Regarding the editorial “Liquor myths: Union assumptions don't hold water” (Nov. 25 and TribLIVE.com): Despite the Trib's best efforts to distort reality, liquor privatization in Washington state has been a disaster for consumers and every single resident of the Evergreen State.
The Trib cites the “nonpartisan” Washington Policy Center, conveniently ignoring that it is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, well known for its blind devotion to a radical right-wing agenda.
The Trib parrots the claim that documented DUIs and other crimes have decreased since privatization in Washington state, but doesn't point out that the state police complement has been cut by 80 troopers. The editorial ignores the fact that Washington state police cite the reduction in staff as the main reason for any reduction in arrests.
Washington has seen a large uptick in liquor thefts and staggering price spikes, leading consumers to flock across the border to liquor-control states Oregon and Idaho for lower prices and better selection. Small businesses have been driven under as big-box retailers use their purchasing power to destroy Main Street businesses.
The Trib needs to come clean with its readers and fess up: It supports privatization because it wants the ad revenue from the liquor industry. It's perfectly OK to have a vested interest. It's not OK to hide behind the First Amendment to protect that interest.
It's time for the Trib to end the crusade against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — a valuable public asset that last year created more than $600 million to benefit all Pennsylvanians.
Anthony M. Helfer
The writer is president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 23 in Canonsburg, which includes state store workers.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.