lehighvalleylive.com: Liquor reform 2.0? Bill would change how Pa. grocery stores display and sell beer and wine. https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/ne...ry-stores-display-and-sell-beer-and-wine.html I never thought we would see grocery store sales at all in Pennsylvania. Normalizing them further would be fantastic.
Eliminating the Eatery requirement should increase the number of stores, but I'm not sure I see any advantage to the store in having to train all cashiers to deal with alcohol sales requirements as to ID and amount sold could be a headache that the stores simply don't want. So not sure special register will go away.
From the linked article: “The proposed changes ran into stiff opposition Tuesday from leaders of the union that represents clerks in Pennsylvania’s state-owned liquor stores, as well as the trade association representing traditional beer distributors.” “As he has argued in earlier rounds of the liquor reform debate, Wendell Young IV of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union argued… That was quickly seconded by Arun Patel, operator of a beer distributorship in State College and a vice president of the state’s Malt Beverage Distributors Association,…” The same special interest groups that fought prior changes are at it again. I suppose no surprise there? Hopefully the PA legislators will be responsive to their constituents vs. the unions & business organizations. Cheers!
Well, there have been reforms in the last few years that benefit the consumers (constituents) and were not what the unions or business organizations wanted. I can now go to my local Wegman's supermarket and buy wine and beer and needless to say neither the unions or Retail Beer Distributors are unhappy with this. And you can 'bet a dollar to a donut' that both the unions and Beer Distributor organization fought to keep this from happening. Cheers!
I'm not optomistic here, since not too long ago, but before the modifications that let us buy beer in some grocery stores, there was a lot of public support for the previous governer's idea of privatization, yet the polls at that time also showed that fewer than 20% of the respondents thought it was a issue worth of the legislature spending time on the issues. When constituents send legislators mixed messages...
Polling can be tricky. Perhaps when that poll was taken the constituents thought that passing a budget was a higher priority and they thought the legislators could not walk and chew gum at the same time. Now that we have a passed budget the legislators can 'chew gum'? Cheers!
Yes, Jack, I know polling can be tricky. But back in that day, you and others (including some legislators who favored privatization) were using the first data point without the caveat raised by the 2nd data point to argue that the Legislature was ignoring the desires of their constutents, etc. So my basic point remains. The views of constituents can be mixed and/or confusing. (As for what the constiutents think of their legislators that they themselves elected... )
The Quinipiac poll was the one being cited by those legislators. The second finding or caveat was in that very same poll, apparently unnoticed by those saying that lots of folks favored change.
