Rant: The government control and hyper regulation of adult beverages in Pennsylvania is unconscionable. The idea the citizens of this commonwealth should not sell alcohol for home consumption and should not be able to purchase at the same store they buy the rest of their groceries is crazy. If I throw a dinner party I have to visit the grocery store, the state liquore store and the beer distributor to get everything I need.
Also why force people to buy beer by the case (288 ounces at a time), are they trying to get people to drink more? The beer distributors association isn’t much better. They keep lobbying for the rules to remain the same citing the fact, that given the choice people won’t buy beer by the case, rather people prefer buying a six pack. DUH! You sound like the telegraph companies crying about those dang pesky telephones and how even though people want them they shouldn’t have them.
The Morning Call reports that Rep Beyer is trying to change at least part of Pennsylvania’s archaic regulatory system.
In a statement that smelled suspiciously of fresh hops, Beyer says her bill would level the playing field for distributors by allowing them to sell six-packs.
This is because, she says, the state is nearing that glorious day when it will catch up with the rest of the known universe by not requiring thirsty Pennsylvanians to go to five different places to buy their booze.
“Pennsylvania is moving closer to the day when all of our grocery and convenience stores will be allowed to sell beer by the six pack,” Beyer said, helpfully repeating everything we just told you. “My legislation levels the playing field for our local distributors and will allow these small businesses to remain competitive and thrive in the marketplace.”
Read Michael Nerozzi’s article Bamboozled: Why Government-Run Liquor Stores are Socially and Economically Impractical over at the Commonwealth foundation.
Michael shares some important facts and shatters a few myths:
- Sale of stores would yield 1.7 million
- Taxes from Alcohol sales would yield 350 million annually
- Deregulation actually reduces overall alcohol consumption
- Deregulation does not increase underage drinking
- The increased purchasing power of State run liquor stores does not lower the price
Also go sign the Free the Beer petition sponsored by Sheetz.
Cheers!
No related posts.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Just a few problems with this argument, and I’ve read Michael’s post and disagree with him as well. I think you’ve pulled some stuff from his article and misquoted his arguments in some ways.
a) When dealing with an issue of this importance, the financial aspect should never be the driving argument. Odds are, the stores themselves wouldn’t be sold for that amount as those stores would most likely cease to exist and lose their value. I also don’t think the “convenience to consumers” argument should be an overbearing consideration.
b) The tax issue is a non-issue as the numbers are virtually the same as they are now
c) If deregulation actually decreases consumption (and I’d have to read that study to see how they determined that deregulation was the cause) and prices come down, how does that translate to more money? Less drinking + lower prices = less revenue. Simple math.
d) As for the study, I question any study funded by an organization with an agenda, where that study helps them move their agenda forward. Just the way I am.
e) His article doesn’t state that deregulation decreases underage drinking. Besides, you can’t compare state to state, as those various states may have different rates to begin with, regardless of regulation levels. I’ve seen first hand how grocery stores and other general retailers can have issues because they employ staff under the age of 21.
f) Only a few studies were quoted in that article. Certainly there are other studies that should be considered.