Privatize PLCB

[MarketStEl]

Given that I've said on several occasions that we should turn drugs from a criminal-justice problem into a public-health one, I'm not too sympathetic to the argument implicit in the post immediately upthread, even though there's no denying the negative side effects that would accompany easier access to alcohol.

If that is such a big concern, however, the state could still restrict access without selling the stuff itself through a legal monopoly. Retail liquor stores could be licensed just as bars are now, and the licenses could be limited based on population, just as alcohol-by-the-drink licenses are now. State law could even restrict things like hours of operation or location of stores (e.g., no stores within 200 yards of a church or school).

You could even continue to restrict the importation of alcohol by consumers as current law does. Kansas, a state long known for its intolerance towards alcohol, managed to limit its availability for decades after Prohibition without getting involved directly in its sale through means like these (e.g., liquor stores in the state were small and could not advertise; supermarkets could not sell alcohol even through separate liquor departments, as Missouri allowed).

Privatization of this type would still bring benefits to many areas, such as those more affluent communities that desire greater variety of wine.

[MarketStEl]

The Retail component shows no signs of ever being a monopoly save the consolidation of production and retail into one single entity. the freer beer market is actually diversifying. It's worth noting though that eliminating the retail segment is only part of dismantling the worthless regulatory body known as the PLCB.

Actually, if what a craft brewer told me at a Slow Food fundraiser this past summer is true, the beer market in this state is as diverse as it is in part because of this state's peculiar beer regulations.

By forcing the bulk of beer purchases into case-lot sales from distributors, Pennsylvania enables smaller brewers to make the sales volume they need to sustain operations.

A second provision of state law may be even more important: one that prohibits brewers from buying shelf space from retailers. Apparently, many states lack such a provision, and as a result, the major brewers lock up shelf space that others might probably get in a truly competitive market by paying retailers for it.

desolate-most places would benefit not just wealthy ones, places like middletown might get in town liquor and wine stores. MI hasn't collapsed because markets can sell liquor..it collapsed when the jobs left, justlike camden (not to say all of MI is as bad as camden). Ephrata will also be fine. places like Lancaster will see all sorts of new investment. as seand noted, we already have places like that, so called stop n go's. the basic idea behind the plcb is to make alcohol consumption as expensive and inconvenient as possible. while it does succeed at that, it's ultimate social goal has been a failure. and if people can't drink cheap booze, it's not like there aren't alternatives available round the clock on the street.

I basically agree with this, but note the foregoing before you dismiss the PLCB as completely worthless.

[eldondre]

Actually, if what a craft brewer told me at a Slow Food fundraiser this past summer is true, the beer market in this state is as diverse as it is in part because of this state's peculiar beer regulations.

By forcing the bulk of beer purchases into case-lot sales from distributors, Pennsylvania enables smaller brewers to make the sales volume they need to sustain operations.

A second provision of state law may be even more important: one that prohibits brewers from buying shelf space from retailers. Apparently, many states lack such a provision, and as a result, the major brewers lock up shelf space that others might probably get in a truly competitive market by paying retailers for it.

there are two sides to this. first, the production side where pensylvania is hardly the only place where beer production is diversifying (MI has a lot of great breweries as does WA, OR, CA, ME, NY, WI and places like MD, VA, NC, MA, OH, IN, IL, etc are following suit). . the second is retail. there are two levels of distribution, most distributors have to buy from other distributors who purchas a monopoly on sales of a particular kind of beer. It's also my understanding that bars aren't allowed to simply shop around either (scoats?) and have to go with a state approved supplier (even though technically they should all be state approved). I' also point out that craft brewers very much want six pack sales because people are less inclined to try new beer a case at a time (though distributors have begun weekly tastings to try to get around this)...the big boys want 18 packs approved. you may well be right that product placement is a bi factor and certainly that could still be regulated. OTOH, driving up to ME a few years back I was able to buy a tasty six pack of geary's at a gas station. it also brings up the point, some areas ofthe state may be more concerned with buying beer at a supermarket or sheetz/wawa than having a decent wine store (though I'm sure the state fo the wine scene in PA isn't unrelated to the relativley better position beer enjoys). the PLCB also restricts growth in the state's wineries. I'd argue that things like licenses benefit the wealthy (as they are supposed to). It makes alcohol more expensive with the intent of allowing the "poor" to drink less, though if demand is inelastic, it just takes more of their money. worse, it restricts ownership of them to either wealthy or forces people to take out much larger loans from the banks, making it harder for workers (aka bartenders) to simply go into business themselves. It's also my understanding the process of getting a license is so painful that it makes people wonder whether bureaucracy isn't a Penn word and not french.

[raider.adam]

Just to annoy some in this thread, if this monopoly had formed "naturally" (ie, through market forces) many of you would be railing against state interference with its natural right to do whatever the hell it wanted to.

Most modern free marketers/capitalists support the role of government as a trust buster. Nor has anyone said anything supporting monopolies.

As you said, it was just a post to try to annoy people.

Alcohol is a drug, so you're now deregulating it's sale.

No. We aren't saying the government can't regulate its sale. We are saying we don't want the state selling it.

Your stance implies Pennsylvania should seize all CVS and Rite-Aids and make pharmacies state stores as well.

Do you think Pennsylvania should set up state stores and be the only people allowed to sell tobacco products?

[MarketStEl]

there are two sides to this. first, the production side where pensylvania is hardly the only place where beer production is diversifying (MI has a lot of great breweries as does WA, OR, CA, ME, NY, WI and places like MD, VA, NC, MA, OH, IN, IL, etc are following suit). . the second is retail. there are two levels of distribution, most distributors have to buy from other distributors who purchas a monopoly on sales of a particular kind of beer. It's also my understanding that bars aren't allowed to simply shop around either (scoats?) and have to go with a state approved supplier (even though technically they should all be state approved). I' also point out that craft brewers very much want six pack sales because people are less inclined to try new beer a case at a time (though distributors have begun weekly tastings to try to get around this)...the big boys want 18 packs approved. you may well be right that product placement is a bi factor and certainly that could still be regulated. OTOH, driving up to ME a few years back I was able to buy a tasty six pack of geary's at a gas station. it also brings up the point, some areas ofthe state may be more concerned with buying beer at a supermarket or sheetz/wawa than having a decent wine store (though I'm sure the state fo the wine scene in PA isn't unrelated to the relativley better position beer enjoys). the PLCB also restricts growth in the state's wineries. I'd argue that things like licenses benefit the wealthy (as they are supposed to). It makes alcohol more expensive with the intent of allowing the "poor" to drink less, though if demand is inelastic, it just takes more of their money. worse, it restricts ownership of them to either wealthy or forces people to take out much larger loans from the banks, making it harder for workers (aka bartenders) to simply go into business themselves. It's also my understanding the process of getting a license is so painful that it makes people wonder whether bureaucracy isn't a Penn word and not french.

Please note: My previous post outlining a system by which liquor sales could be privatized yet still controlled should not be taken as an endorsement of the notion.

[jas.]

i'm kinda surprised this thread has gone on this long and no one has linked to lew bryson's blog about abolishing the PLCB: Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished

[eldondre]

Again, yes there would be winners (yupster parties) and losers (north philly now has wholesale cheap vodka 7 days a week)

what a ridiculous, out of touch statement. yeah, yupsters are the only people who drink wine. you seem to have very little grasp of what exists outside the ghetto and center city in the state of Penn. north philly has 24 hour drug markets and run down stop n gos. people who want cheap vodka can buy it in a bar until 2 am and as early as 7 am.

[desolate]

Given that I've said on several occasions that we should turn drugs from a criminal-justice problem into a public-health one, I'm not too sympathetic to the argument implicit in the post immediately upthread, even though there's no denying the negative side effects that would accompany easier access to alcohol.

If that is such a big concern, however, the state could still restrict access without selling the stuff itself through a legal monopoly. Retail liquor stores could be licensed just as bars are now, and the licenses could be limited based on population, just as alcohol-by-the-drink licenses are now. State law could even restrict things like hours of operation or location of stores (e.g., no stores within 200 yards of a church or school).

You could even continue to restrict the importation of alcohol by consumers as current law does. Kansas, a state long known for its intolerance towards alcohol, managed to limit its availability for decades after Prohibition without getting involved directly in its sale through means like these (e.g., liquor stores in the state were small and could not advertise; supermarkets could not sell alcohol even through separate liquor departments, as Missouri allowed).

Privatization of this type would still bring benefits to many areas, such as those more affluent communities that desire greater variety of wine.

Sounds great.


I fear a wholesale abuse of alcoholics like we see in NJ.


Where poor neighborhoods are riddled with liquor stores.

PA is a poor state. I see this as bad overall.

As alcohol is a drug and you're turning it into a free market.

[desolate]

No. We aren't saying the government can't regulate its sale. We are saying we don't want the state selling it.

Your stance implies Pennsylvania should seize all CVS and Rite-Aids and make pharmacies state stores as well.

Do you think Pennsylvania should set up state stores and be the only people allowed to sell tobacco products?

Well would you allow free market sales of weed?

I like the semi-controlled market Market is proposing.


I don't agree with the need for the state to sell directly out of state owned properties with state workers.


I do fear the social impacts of allowing what we see in NJ and other states.

Where there's beer in every single store that sells soda. (NC & VA)

and liquor stores in every ghetto. (states outside PA like LA where they are as prominent in the hood as check cashing)



Alcohol is a drug.

CVS is state controlled y prescriptions.

You wouldn't need a prescription for a case of dirt cheap rum.

[desolate]

what a ridiculous, out of touch statement. yeah, yupsters are the only people who drink wine. you seem to have very little grasp of what exists outside the ghetto and center city in the state of Penn. north philly has 24 hour drug markets and run down stop n gos. people who want cheap vodka can buy it in a bar until 2 am and as early as 7 am.

But we don't have dozens of liquor stores in Philly. We would.

It's a social concern.

Alcohol is a very abusive and crime causing drug. It's not weed.

You will have, much like casinos, people who will abuse the increased access.


and store owners cashing in on these issues.


A bar has much different costs than a store and a bar isn't letting you buy a case.

It's pricing at a bar stops people abusing more than allowing them to acquire whole bottles from the end of thier block.


"After adjustment, persons living in neighborhoods characterized by poorer features of the built environment were up to 150% more likely to report heavy drinking in the last 30 days compared to persons living in neighborhoods characterized by a better built environment."

ScienceDirect - Drug and Alcohol Dependence : The built environment and alcohol consumption in urban neighborhoods


SO they would quickly have better access to alcohol than groceries due to free market and demand.

[eldondre]

Sounds great.
I fear a wholesale abuse of alcoholics like we see in NJ.
Where poor neighborhoods are riddled with liquor stores.
PA is a poor state. I see this as bad overall.

meh. I don't see much logic to your viewpoint, just fear and an anti-alcohol attitude similar to the one that gave us the disaster that was prohibition. PA doesn't have a severe crime problem across the state, even in poor areas. where crime is most rampant is where the illegal drug trade is most heavily concentrated. of course weed should be legal. you shouldn't nee da prescription to buy it. worse, there's no proof that control reduces alcoholism. if anything, it seems to exacerbate it. widespread abuse is cultural, to prevent it, you need to change the culture. there's plenty of control in england, it's plenty expensive, yet there's widespread abuse. there's very little control in Italy and very little abuse, it's not accepted culturally.

As alcohol is a drug and you're turning it into a free market.But we don't have dozens of liquor stores in Philly. We would.

you're view of alcohol is limited. it's like most things, it's healthy for you in moderation, unhealthy in excess. I fail to see how forcing people to buy cases or buy more than they need at liquor stores reduces alcoholism.

Alcohol is a very abusive and crime causing drug. It's not weed.

what? I guess if you mean peeing in the streets or driving but it causes far less crime than drug prohibition or when alcohol was illegal.

You will have, much like casinos, people who will abuse the increased access.

meh. if you really want to get effed up, you'll buy drugs if you're homeless. if you're not, you can go to a bar or a beer deli. I don't see that changing a whole lot just because wine is sold through retail outlets. I've often said in the past, it may be necessary free wine but leave liquor to appease people like you. it woudl still be an improvement over the current system. ..unless you think boone's is somehow worse for you than steel reserve.

A bar has much different costs than a store and a bar isn't letting you buy a case.
It's pricing at a bar stops people abusing more than allowing them to acquire whole bottles from the end of thier block.

you're right, they have to sit there and get hammered. also, as noted, you can still control how many there are, they already do that with bars. not that I necessarily buy your social engineering theories.

SO they would quickly have better access to alcohol than groceries due to free market and demand.
Sounds great.

you can still tax and regulate, you're going way overboard with your antipoor diatribes.

I fear a wholesale abuse of alcoholics like we see in NJ.

never noticed anythign worse than here.

Where poor neighborhoods are riddled with liquor stores.

as opposed to the problems in our neighborhoods? please. most of the country is freer than here and it hasn't collapsed. stop inventing problems which the PLCB hasn't solved.
and what exactly does this mean?

Of the 1355 respondents, 40% reported any alcohol consumption in the past 30 days, and 3% reported more than five drinks in one sitting (heavy drinking) in the past 30 days. Few characteristics of the built environment were associated with any alcohol use in the past 30 days. However, several features of the internal and external built environment were associated with recent heavy drinking. After adjustment, persons living in neighborhoods characterized by poorer features of the built environment were up to 150% more likely to report heavy drinking in the last 30 days compared to persons living in neighborhoods characterized by a better built environment.

it sounds as though they're saying you are 150% more likely to drink heavily if you live in crappy area than if you live in a nice area. that makes a ton of sense. if you are surrounded by abandonment, crime, and poor QOL I'd imagine you are much more likley to sit around and drink heavily (or do drugs) than if you live in a clean, well kept, safe area with nice parks.

[johnnie]

Street view of the beer distributor and state store at 26th and Girard. I see no room for improvement.

26th and girard philadelphia, pa streetview - Google Maps

[ShoshTrvls]

I fail to see a basis for this concern over a proliferation of liquor stores. Just like restaurants need liquor licenses, I'm sure as part of the privatization, liquor stores will need liquor licenses.

IMHO, the best outcome would be for grocery stores to be able to sell liquor as they do in many other states. When that happens, probably 25 - 50% (I'm guessing) of wine and alcohol sales by liquor stores disappears. Less customers of liquor stores means fewer liquor stores overall.

[seand]

In California corner groceries and super markets sell wine, liquor, beer by the six pack. Generally even in rotten neighborhoods, the corner grocery/bodega stores are nicer than stop-n-go's in bad neighborhoods here because of lots of competition and because zoning and operating standards are enforced. A few even carry decent wine. The world does not end and consumers generally get better prices and selection.

[raider.adam]

I don't agree with the need for the state to sell directly out of state owned properties with state workers.

So in other words, you are arguing for the sake of arguing because that is what people have been discussing. Ending the state from selling alcohol. No one said to wipe all the liquor laws off the books.

[gone down south]

Desi -

By your arguments, the protective effect of the PLCB should have ensured that the poorer areas of PA have less alcohol abuse than poorer areas of other states.

This may only be anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a hell of a lot more f'ed up drunks and fields full of empty liquor bottles in North Philly than anywhere else I've been on the East Coast.

[MarketStEl]

In California corner groceries and super markets sell wine, liquor, beer by the six pack. Generally even in rotten neighborhoods, the corner grocery/bodega stores are nicer than stop-n-go's in bad neighborhoods here because of lots of competition and because zoning and operating standards are enforced. A few even carry decent wine. The world does not end and consumers generally get better prices and selection.

I had a great-uncle who owned a small grocery/package store called Berry's Winery in the southern part of Los Angeles County, near 137th Street and Willowbrook Avenue, not that far from Watts.

It sat at the south end of a small business strip, separated from the owner's home by Willowbrook Avenue, which has railroad tracks down its median -- this is now the route of the LA Blue Line light rail.

I first saw the place in 1966, when I visited my relatives in LA with my grandmother. This was the summer after the Watts riots. Every store in that business strip had been torched -- but Berry's Winery was untouched.

Based on what I just saw on Google Street View, the business strip was torn down and replaced with houses (and 137th Street renamed), but the winery survives, in worse shape, under another name.

As far as regulating the sale of alcohol and other drugs is concerned, I can live with some locational restrictions, but in general, I think that control for both it and marijuana (and cocaine as well) should be through the price mechanism. IOW, tax the stuff up the wazoo in order to discourage consumption, as we have gradually done with cigarettes since the 1970s. To handle the spillover effects, devote some of those tax revenues to the additional treatment/rehab/counseling facilities we will need.

[seand]

Private liquore stores aren't all fairyland perfect and poor people have problems with substance abuse generally (some would argue its a self-medicating thing) but the PLCB seems to do both a bad job often on both direct sales of wine and spirits and somehow also a bad job on enforcement of basic statutes on how stop-n-go's are operated. Its like the worst of both worlds. It would not seem to be the case that if their aim is protecting us from ourselves that they are doing a great job of it currently.

[desolate]

meh. I don't see much logic to your viewpoint, just fear and an anti-alcohol attitude similar to the one that gave us the disaster that was prohibition. PA doesn't have a severe crime problem across the state, even in poor areas. where crime is most rampant is where the illegal drug trade is most heavily concentrated. of course weed should be legal. you shouldn't nee da prescription to buy it. worse, there's no proof that control reduces alcoholism. if anything, it seems to exacerbate it. widespread abuse is cultural, to prevent it, you need to change the culture. there's plenty of control in england, it's plenty expensive, yet there's widespread abuse. there's very little control in Italy and very little abuse, it's not accepted culturally.


you're view of alcohol is limited. it's like most things, it's healthy for you in moderation, unhealthy in excess. I fail to see how forcing people to buy cases or buy more than they need at liquor stores reduces alcoholism.

what? I guess if you mean peeing in the streets or driving but it causes far less crime than drug prohibition or when alcohol was illegal.

meh. if you really want to get effed up, you'll buy drugs if you're homeless. if you're not, you can go to a bar or a beer deli. I don't see that changing a whole lot just because wine is sold through retail outlets. I've often said in the past, it may be necessary free wine but leave liquor to appease people like you. it woudl still be an improvement over the current system. ..unless you think boone's is somehow worse for you than steel reserve.


you're right, they have to sit there and get hammered. also, as noted, you can still control how many there are, they already do that with bars. not that I necessarily buy your social engineering theories.





you can still tax and regulate, you're going way overboard with your antipoor diatribes.


never noticed anythign worse than here.


as opposed to the problems in our neighborhoods? please. most of the country is freer than here and it hasn't collapsed. stop inventing problems which the PLCB hasn't solved.
and what exactly does this mean?
it sounds as though they're saying you are 150% more likely to drink heavily if you live in crappy area than if you live in a nice area. that makes a ton of sense. if you are surrounded by abandonment, crime, and poor QOL I'd imagine you are much more likley to sit around and drink heavily (or do drugs) than if you live in a clean, well kept, safe area with nice parks.

As you know I can't respond when you do this (split and all)


I think it's bad the state has a monopoly.


I think it will be much worse when it's not.

I drive in the hood in Jersey at times. I notice a LOT of wine/liquor stores and not much else.

Not even a state funded supermarket in Camden, but dozens of liquor stores.


SO you enjoy a state-funded free market-ignoring supermarket but not wine store?


A very cursory search.

141 Food Stores

41 liquor stores

Camden, NJ

Find and Connect with People for Free on WhitePages



Look, I hate monopolies but this one isn't without cause.


It's a drug. Alcohol isn't used responsibly by anyone all the time.

[desolate]

So,

I think it will cause problems by letting the free market decide who to sell to.


SO I'm all for a controlled licensing system to avoid over saturation of poor areas.

Poor drink to forget the poorness.

PLCB sucks, we all agree.


I'm against blowing it up as they control a deadly substance.

So phase it away with controls.