April 1997

Be thankful the OLCC doesn't regulate and sell milk

Oregon's state government should not be in the business of selling liquor. In a free society, government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property-not sell liquor. Privatizing the Oregon Liquor Control Commission would benefit taxpayers and consumers.

In a 1994 report, the Oregon Retail Liquor Association (ORLA) concluded that our state government could reduce its budget by approximately $100 million initially, and $60 million every biennium thereafter, if it got out of the liquor business. That $100,000,000 could-and should-be returned to you, the taxpayer.

ORLA maintains customer service would improve immediately if the Liquor Commission allowed liquor store owners greater freedom to run their businesses. ORLA's not going out on a limb with that belief. In a market economy, business must serve the consumer to stay solvent. Providing better service to consumers, however, is made difficult by the OLCC which so strongly controls liquor stores you would think they were run by the Soviet Politburo.

Wouldn't it make sense for liquor stores to sell items such as snack foods? After all, Hollywood Video sells popcorn. Yes, it does make sense, but the OLCC prohibits liquor stores from selling anything unless it is on OLCC's "related items" list.

Ironically, bars taverns, and restaurants must make food available during hours of operation, when alcohol is being served, but liquor stores are prohibited from having food available when selling liquor.

How about putting a bottle of Bailey's Irish Cream, or anything else on sale? Can't. Unless the OLCC itself strikes a deal with the liquor companies and passes the savings along to consumers. Be thankful the OLCC doesn't regulate and sell milk.

In theory, each liquor store is privately owned and operated. Practice falls far, far short of theory. All liquor on store shelves in Oregon is owned by the government. (Remember, too, the OLCC is the only liquor wholesaler in the state. This begs the question: if monopolies are bad for us, and illegal to boot, how come this government-owned and operated monopoly is permitted to exist?)

Due to the extent of the OLCC's control, liquor store owners, or "contract agents," and their staffs are public employees in every way-except name, salaries, and benefits.

The people behind the counter have the worst of both worlds: they shoulder responsibilities and liabilities beyond those of employees, but enjoy none of the advantages of being a "private" businessperson.

A growing trend has developed across the country for "control state" governments to divest themselves of selling liquor. Pointing to the actions of others may make us feel good, but that argument does not come close to what should be the most convincing of all reasons for privatizing the OLCC. One of the most powerful, if not the primary reason is a moral one: government should not promote nor sell alcohol.

In a free society, government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property-not sell liquor, not wholesale, not retail. It's that simple. We see the uproar over Oregon State's involvement in gambling; imagine the uproar if the government engaged in prostitution. The moral case against government promoting and selling alcohol is the same. The OLCC states that its mission is to reduce alcohol consumption in Oregon. This may be a noble mission (though one, I maintain, that should be left to private institutions, not the law.)

But the OLCC's mission embraces conflicting goals. On one hand, the OLCC seeks to discourage alcohol consumption; on the other, it is supposed to make as much money as possible from the sale of liquor. Welcome to the world of government-think. Privatize the OLCC. It's the right thing to do, morally and economically.