PA 'Convenience 2020' plan

This idea still sucks. Seriously separate register for 3 different items really.?? Dumb idea Yet again my State just don't know how to treat beer. Just put the liquor sale tax on any grocery store that carries or want to carry beer, wine and spirit. Get rid of the LCB and the Liquor law and rewrite it the law. Rewrite is much more simpler.

 

What a ridiculously stupid idea. Are they serious? You're going to spend taxpayer money to move your shitty liquor stores from one end of a shopping center to the other? They already have some super markets with separate liquor stores inside (I think the Super Fresh in Blue Bell is like that), and it's not any more convenient. How do they not get this? It's NOT about one-stop shopping for groceries and alcohol. I just want to be able to buy liquor, wine, cases, and six packs at the same goddamn store like every other state in the country!!!

 

While "the case law" and the segmenting of the retail beer market into "case only" distributors and the "2 six-pack max" retailers is unique to PA, lots of other states license beer retailers separately from wine & liquor ones (in other cases, it's beer & wine stores vs. liquor stores) and many have state-owned monopoly liquor stores (aka "Control States" - see the TTB's list here).

That large, populous state just north of you, for one obvious example of the former, where beer is sold in convenience and grocery stores and separately licensed "liquor stores" sell wine and spirits in New York. And to your west, Ohio in a Control State.

 

Giant Eagle made me leave (aka go back out to my car) because I bought 2 sixers and a bomber. I had to come back in and get the bomber on a separate tab.

O wait, I couldn't get the bomber because my wife (who came with the second trip) didn't have her ID and the teller refused to sell.

......This problem obviously would be SOLVED if we had three separate cash registers for everything.

 

There's really no need to correct minor factual inaccuracies in my morning rants.

 

What purpose does having three separate registers serve? Couldn't they just create a different category in the same register if it was for tax purposes or monitoring sales.

 

"Clearly, customers want one-stop shopping and the ability to buy wine, spirits and beer along with their groceries in one trip," said Joe Conti, CEO of the Liquor Control Board.

Speak for yourself. I think that most people want just want something better than the current system, which is FOUR stops:

1. Groceries (and six packs at a very small percentage of PA grocery stores)
2. Singles and six packs of beer (mostly takeout from bars at very high prices compared to most of the rest of the country)
3. Cases (still the strangest alcohol-related law I've ever heard of)
4. Wine and Liquor (also at not very good prices comparatively)

I don't care if 1 is in the mix at all, but having 2-4 all be separate places plus the freaking existence of 3are why I'm so annoyed by the current system. I guess this would be better, but what is the goddam point of separate registers? Who on earth is that "protecting"?

If they're losing money on Wine and Spirits (which is beyond ridiculous since they have a monopoly on goods that almost every adult buys) then just shut the stores down, sell some licenses and collect the taxes on all alcoholic beverages. Also lift the regulations on shipping. You can collect tax on that, too, FFS. Boom: I just turned your deficit into a surplus in 30 seconds.

 

With Whole Foods, Capone's, Beer Yard and Township Line as my go to places, I couldn't be happier. I can get what I want in the format I want. The selection is amazing so let's just keep beer as it is.

 

Has there ever been an explanation of what the "case law" is meant to achieve? It seems to me like it just discourages sampling craft beer and encourages binge drinking.

 

Seems to me that all that is happening is that the State Stores are looking in increase revenue by selling beer without adding any additional convenience... I would fully expect the beer distributors lobby to fight this tooth and nail... Until a PA citizen can buy beer, liquor, and wine in one location in the quantities of their choosing without government interference true convenience will never be acheived... 8 years to acheive a new farcical state is truly laughable...

 

Just wait when Walmart go proactive in selling beers out there stores in PA. The state would welcome them with open arms and hands out for more money. And remember Walmart is the largest employer in PA.

 

While Pinchot created the board, "the case law's" origin dates from a series of liquor laws signed in July, 1935 by Governor George Howard Earle III, a Democrat (later an official in FDR's administration and presumably a Wet). The laws, signed during in the middle of the Depression, seem to have been designed as much to help PA's breweries' market and the brewery workers jobs as a continuation of some aspects of continued Temperance. Pennsylvania had more breweries, post-Repeal, than any other state in the nation - in 1935, there were 107 - 15% of all the breweries in the US (WI was second, with 86).

As soon as the law went into effect, it was challenged in court by the national breweries Schlitz, Pabst and AB - because "...it amounted to a virtual establishment of a monopoly for Pennsylvania breweries..." because "importing distributors" (the only ones able to bring out-of-state beer into PA) were changed different licensing fees and bond rates than other distributors which could buy beer direct from in-state breweries.

The laws also contained a provision that a PA brewery had to be owned by a PA resident (which is why there were no national breweries located in the state, even though it had the strongest brewing heritage in the nation). That part of the law would not be changed until the 1970's when Schaefer built it's huge new brewery outside Allentown (now BBC's) and it wouldn't be until Stroh bought Schaefer in 1980 that a national brewer made PA home.

News reports at the time also included PA officials concern about "bootleg" beer being brought in from out-of-state by retailers who had not paid the PA excise tax of 0.5¢/bottle. Limiting the number of retailers and putting them under state licenses (rather than local as had been done previously) was said to be a way to control that problem.

The pre-craft era brewers in PA have always supported and even taken credit for the "case law". To quote the PA. State Brewers Association president in 1980 (Brewers Digest, 10/80), in a speech entitled Why Pennsylvania Has Eight Breweries ...."We do have good laws...favorable laws". He went on to say that the earliest members of the PSBA were responsible for writing the liquor code after Repeal which "protected the brewers". He also noted then that they'd fought and won the battle to "...keep beer out of grocery stores".

According to Dick Yuengling, the unique distribution system in Pennsylvania was a big factor in the company's survival. "Direct case sales though retail-distributors kept us going," he says. "It gave us a chance at keeping the national brands on a even playing field. They couldn't just come in and drop prices like they did in other states. The 16-oz. returnable was also a big package in this state, and the big guys didn't want to bother with it. That package kept a lot of small breweries alive."

One aspect of the "case law" that is often overlooked is that when it went into effect, there were no "sixpack" or "12 packs" - bottled beer came in wooden cases of 24 bottles, and when sold in smaller quantities it was as single bottles. The language of the law at the time reflected that and was not uncommon in other states. When brewers created other packages it appears that most states changed their laws to reflect that but PA's brewers and distributors were strong enough politically to prevent it. Still, the limit for bars/take-out shops have gone up over the years - from 72 oz. originally, to 144 oz. in '49 and again when 16 oz. bottles became popular in state to it's current 192 oz. (The definition of "case" has also been changed over the years to allow for 12-quart bottle and 24-7 oz. "pony" bottle cases).

 

blah blah keep buying my 6-packs out of state, ok got it.

Personally, I love the no 3 sixer rule. I love getting in line behind someone who doesnt know about it. They'll have 3 six-packs, maybe a bomber, and something else. They will go to pay and the cashier will explain to them that they can only buy 2 at a time. The buyer will think its some kind of joke and/or think the cashier is a moron and sit there and argue about it. The cashier will not be able to explain why this is the case, just - rules is rules. So buyer dood will get pissed, leave to take 2 of the sixers out to the car, then come back and buy 2 more items and leave the 5th thing sitting on the counter because they dont feel like going out to their car again. Meanwhile, everyone in line gets highly annoyed waiting for this guy. Dood leaves pissed (probably thinks its a store policy), i leave pissed, everyone else in line is pissed.. cashier hates her job, and is pissed.

 

As I understand it, the limit per transaction is 192 oz., or two 6-packs and a 4-pack. So two 6-packs and a 25.4 oz bottle are ok for a single trip through line, as are two six packs and two 22 oz. bombers. I'm really not sure why anyone wouldn't allow a customer to buy these combinations all at one time:

 

Wow, I never even thought of that angle. Interesting point.

 

Not sure if you're asking rhetorically or literally, but this sporadically enforced 192oz rule is there to force people to go to distributors if they want more than the limit. It's an unnecessary regulation to create the need for something we shouldn't need.

Edit: I assume there's no clause or wording in the law that says this is a per day rule or something, just per transaction, which is where the talk of walking out to the car and walking back in comes in?