As opposition escalates to legislation that would privatize Pennsylvania's state-controlled liquor system, a forthcoming report indicates that concerns over the social impact of privatization are misplaced.

Early last month, state Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-Montgomery, said he proposed the privatization legislation in Pennsylvania as a way to raise funds from the sales of the state stores to provide affordable and inexpensive health care to Pennsylvanians.

Since the bill's introduction, opponents have claimed privatization would have serious social impacts, including an increase in alcohol abuse and underage drinking.

However, a Commonwealth Foundation report derails many of the arguments against Wonderling's bill.

The report shows that underage drinkers normally obtain their alcohol through persons of legal drinking age, thereby eliminating the view that the setup of Pennsylvania's liquor system deters underage drinkers from getting alcohol.

Rep. Ron Raymond, R-Delaware, is strongly in favor of keeping the current system, said Marcia Lampman, Raymond's spokeswoman.

"Our liquor control systems help to control underage drinking," Lampman said. "It is our understanding and belief that having a control system reduces our numbers."

Privatization and Control

Despite the concerns raised, Leigh Linhart (senior-psychology) said she doesn't think privatization would increase underage drinking and called Pennsylvania's control system "extremely inconvenient" and "outdated."

"I don't like it," she said. "I would rather be able to get my groceries and get a six-pack at the same time rather than going to four different places for everything I need."

Currently, 18 states, including Pennsylvania, are considered "control" states, meaning the state government controls alcohol products, although the degree of control varies from state to state, said Todd Kohlhepp, communications specialist for the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA).

"It's definitely more regulated than other states," he said, referring to Pennsylvania's system, which controls spirits, wine and fortified wine at both the retail and wholesale levels. Fortified wine has a higher alcohol content than regular wine.

Additionally, many of the other control states do not have the same level of control over their alcohol systems as Pennsylvania. While Michigan is considered a control state, it only controls spirits at the wholesale level and has "private operated package stores" instead of state-operated stores, according to data from the NABCA.

According to the Commonwealth Foundation report, Pennsylvania and Utah are the only two states that "maintain a government-controlled monopoly on liquor sales."

Matt Scates (senior-material science and engineering) said he can purchase beer, liquor and wine at his local grocery store in Maryland. In addition, the stores are open later than Pennsylvania, he said, making it much more convenient.

"I think it's outdated," he said of Pennsylvania's system. "I think the only reason they haven't changed it is because it's a huge source of revenue for the state."

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) operates 621 Wine and Spirits stores throughout Pennsylvania and had a record $1.69 billion in sales from 2006 through 2007. During the same time period, PLCB returned $482 million to the state's general fund.

Wonderling said that despite concerns to the contrary, he doesn't think underage drinking would increase as a result of privatization.

"There is not a relationship between how booze is distributed, even in a public model or private model, and consumption," he said, citing evidence from the Commonwealth Foundation's report.

The report looked at three states -- Iowa, West Virginia and Ohio -- that privatized their liquor systems between the mid-'80s and early '90s. Data from those states, as well as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, show that the rate of alcohol-related driving fatalities, which had been decreasing prior to privatization, continued to decrease afterward. Additionally, both Iowa's and Ohio's rate decreased more than Pennsylvania's for alcohol-related driving fatalities.

The report's overall conclusion states, "The experiences of other states that have previously privatized their liquor store systems do not support the conclusion that privatization increases drunk driving arrests or alcohol-related highway deaths."

The report also states that Pennsylvania could "reap large economic and fiscal benefits from privatization," while at the same time improving customer service and providing residents with a wider selection of beverage options at lower prices than exists currently.

The final report will be released in April or May.

Working for the State

Nick Hays, spokesman for PLCB, e-mailed a statement drafted by the agency's board members, which states, "The public-policy decision regarding government's appropriate role in the sale of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania is a matter for our elected public-policy makers to decide -- the legislature and the governor. Our job at the LCB is not to spend our time and energy and resources trying to sway that debate."

Hays also wrote in an e-mail that one of the strengths of Pennsylvania's system is its employees.

" ... PLCB store employees have no incentive to sell to minors or visibly intoxicated persons. That's because their salaries are set by contract, not determined by sales," he wrote. "In fact, PLCB employees are subject to discipline including dismissal and arrest for selling to a minor. So there's just no reason for them to do it."

However, Wonderling said his bill will require employees to be 21 years old and will institute a zero-tolerance policy along with heavy fines and penalties for selling to underage persons.

Russ Eshleman, a senior lecturer in communications who covered the various attempts at privatizing the state liquor control system at The Philadelphia Inquirer, said he disagrees with the argument that private owners would be more willing to sell to underage persons.

"If you think about this, if I'm a private business person and I own one of these stores, I'm going to be very careful because I don't want to lose my license," he said. "Underage people are getting beer, wine and liquor anyway with this system, so to say that there would be more people getting more of it -- I don't think that's something that would happen."