Ripe for real change
Keystone State residents and visitors are always perplexed by our outdated liquor laws. Convoluted and practically impossible to explain, Pennsylvania's system has been the antithesis of consumer choice for more than 80 years.
The Trib made another pitch to finally enact real change with its editorial “Liquor privatization: Now's the time” .
Pennsylvania consumers want a system for purchasing alcohol that gives them the same convenience that is offered in 48 other states. Likewise, businesses that have been shut out of the market for decades are seeking opportunities to provide their customers with access to the products they want at competitive prices.
When the state House last year passed its plan to open the system for selling alcohol to the private sector, the issue gained unprecedented momentum. This was the first major step toward getting the state out of the business of selling liquor and back toward its appropriate role of enforcement. Businesses and consumers must continue this momentum by applauding lawmakers who are advocating for a change and urging media outlets to continue carrying the discussion.
Pennsylvania needs to release its stranglehold on the sale of alcohol. The momentum is here and the time is right; let's embrace this opportunity and finally make a real change.
The writer is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (pachamber.org).
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.
- Blame misdirected
- Progress not reflected
- Voters capable
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Steel at stake, too
- Pedro must go
- Beware this Wolf II
- Reverse red-kettle ban II