Mar 22, 2007 3 min read

The ongoing debate on whether Sheetz Inc. should be permitted to sell takeout beer at its convenience store in Altoona – the matter’s in appeals court – offers an opportunity to ask why Pennsylvania is so far behind the times. In an age when there’s no reason not to permit grocery stores to sell liquor (particularly beer) as part of their routine offerings, as is done in many other states, we cling to an archaic rule that permits convenience stores to sell only two six-packs. Then we quibble in court over whether it’s necessary for a patron to actually drink some of that purchase on premises, a point being argued in the Sheetz case.

It’s no surprise that Sheetz was and is being challenged in court by the Malt Beverages Distributors Association, a “trade group” that is really nothing more than a special interest group looking to protect turf (and money) for its members, who are beer distributors. That’s what a good “trade association” does, but too often that protection comes at the expense of everyone else, particularly the customer.

It’s not too far of a stretch to envision beer distributors in the same vein as slots machine “distributors,” which the Legislature originally set up as nothing more than a “make work” mechanism in the gambling bill. Once word got out about this unnecessary layer of slots machine middlemen, the idea got nixed in a hurry.

At a Tuesday hearing, key House and Senate Liquor Control Committee lawmakers broached the idea of new legislation that would let convenience stores that meet established criteria – such as selling prepared food and seating areas – continue selling beer by the six-pack. It would seek to address concerns of those who, ostensibly, don’t want to make alcohol easier to access, particularly by the underage.

“You cannot create a carnival atmosphere of alcohol for people over 21 and not expect people under 21 not to be affected,” said Ed Cloonan, executive director of the Independent State Store Union, another special interest group, one that represents managers of state-owned liquor stores. If that’s true, we wonder how Cloonan would address the state store system’s heavy promotion of its own liquor offerings, which are also designed to appeal to the over-21 crowd. Would such advertising not also have residual appeal to the under-21 crowd?

And any argument that permitting convenience or grocery stores to sell beer would suddenly make that commodity more accessible to underage drinkers is in need of a thorough reality check, because they already have plenty of access to it when they want.

Pennsylvania’s current method of handling alcohol sales is in need of complete overhaul, one that goes far beyond whether or not Sheetz should be allowed to let people buy two six-packs.