Well, it’s about time. This past Tuesday, June 10, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a statewide smoking ban in most public places. For almost a week though, it was touch and go, with some representatives arguing that a ban would restrict the freedom of Pennsylvania residents.
Maybe now those same lawmakers will tackle our archaic liquor laws, that is, if they’re really worried about our freedom. Forty-five states in this country have laws allowing at least some sales, usually wine and beer, to occur in grocery stores. Not 21st century Pa., we evidently didn’t get the memo about the new millennium and personal responsibility as it relates to freedom.
Any fear that allowing sales in grocery stores will contribute to young people dying in alcohol-related automobile accidents is unfounded. MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, reports that Pa. is ranked 32 in the nation for percentage of auto fatalities related to alcohol, and that’s with restrictive liquor laws.
According to MADD, the relevant factor in preventing alcohol-related deaths is not alcoholic beverages in grocery stores, but legislation and community involvement. MADD works within communities to educate young and old alike, and to strengthen the penalties for driving under the influence. As noted above, with a rank of 36 out of 50 states, Pennsylvania has some way to go to reduce the number of fatalities on the road related to alcohol.
As compared to deaths due to smoking, DUI-related deaths are a small percentage of total preventable deaths. In a brief online search I found that between 2002 and 2003 there were 20,318 deaths due to smoking in Pennsylvania. During that same period there were about 1,100 deaths due to drunken driving. While we should endeavor to reduce deaths from all causes, we should also be consistent about protecting our rights in a supposedly free-market economy.
I could even argue that Pa.’s restrictive liquor laws may increase DUI-related incidents. Consider the greater Milton-Lewisburg area. There are two package good stores and maybe three or four “beer barn” type establishments. Because of state law, a customer seeking only a six-pack of beer must go to a bar. The beer distributors sell by the case.
Isn’t it likely that someone stopping by the bar for a six-pack would see a friend or acquaintance and have a drink or two (or more) before heading home? Besides, the price we pay for that six-pack at a bar is much higher than if we were to purchase the same at a grocery store that could buy greater quantities and pass on special discounts to customers.
What is apparent is the commonwealth’s addiction to alcohol-generated revenue. And that’s the big problem with the current system. Individuals should be involved in commerce, not the state or federal government.
Consider what Thomas Jefferson said about people and government: “We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately.” —Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
Do we really believe that our state’s government ought to decide when, where and how much beer or alcohol its residents may purchase? I don’t think so. The government should be concerned with what its residents do with that alcohol, but not restrict their ability to purchase the same.
Didn’t we learn anything during the era of prohibition?