Republican candidate for governor Chris Dudley has added Oregon to the list of control states considering privatization of their liquor markets. Elizabeth Hovde explains:
Some people want the state to monopolize the liquor business because they feel safer with it in charge. They believe that with limited access and price controls, the social problems associated with overconsumption are limited as well. But it’s hard to argue that a state monopoly on liquor helps curb alcoholism when distilled spirits are available at more than 200 liquor outlets, and wine and beer are already sold in grocery stores.
Dudley and others pushing privatization in Oregon need to make clear that current safety measures on alcohol sales would not be sacrificed, that the OLCC would keep its public safety functions and that any change in sales would be revenue-neutral to state, city and county budgets. Once that’s handled, the philosophical argument against a liquor monopoly is easy to sell.
Previously covered: OLCC’s “secret happy hour” requirement and anti-consumer special order policies.
Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (1)
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter
I have never understood the reasoning for a state run liquor system. Beer/wine distributors could bring the liquor into the state and put the tax stamps on the bottles. Cigarette distributors do this and hold the untaxed cigarettes in a bonded warehouse, buy the rolls of tax stamps from the state and tax stamp the cigarettes as they sell them. Spirits could be handled the same way.
It would certainly cut down on the states labor & storeage cost and save the state a lot of money .