All of the arguments against retail alcohol reform that are not “wages and benefits at some private liquor stores may be less generous than what state pays” continue to be complete and utter bullshit:
Morganelli opened his remarks with an anecdote about a 19-year-old who lost control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, killing himself and two 18-year-old passengers. The anecdote referenced his experiences as district attorney to prosecute a woman for allowing teenagers to consume alcohol in her home.
Through this anecdote, Morganelli explained his opposition to Corbett’s liquor privatization plan, which he said will lead to an unsafe access to alcohol by young people.
So the moral of this story is..?? Did the woman buy the alcohol at an out-of-state private liquor store? And buying the liquor from one of the state monopoly stores wouldn’t have been served to the kids at home or something?
This is just stupid. The issue of who sold the mom the liquor has no bearing on this anecdote because the teens drank the booze at home, not at the liquor store. And there is no evidence that it would be any less easy for kids to get booze and drink at home if the state monopoly was dissolved.
Via Dawn Melig, the director of law enforcement services for the DUI Association says Morganelli is dead wrong about the connection between DUIs and state monopoly:
When asked about the possibility of longer hours at the state stores increasing DUIs, Greg Geisler told the Reading Eagle, “This isn’t alarming to us at all. If they’re predisposed to drinking and driving, they’re going to do that whether the wine and spirits stores are open or not.”
(Via Nick Field)