The debate about privatizing liquor sales in Pennsylvania is back. I’ve pointed out the absurdity of the state’s liquor laws on this blog before, and I’m all for getting rid of the state stores. Why is The Great State of Pennsylvania in the business of selling booze?
But today, Jonathan Purtle describes the Liqour Control Board as “forward thinking” and “life saving”. He points to evidence that “privatization resulted in a median increase in alcohol sales of 44 percent after municipalities underwent privatization”. Well, maybe. But look at the little cartoon at the top of the story. It depicts an “out-of-state” (ie not in PA) liquor store whose customer base is entirely PA residents.Philadelphians, as it turns out, can get to out-of state liquor stores in 10 minutes! So is it the case that people say “gee liquor was state run before, but now that it’s private I’ll drink more!” or is it the case that, as the cartoon suggests, people were just going out of state before privatization because out of state stores were cheaper and better?
I’d say its probably a bit of both. But the case certainly exists that part of that increase in consumption seen after privatization is really just a shifting back in-state of sales. And then there’s this:
As Gifford Pinchot, who is best known as the father of American conservation, said while serving as governor of Pennsylvania in 1933, the state’s alcohol control system was designed to “discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible.”
Do we really need to continue a nearly century old, clearly punitive policy designed to be a back door attempt at prohibition? Or can we enter the 21st century? People like to drink. People that like to drink are going to do so, whether the state sells them their booze or not.
520 Chestnut 
They just abolished the WA State Liquor Contr Board. I heard someone saying there are huge taxes on the liquor now, for two years or something like that. I haven’t done my research on that but I’m glad I go out for drinks and don’t typically buy liquor. It’s $$$ right now. But totally stupid for the state to be in control so I’m glad things have changed here.
Taxes under the state system here are pretty high, but of course abolishing the LCB doesn’t actually mean they will go down, I think that would have to be a separate measure. At any rate, I buy liquor pretty rarely, but as of now I have to go to three (!) separate places for my wine, liquor and beer. Yea I could buy the wine at the state store but they don’t carry the local wineries. I think that, if the state is going to create itself a monopoly on something, it could at least use it to promote businesses within the state! (it shouldn’t create itself a monopoly to begin with, but that ship sailed)
[…] we please just fucking stop with this […]