That argument is totally convoluted. Privatize NOW!

I'd rather buy booze *and* pot at Costco.

So you want to buy pot a block away? I would think you'd want it delivered right to your door.

I've got three liquor stores within close proximity to my home & office, @3: I'd rather make my purchases there and avoid any further "delivery charge" or whatever add-ons private suppliers might use to bump up the price.

I look forward to reading those columns!

Why would you want to walk a whole extra block from the Stranger's office to find pot?

Now go to the liquor store and ask them to special order a bottle of something they don't have on the shelf and let me know how it works out.

Goldy's argument is all wet.

At its core, there is no rational reason why the state should have a monopoly on selling liquor.

All of the complaints he cites (tax revenue, availability to minors, etc) can all be handled with proper tax/license structure, and adequate regulation.

We already allow beer and wine to be sold at grocery and convenience stores. They must pay taxes and get a license to do so. They aren't allowed to sell to minors. If they are caught doing so, they can be fined or have their license pulled. What's the difference between selling wine or whisky, other than the higher percentage of alcohol content?

Part of the problem in PA was that there was a law restricting sales of alcohol and milk within so many feet of each other. Now we have a few grocery stores that sell wine and beer, and it is nice for the selection you get.

I appreciate my state's State Stores. I like the unobtrusive and safety-driven vibe surrounding the system. Other states should look to PA's regs to help solve the eye-sore problem of privately owned stores. But that's me. I don't believe in the unfettered availability of alcohol. It's definitely a good system to model for marijuana sales.