Call this one step up, half a step back.
As detailed in this morning’s Intelligencer Journal, a Washington County Democratic state legislator has proposed a bill that would permit wine sales in farmer’s markets. But then you read that at least two prominent local wineries, Mount Hope and Nissley, probably wouldn’t do so - because an amendment to the bill would place major restrictions on winesellers:
Before the bill was amended to include farmers markets, wineries had to obtain special permits to sell their products anywhere but on-site or at their own licensed outlets. The special permits were good for up to five consecutive days, and no more than a total of 40 days per year.
Throwing a bone to the neo-prohibitionists? Perhaps. But it makes little sense; as Judith Nissley notes it the piece, “If I went into a market and the market was open two days a week, I still couldn’t be in there for the whole year … I’d need to have a permit for at least 80 days a year.”
Rep. Tim Solobay, the bill’s sponsor, says it still represents a step forward - and that there are “conversations” about getting wine in supermarkets.
But - as if we even need to mention this - all of Lancaster County’s state representatives, save Rep. Mike Sturla, voted against the measure. Farmer’s markets, said Rep. Mike Brubaker, are “ill-equipped” to sell wine:
“Giving free samples of wine at a conventional farm market, especially in Lancaster County, will potentially be problematic for some of the customers,” Brubaker said.
Because, you know, people will get hammered and crash into the stands. Or something.
Said Rep. Katie True: “I never vote in favor of anything to do with alcohol.”
But she, and our other neo-prohibitionist legislators, are going to stand on principle while the rest of the legislature acts in a more realistic fashion.
Alcohol sales - not just wine, but beer - are going to be expanded significantly in Pennsylvania in the coming years. This is, in one respect, out of necessity - expanding those sales will doubtlessly generate more revenue in a state that, like all others, desperately needs it. But our laws are archaic, imposing a burden upon consumers that other states simply do not impose. And that might be reasonable if in fact our laws meant that Pennsylvania had significantly lower rates of alcoholism or drunken driving than other states. As the (conservative) Commonwealth Foundation and the Libertarian Reason Foundation have noted, there is very little difference between states that exert draconian controls - like Pennsylvania - and states that do not.
At the same time, the liquor industry is, as you might guess, interested in increasing its own revenues. The greatest push for the liberalization of beer laws, I’ve been told, is coming from the major breweries like Anheuser-Busch. They know that were Pennsylvania to make beer more widely available - in supermarkets, by the 12- or 6-pack in distributors - they will sell more product. The math is simple.
As time goes on, Pennsylvania’s need for revenue is going to force the state to reconsider a lot of things. Gambling has been one such example; liquor is going to be another. And unless our local legislators have some better idea for generating that revenue, their position on this issue may be motivated by morality. But they do not have a practical leg to stand on.
