A resounding thud

Well, sometimes you try ideas and they don’t work as well as you’d like. I thought maybe I could provoke discussion with a polling question where a reader actually had to give me their opinion but it didn’t work out nearly as well as I hoped. I only had one other opinion which actually seemed to be the opposite of mine, but one that was quite long and well thought-out. I cut a little bit just to help keep the responder’s anonymity:

Who knows? As best I can tell, without lifting a finger to do research, governments have long found it provident to levy a tax on some or all alcohol transactions. See the Whisky Rebellion of the 1790s which was one of the first challenges to Federal authority.

I think most existing schemes of regulation are rooted in the end of Prohibition and how a smaller, largely more conservative (in morals) society prepared to transition away from bathtub gin and back towards sale of ‘legitimately’ produced alcohol products.

PA has State Stores for wine and liquor sales. Sole source.  Beer is available from licensed retail/wholesale distributors in case lots or keg increments, or from bars in six-pack increments, or other sizes labeled for sale. Bars buy their beer from a distributor…Not sure about the wine coolers. But none of it is sold through grocery stores or 7-11s. The State Stores did improve their offerings over the years, but were pretty much pilloried for unimaginative selections, especially as wine knowledge increased in the population.

The plus to the current local scheme is that the county cashes a check without doing any work. The task of sales is fobbed off onto the Liquor Board. It’s unclear to me if the employees are county employees; if not then they are not a direct burden to county payroll, health care costs or pensions. If so, keep it that way.

The hours and locations of the Dispensaries are not as competitive as private businesses so I think the public is still served, and the county must still be getting its cut from purchases through those outlets. Again, revenue without expenditure.

There are a couple of private spots that offer more extensive selection of wine (Wine Rack in Fruitland) and some comments about a spot on Pemberton (never been there). Presumably, they are getting their stock through/in cooperation with the Dispensary, so it hasn’t seemed to hold them back. Again, revenue without expenditure.

So the squeaking seems to be coming from the bar/restaurant owners on the notion that by cutting the dispensary out of the action they could achieve savings. Possibly.  Let’s be adults here: The savings would go to their bottom line, rather then to lower priced food/beverages. Advantages to consumer – zip.  Advantage to county – zip. Checks coming to county from multiple sources and with need to audit/verify – cost to county.  Caution!!

Cutting out the dispensary might provide an illusory savings to these businesses. The dispensary may currently permit them to purchase in quantities that are smaller than a wholesale distributor would require, i.e. a case of Maker’s Mark vs. a pallet of the same. Dunno. And sending a runner over to pick up a case at the dispensary would be more timely than sending them to Baltimore, or awaiting an emergency delivery from Baltimore.

(snip)

Only gripe I think needs addressed is having liquor commission members getting no-bid contracts for renovations, construction, etc. Looks bad, even if price was competitive.

Conclusion: not really broken, don’t fix, but possibly expand the board or have a designated councilperson as ex-officio member.  Snarky comment: appoint the DA to the board; rumor has it he has some expertise in this area.

While my opinion is more localized because of the nature of events happening here, it also reflects how I feel about government entities in the liquor business as a whole. You may recall I grew up in a “state store” state. 

To that end, I believe that the county should divest itself from this particular instance of dallying in the marketplace. Does it not seem a bit hypocritical for a county (or a state) to profit from liquor sales on the one hand while paying for law enforcement to do its occasional sobriety checkpoints? Moreover, I’m not sure that the practice doesn’t open the governmental entity to liability much as a bar owner could be if he or she continued to serve an obviously drunk patron who later created harm to himself or others in an auto accident.

As far as the local situation, certainly the county makes a little profit from the sale of alcohol and a few low-level jobs are maintained by the practice, but I happen to subscribe to a philosophy that says jobs that can be done in the private sector should be done by the private sector and selling liquor is one of them. Also, regarding a stated concern about underage drinking being encouraged, there’s plenty of checking done by state and local law enforcement to keep sellers in line – besides a well-done fake ID is going to fool a state store employee too. (And don’t you love it when the county blows their own argument out of the water?)

These stores were a response to the repeal of Prohibition where do-gooders didn’t want society to go completely hog wild after the sale of intoxicating drink was once again legalized after a 15 year hiatus. They had their place for a time but I believe their time has passed and we should allow yet another instance where choice and convenience are improved once government steps aside and allows the ingenuity of the private sector to take hold. Besides, regardless of who sells the spirits, the state will get its cut from the taxes levied and in Maryland much of the county’s revenue is a pass-thru from state taxes receipts anyhow.

So while this blogging exercise may not have turned out exactly as envisioned, I stumbled into a pretty good debate on the issue that could promote further discussion. Tonight I may encourage a little more debate from another hot issue.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer. View all posts by Michael