The dawning of a new age is upon us. No longer will our neighboring states mock the juvenile ways of our state-regulated liquor sales. Unfortunately, all of this seems to be wishful thinking until the final ruling is made. However, not all hope is lost as Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett acts as the backbone to this proposal, giving it a fighting chance.
For any out of state resident, the issue at hand doesn’t appear to be nearly as exciting as I am making it seem. But the contrary outlook is supported through those native to PA, whom have been inconvenienced by such a senseless law since 1987. Fully aware that in this day and age our judicial system faces much more serious issues, I still firmly believe that the passing of this law would benefit both parties of the sale in a number of ways that the current policy couldn’t match.
Benefits for the buyer
In the event that this revision be approved, convenience of the customer would be the most evident perk of Corbett’s proposal. Rather than having to plan your social night around the beer distributor or state store’s hours of operation, the customer could simply purchase both items at the same establishment, thus eliminating the repetitive round trips those of the legal drinking age often find themselves in. Killing two birds with one stone, if you will. In addition to the convenience factor, consumers living in cities would likely experience cheaper pricing. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8975805. However, it is suggested that those living in less populated regions wouldn’t see any noticeable price difference.
Benefit for the Provider
Being that economics acts as the recurring theme in my blog posts, I have reason to believe that the revision of Act 14 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/hide_-_liquor_control_enforcement/5900 would generate the biggest advantage in favor of those providing the sale. Granted approval of Corbett’s plan, beer and liquor sales would create a whole new market for local grocery and corner stores. State Senator, Bob Mensch, referred to this proposal as a “strictly economic-driven plan”, which he believes the private sector more than capable of handling. In my own opinion, the removal of state-regulated sales presents so many more pros than it does cons, guaranteed to make a positive impact the second it would (hopefully) be taken into action.
Realizing these posts are supposed to embrace somewhat of a neutral stance on the topic of discussion, I take into consideration what potential flaws that could possibly surface from this revision. By expanding the availability of a substance that is known to be so closely monitored, concern for Pennsylvania’s youth begins to rise. Meaning, the establishments recently permitted to sell liquor are now expected to enforce the legal drinking age the same way state stores do now. This creates conflict by way of employees learning how to distinguish a real ID from a fake one, in addition to their prior responsibilities and duties as an employee. Even though this doesn’t seem like worst thing that could go wrong, its still something those opposed to this revision are likely to factor in.
Beyond this fear of endangering Pa’s youth, the only other con likely to result is the cut in sales given to the state. Regardless, I don’t feel like either outcome presents any serious threat. While hoping for the best but expecting the worst, I’m eager to see how much of an impact Governor Tom Corbett can make through his effort.
Governor Corbett: “Liquor License, please” (Insert sassy snap of fingers)