A hangover cure

Give credit to the Maine Democratic legislators, those savvy politicos know when they have a winning issue. Continually assaulted by both Gov. Angus King and state Republicans to finally end what is left of the antiquated system of state-operated liquor stores, the Dems have held fast and protected the remaining 27 state liquor stores and the 100 union jobs needed to operate them. Never mind that it costs the state $4 million a year to operate these stores. Never mind that 200 agency stores, which are private, tax-paying grocery or convenience stores, must compete with tax-subsidized state stores. Never mind that the state is spending taxpayer money to take sales away from those agency stores.

This muddle, recently reviewed by the Associated Press, again begs the question: Why is the state in the liquor retail sales business? The original intent, immediately after Prohibition in 1933, was to limit the public’s access to liquor. Over the years, the state has reaped millions of dollars in tax revenue from the sale of liquor, but those revenues are the same whether the retail sale occurs in a state store or an agency store. There is no logic to the present approach, other than the fact that the Maine State Employees Union is unwilling to lose any more jobs. Even if the Dems must acquiesce to the union, aren’t there other ways to employ these people without it costing $40,000 per job?

The state might benefit from extricating itself from the wholesale liquor sales business as well, as Michigan has done recently. Formerly a control state that operated retail liquor stores as well as wholesale and distribution, Michigan now contracts with private “authorized distribution agents,” who are regulated by the state and handle the warehousing and delivery of liquor to retail stores. Michigan has succeeded in removing itself from the distribution and sale of liquor, while still maintaining regulatory control and a substantial revenue stream for state coffers.

At present, the state is in the seemingly indefensible position of subsidizing state liquor stores that compete with agency stores owned and operated by taxpaying Mainers, as well as being hip-deep in the business of selling liquor at the same time that it attempts to solve a host of social ills that result from liquor consumption. Using tobacco logic, the state attorney general should sue the liquor control board to recover the cost of damage to the health of the citizens of Maine.

Or maybe we should just get out of the business of selling booze altogether.