Pennsylvania's the dregs, wine enthusiasts agree in survey rating friendliness
For wine lovers like John Mahood, Pennsylvania's Prohibition-era liquor laws aren't so much obeyed as endured.
When he organizes an event for his wine-tasting group, Grapenuts, he can't charge people for the wine they drink. When he wants to grab a bottle to bring home, he has to be careful which Wine & Spirits Shop he visits to avoid the sparse selection in tiny state stores. When he subscribes to a wine club, he has to give his wife's parents' address in North Carolina, where it's legal to receive wine in the mail — and hope they don't drink it before his next visit.
“Being in Pennsylvania so long, you just get used to the frustration,” said Mahood, 48, of Shadyside, owner of the Garfield marketing firm Imagebox.
State control of wine sales, bans on direct shipping from wineries and retailers to consumers, and the inability of grocery stores to sell wine combine to earn Pennsylvania a failing grade in the American Wine Consumer Coalition's national report on state wine laws.
The report, released on Wednesday, ranks Pennsylvania 48th out of 50 states and Washington. Only Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah fared worse. The report rates states on six criteria, selected through a survey of 1,000 wine enthusiasts: shipping from wineries and retailers to consumers; government control of wine sales; Sunday wine sales; BYOB laws; and whether wine can be sold in grocery stores.
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board leaders declined to comment because they had not reviewed the study, a spokeswoman said. The board reported record revenue and profit on Monday. It took in $2.2 billion in fiscal 2012-13, turning a $128.4 million profit.
Gov. Tom Corbett and leaders of the General Assembly failed to coalesce around any of the proposals introduced this year to privatize the state-owned wine and liquor distribution system, despite opinion polls showing broad public support.
“We don't have any expectation that privatization is going to move in the fall,” said Tom Wark, executive director of the nonprofit wine consumer coalition, a Washington-based group that advocates consumer-friendly wine laws.
The Liquor Control Board's efforts to fulfill consumer demands have met with mixed success. Its former CEO, Joe Conti, resigned in February.
The board came under criticism because of the expensive failure of automated wine kiosks in grocery stores and a Tribune-Review investigation into the marketing of the board's in-house wine brands.
But wine selection at large state stores is varied enough to satisfy connoisseurs like Mahood.
“I'm normally pretty happy with the selection at the better state stores,” said Mahood, who frequents the large store near Whole Foods Market in Shadyside.
Mahood's group wine tastings draw as many as 200 people, with educational events bringing in about 50 people and dinners attracting about 75, he said. But the state's tightly controlled liquor laws prevent him from selling wine to those who show up, forcing him to make deals with restaurants to sell discounted wine for the events or simply give it away.
“It's kind of a workaround. If our organization was trying to be profitable, we just couldn't do it in this state,” Mahood said.
Wark said he's optimistic the Legislature will legalize direct shipping to consumers this year. One bill passed by the state House this year would allow direct shipping from domestic wineries. Wark wants that expanded to include retailers, so consumers can order foreign wines.
But even without that expansion, the domestic shipping bill — as well as just about any effort to update state law — would be an improvement to a system that's so antiquated, it still charges the 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax, Wark said. The tax was levied to help Johnstown rebuild from a 1936 flood.
“That's the weirdest tax I've ever heard of,” Wark said.
Mike Wereschagin is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7900 or email@example.com.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.