Pennsylvania has been a ‘control state’ since the 1930s in the sense that the State runs all liquor stores. This has advantages, but certain events have highlighted unexpected roadblocks with complete state control. In March of 2020, Pennsylvania decided to close down liquor outlets. 

Suddenly, a whole population found themselves living in a ‘dry’ state because there were no private outlets with liquor. Additionally, small liquor business startup liquor licenses were denied because of state control. Therefore, consumers ran out of options completely. 

Alternate methods devised by the State failed to smooth out the problem. Customers faced difficulty in online alcohol orders and ordering on the phone through authorized curbside vendors. With no Plan B in place, the State lost heavily in revenues because of the lack of variety. People started driving across state borders to find their choice of liquor. 

Statistics showed an alarming drop in state earnings due to this decision, which the State has not yet recovered. Some may also argue that the blanket ban on state-run liquor sales led to an increase in crime as a result.

The lost revenue led Timothy O’Neal to present legislation calling for privatizing all liquor stores in the State. Many believe that state-run stores are for the benefit of the State, bringing in revenue that can fund other things like infrastructure and schools. 

Also, employees of state-run stores have a higher salary with state benefits insurance that would be more beneficial than the pay and benefits of a private organization. Contrastingly, many argue that the State is taking potential revenue private business owners could be making, which would boost the economy and provide more citizens with a steady income.

The question for debate is, should Pennsylvania own all the liquor stores in the State?