Liquor myths: Union assumptions don’t hold water |

Liquor myths: Union assumptions don’t hold water

The biggest boogeyman created by Pennsylvania’s cabal against liquor-store privatization is that it would lead to increased crime and decreased compliance with the state’s liquor laws. Both claims are unfounded, based on Washington state’s experience since it privatized liquor sales in June 2012.

In July, we noted the Evergreen State’s success with decreased liquor prices, increased sales and a net job gain. But there’s more.

In the first year of privatization, that state’s alcohol-related arrests and DUI accidents both declined, according to the nonpartisan Washington Policy Center’s review of state police data. Even more so was the drop in “minor in possession” cases: from 1,483 between 2008-09 to 777 in 2012-13.

As Jason Mercier writes for the independent research center, “it is clear that private sales did not reverse the overall downward trend (in crime) as opponents feared.”

Pennsylvania’s unionized state store workers also have argued that liquor store compliance — namely, checking IDs — would go out the window under the purview of the private sector. Guess again: Washington State Liquor Control Board’s compliance rates for retailers have averaged over 92 percent; last August, the compliance rate was almost 94 percent, the policy center reports.

The future of Pennsylvania’s liquor sales is privatization. That shouldn’t be hampered by the perpetuation of empty assumptions.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.