Privatizing liquor: The ad is a lie
As Harrisburg once again turns its attention to liquor privatization — and hopefully gets it right this time — the state's liquor store clerks union is out with another outrageous ad premised on the assumption that more choice and convenience in the sale of liquor will kill children.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 reportedly has spent $300,000 on an ad buy denouncing privatization. Featuring two women talking on a park bench, the ad references the experience of North Carolina, where underage drinking-related accidents allegedly contribute to one child's death per week. (Never mind that the citation for this fact makes no link to privatization.)
“It's about greed, pure and simple,” one woman laments.
“Well, it only takes a little bit of greed to kill a child,” says the other.
Unmentioned is that Pennsylvania, despite its Prohibition-era liquor policies, has more alcohol-related traffic deaths involving underage drivers than North Carolina, which privatized its system for beer and wine, writes Bob Dick of the Commonwealth Foundation.
But why should facts get in the way of a union distortion? Or, as Philadelphia magazine opined, “It's the Reefer Madness of booze privatization in Pennsylvania!”
If store clerks are so concerned about the consequences of self-serving “greed,” they should address that which afflicts state unions, which insists that government (i.e., taxpayers) should foot the bill to collect members' dues — which pay for these laughable ads.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
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.
- Sunday pops
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- China’s bank: Obama’s blunder
- The student-loan balloon
- The Box
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances