallism encapsulated for me nicely in a way that is clear even to a liberal.
“Just because somebody wets their pants doesn’t mean we all need to start wearing diapers.”
You know, if it can save but one child . . .
How is that a conservative position on the matter?
What you are saying is that there’s some sort of connection between privitization and the spread of alcoholism.
Better question: Why should there be a monopoly on ANY thing legally sold in the state of Washington? Why is it the business of the taxpayers of the State of Washington to be selling alcohol at retail stores?
I don’t know what it is about the coasts. It’s like a sort of gangrene of the mind has set in on both coasts. California hires Brown back, and we keep Murray, even as the abyss yawns before us on the Pacific.
Convenience has nothing to do with addiction. Convenience has everything to do with USE, not ABUSE.
After all, if you stand next to a woman, she is conveniently near you. Does that mean you will be more or less inclined to abuse her?
Oh - that’s right... Abuse isn’t caused by proximity.
I may very well borrow that analogy!!!
Jesus’ first miracle - turning water into wine to save the family the embarrassment of running out at a wedding feast.
How many of Jesus’ parable’s involved wine?
The Last Supper - Wine was either turned to blood, or used as a metaphor for the blood of Christ.
There is nothing irreligious about alcohol. Self-control, however, is another matter.
One more thing, Jesus refuses to compel us to love Him. We get to choose. If we have a choice when it comes to matters impacting our soul, why should government have the ability to compel us in this case?
Yeah, it’s pretty good. You were headed there, and I just thought I could pass that on to you.
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.