Share This Page

The truth about liquor control

| Thursday, June 27, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Pennsylvania has held a monopoly on the sale of alcoholic beverages since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Now, 80 years later, the political will apparently exists for the state to get out of the liquor business entirely.

Gov. Corbett has indicated his desire to privatize the industry, and he has the political support in the Senate to do it. The House has already voted in favor of privatization. Not surprisingly, this has some people very worried.

Who? The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents some 5,000 employees who staff Pennsylvania's 600 state-run liquor stores. The union is in the midst of a hard-nosed ad campaign against privatization, claiming that privatization will raise prices and cost the state revenues and jobs.

But they are dead wrong. Worse, they are lying. As any consumer knows, monopolies mean higher prices and worse service. Taxpayers pay twice for state monopolies: in higher prices and in higher taxes.

But these problems pale in comparison to the blatant lies presented in the union's latest ad campaign. This cinematic masterpiece features a little girl at her parents' funeral after they were killed by a fictitious drunken driver. A narrator reassures us: “Thanks to the current laws and the effectiveness of the wine and spirits store employees, Pennsylvania has the lowest death rate associated with alcohol consumption in the nation. Tell your state senator to say no to liquor privatization. We don't want other children to lose their parents.”

Except this is not true. For DUI fatalities per capita, Pennsylvania ranks 18th out of the 50 states. Half of the states with lower DUI fatality rates have privatized liquor markets. None has more stringent alcohol controls. For alcohol-related crash rates, Pennsylvania ranks 26th out of the 50 states. For alcohol-related deaths among minors, Pennsylvania ranks 20th. Again, half of the states with lower alcohol-related deaths exercise no control over their alcohol markets.

Don't take our word for it. Or the union's word. The Mackinac Center has compiled data ( mackinac.org/depts/fpi/alcoholcontrol.aspx) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that show how DUI fatalities, underage drinking, binge drinking and underage binge drinking differ between states that monopolize their alcohol markets and states that privatize their alcohol markets. The data tell a consistent story: Allowing the state to monopolize the alcohol industry doesn't make our roads safer or keep alcohol out of the hands of our teenagers.

What the union really wants is to preserve its exclusive control over a lucrative market. The union does not like competition and will gladly employ deception if doing so preserves its hold over our wallets.

The only group that stands to lose with privatization is the group that is lying to you: the leadership of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. So contact your state senator, but tell him that you are tired of paying for a massive state monopoly whose only contribution is to drain your wallet while lying to you that it is doing so for your own good.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James R. Harrigan is a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

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.