I'll be on FOX 29 tonight on the 10 O'Clock News

I've been asked to appear on the Fox 29 10 O'Clock News to talk about Senator Rafferty's proposed bill to "allow" beer sales in grocery stores. I'll be talking with their investigative reporter Jeff Cole and Paul Farthing, the owner of Chal-Brit Beverages in Chalfont about the issue. You can watch it on the live stream on the website, or on your TV, if you're local.

I know Uncle Jack's going to be laughing himself silly about me being on FOX, but...they asked. I'm happy to talk about this issue. Senator Rafferty's bill is the best shot we've had at this in years, but I'm still not nuts about it. For one thing, it complicates The Almighty Liquor Code, it doesn't simplify it: it creates a new class of license, and gets rid of the case law essentially by re-defining a "case" as a six-pack. Great, that makes it easy to understand.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. Hope I don't say anything too stupid!

Pennsylvania Beer Debate tonight on PCN

Just in from Sheetz's "Free My Beer" campaign...the PCN channel will be showing a live debate between MBDA president Dave Shipula and Sheetz general counsel Mike Cortez, tonight at 7 PM. I can't watch this, or call in, prior commitments. Feel free to take any points I may have brought up in the past and make a call!

An URGENT update from Free My Beer

---

The fight to free your beer continues tonight!
You are receiving this urgent update because you are one of more than 125,000 people who signed a petition to make the purchase of beer in Pennsylvania more convenient.

Mike Cortez, VP and General Counsel for Sheetz will go head-to-head with Dave Shipula, President of the Malt Beverage Distributors of PA debating the issue of how beer is sold in Pennsylvania in a live call-in show on “PCN Live” tonight at 7:00 p.m. They will take your comments and questions on the air.

If you want to voice your opinion on the way beer should be sold in Pennsylvania, we want you to call in! 1-877-726-5001.

More bad arguments for keeping PA's beer out of grocery stores

In all the excitement over the PLCB/BLCE raids in Philly in the past five days, there's been very little comment on an opinion piece that ran in the Inquirer yesterday. It's by Ed Klunk, the vice president of the Malt Beverage Distributors Association, and we've seen pieces like this before.

Here's some of his argument (the best parts, really, though they're not much):

Each beer distributorship in Pennsylvania is individually owned and allowed to operate out of only one location, so there's no opportunity to monopolize malt-beverage sales. But the grocery and convenience stores that are seeking to act as distributors are not subject to the same limitations, which raises the prospect of unfair competition.

Actually that is unfair, and lifting the limits on distributors won't wholly make it fair. You can't expect them to suddenly come up with the cash to open five more stores. And grocery stores can sell anything they want, making them a more attractive stop than a place that sells beer, snacks, and lottery tickets. But the next argument is bogus.

Because grocery and convenience stores sell a wide variety of items, they would have the ability to sell selected beverages below cost, essentially undercutting any beer distributor in the area. We have seen Wal-Mart do the same with other goods, undercutting neighborhood retailers.
Wal-Mart does so partly by negotiating lower wholesale prices using its bulk purchasing power. But the company has also shut out the competition through "loss leader" pricing, willingly selling some items below cost so it can bring in customers and build market share.

That's just downright deceptive (which is not to say "lying." There, I didn't say it), because Pennsylvania law forbids selling beer for less than cost. Not to mention, Klunk only ever refers to these stores as "Wal-Mart," because he knows there's bad feeling about Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, of course, doesn't currently sell beer in Pennsylvania. He doesn't say anything about Wegmans selling beer, because people love Wegmans. Hah? "Deceptive." In fact, some say "Downright deceptive." *

How about this howler:

Grocery and convenience-store chains argue that allowing them to sell beer will improve access and convenience for customers. That's a weak argument when you consider that beer is available for carryout or on-site consumption at approximately 1,200 distributors and 14,000 carry-outs, bars, and restaurants in Pennsylvania. 

Did he say "That's a weak argument"? Yes, yours is, Ed! Selling beer by the bottle, sixer, or 12-pack DOES improve access and convenience for customers, especially when it's right where they buy their groceries! That's such a slam-dunk argument, I don't know why you brought it up. Are you trying to scare weak-minded people into thinking there are too many retail beer outlets? Sorry.

But he saves his worst for last:

The current system also deters illegal sales to minors. It does so by limiting beer sales to licensed locations that are highly dependent on alcohol sales. If a grocery or convenience store is cited for underage sales, it may have to padlock the beer coolers for a week or a month. But it can keep selling other stuff and stay in business.
Cite a beer distributorship or a neighborhood bar, meanwhile, and it has to close its doors while its license is suspended. The financial penalty is severe.

Ed, Ed, Ed... Wegmans does 100% carding. I'm 51, and I get carded at Wegmans, every time. Do you card everyone at your store? (Ed Klunk also owns Thorndale Beverage, a beer distributor in Thorndale, PA.) I strongly doubt it. But don't worry. You can always drop a dime on Wegmans for selling unregistered brands; seems likely that everyone in the State is. Have you checked your stock against The List lately? (The phone number for the BLCE anonymous tipline is 800-ISQUEAL, kids!)

Okay, kidding aside, this is a lousy piece. Klunk really should have focused on that first argument and made the whole piece out of that. Like the case law or not (and apparently most of you don't), the state's distributors have worked under the often ridiculous strictures of The Almighty Liquor Code. Tons of paperwork, needle-nosed inspections, and they too, suffer from the case law. I worked beer retail in PA for a while in the early 1990s: throwing cases is a long day, and the customer always wants the case on the bottom of the stack. I remember one distributor telling me with heart-felt emotion how he'd really love to have a nicer store -- "with carpet, and wood shelves" -- but with the case law, they're stuck with concrete floors and pallet-jacks.

Is it a monopoly? Sure. Would they like to protect it? Of course. But to toss them aside like used Kleenex isn't fair either. We need to rewrite the Liquor Code to allow these guys a fair shake. Here's one plan: give them a free upgrade to an "all-alcohol" license when the state stores are privatized. Then they could be real liquor stores, with everything from beer to tequila, and the grocery stores would just have beer. Mmmmm....package store.

But if the MBDA and Krunk and our buddy Dave Shipula just keep fighting this without trying to compromise, they're going to wind up out in the cold. They need to see this coming, gear up, and go to Harrisburg to get the best deal they can. Not this kind of stuff.


*It was me, at the beginning of the paragraph. I wouldn't want to deceive you.

Beer in grocery stores: PA debate on WITF-FM

There was a good discussion of the current proposal to allow beer sales in grocery/convenience stores today on WITF-FM's SmartTalk business program. I hope the recording is going to be up soon; meantime, there's a poll up you might want to vote on. I know I did. The poll is here; I hope the file for the show will be there soon. I may be on the radio about this issue real soon; I'll let you know when that happens.

East End Brewing Fights Back!

Small brewers of Pennsylvania: are you scared of grocery store beer sales? I like the attitude of your comrade, Scott Smith at East End Brewing, who won't let the prospect get him down: he's taking it to the grocers and selling coffee and cake mix! The latest from his always-amusing e-letter:

GROCERIES AT THE BREWERY? OH, THE HUMANITY!

Last month, beer was sold at a grocery store in Western PA, and something remarkable happened... small brewers still survived, local beer distributors that offer better beers haven't closed, and in general civilization hasn't crumbled. Just amazing. But while the long term effects of better access to better beer still remain to be seen, we're going to see if we can shake things up even more and give the folks at Giant Eagle and Wegman's a run for their money... and take the game to their field.

We've already sold through our batch of Rachel Carson Blend Coffee from LaPrima at the brewery, as well as (the beer that we can't call) Eye Opener Coffee Porter. And now our further encroachment into the "Fine Groceries" category continues with our Holiday Season release of our much anticipated Black Strap Stout Cake Mixes. Finally, the return of the best solution for that leftover cup of Black Strap Stout at the bottom of your Growler - make a cake with it! Or maybe that's not a problem for you, and you just need to pick up a second jug?

So, there. Take THAT grocery stores! Now we'll really see if civilization can crumble. I know the cake is nice and moist.

I do like a brewer with a sense of humor, and Scott's all that and a bag of crisps. Pretty damned good beer, too.

5 more Giant Eagles cleared for licensed beer sales in western PA

The beat goes on. Looks like the supermarket beer sale genie is loose, and no one is going to be able to put it back in. Whether Sheetz will be able to overcome the irrational prejudice against selling beer at a gas station or not remains to be seen (what is the issue: you drive to bars, distributors, State Stores...is it something about gasoline fumes that makes you helpless against the insane urge to drink while driving?!!!). Meanwhile, PA consumers are getting a tiny little taste...of normalcy. I challenge anyone to give me a good reason that supermarket beer sales are bad for consumers.

The Case Law is Stupid

Pennsylvanians: you've been waiting for this one. Here's my take on why we have "the case law," the uniquely stupid law that forces us to buy beer by the case -- nothing smaller! -- at off-premise retail.

Wouldn't it be nice to buy in any amount you wanted? Mixing sixes, picking sixes? Isn't it ridiculous that we can only dream about it, in 2009 AD?

Go. Read. Get incensed (and then write your legislator!).

New poll on the case law at the PLCB blog

I've got a new poll up at my blog Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished. It's about one of Pennsylvania beer drinkers' favorite topics: the case law.

Specifically: Polls show that over 80% of Pennsylvanians are opposed to the case law -- even MADD doesn't support it -- yet a six-pack sales bill still languishes in the Legislature after over a year. Why do your elected representatives continue to thwart your wishes?

I hope you find the answer choices, as always, entertaining and enlightening.

Another New Poll at the PLCB Blog

I just posted another poll at Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished. This one assumes that the PA legislature finally gets up its courage and does away with the Case Law entirely, and then asks, "What would be the most likely unintended consequences?"

Because you know there will be unforeseen changes when we get normal about buying beer...

David Shipula is bugging me

David Shipula is the current president of the Malt Beverage Distributors Association of Pennsylvania. (Disclosure: I was compensated to travel to Pittsburgh and address the MBDAPA several years ago; I do freelance consulting for some members of the Association.) He is also the owner of Beer Super in Wilkes-Barre. He seems to be a good guy, working for the Association.

But he's saying some stuff in the papers lately that bugs me.

In the May 19 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer, he writes in a piece titled "Keep Beer in Beer Stores," "Now, I can't be the only person who sees a problem with making it easy to buy beer and gasoline in one convenient location."

No, you're not, but just because two people think french-kissing makes girls pregnant doesn't mean we're going to be overrun with babies. People drive to gas stations to buy gas, sure, but they also drive to Beer Super to buy beer. Are the gasoline fumes going to drive them to drink to excess on the way home? There's nothing about buying gas that makes people more likely to drink. Is it the "ice-cold sixpack" "waved in their face" that Shipula brings up that's the problem at the gas station? Funny, because he also lauds people buying six-packs at Pennsylvania's restaurants and bars, most of which they're driving away with, judging by the parking lots at so many of them. I know there's no bar within walking distance of my house. Beer at gas stations driving people to drink is a bogeyman. It makes no sense in the light of day, or reason.

Then he says, "They also want the supermarket shopping experience to remain something the entire family can enjoy without giving children - from toddlers to teenagers - the idea that beer is as harmless as, say, a calorie-laden, high-fructose corn syrup-laced soft drink."

Yet it's okay for beer to be sold at a restaurant or deli or pizzeria where the family's getting dinner? What, it's raw food that makes beer scary? Besides, when was the last time you saw "the entire family" enjoy "the supermarket shopping experience"? On an Ozzie & Harriet re-run? This paragraph is so ridiculous it's embarrassing.

In the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat on June 2, he wrote a letter that said "Sheetz has its gas pumps on one property deed and its convenience store on another to skirt the law prohibiting beer sales at gas stations."

What law would that be? I searched the entire PA Liquor Code, and the only mention I saw of gas stations, service stations, or gasoline sales is here, under the rules for who has standing to petition licenses being granted (standing to petition, i.e., those who have half a leg to stand on as opposed to total loonies), where it's noted that the MBDA had standing to petition an "application for a double transfer of an eating place malt beverage license to premises on which a restaurant, convenience store, and gas station would operate", that is, the Sheetz case. There is no such law. Period.

In the Scranton Times-Tribune on April 8, he wrote another letter that said "In fact, the buying power of large supermarket chains like Wegmans makes it very difficult for small food and beverage producers to compete profitably. Shelf space is at such a premium in supermarkets that manufacturers and distributors are forced to pay “slotting allowances” to even get their products displayed on supermarket shelves."

Manufacturers and distributors do pay "slotting allowances," also known as "slotting fees," to get their products on supermarket shelves...except for alcohol beverages. That's illegal, slotting fees for alcohol beverages having been banned by the then-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 1995, a federal ban. Once again, a bogeyman: grocery wholesalers have to pay slotting fees, beer wholesalers do not. As it happens, Wegmans loves small producers; it gives their stores a competitive advantage. I've been in Wegmans in New York: the beer selection's quite nice.

That's also where he says this: "Individual beer distributors can own one and only one license for retail, off-premises consumption — and then only in quantities of one case or more of beer. Already, Wegmans has been granted six licenses by the Liquor Control Board."

True, but they're not the same kind of license! Wegman's licenses are so-called "deli licenses," which allow only sixpack sales. That's how chains of bars own more than one license, something Shipula doesn't mind. Why doesn't he care that Appleby's, for example, owns multiple licenses that allow retail, off-premises consumption (as all tavern licenses do in PA)? Because Appleby's doesn't sell sixpacks to go. If they aren't competition, he doesn't care. This is all about money and competition.

Shipula admits that, finally, after throwing smoke. He says all he wants is a level playing field. But that's not going to happen with the maze-like provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, where the MBDAPA apparently found reason to argue that if Sheetz doesn't want to sell on-premise, they can't sell off-premise. This ignores Appleby's, of course, which does sell on-premise but chooses not to sell off-premise, as do many, if not the majority of Pennsylvania's restaurants with liquor licenses.

These arguments play on fears -- Beer is dangerous! People will use it irresponsibly at the slightest provocation! -- that it is stunning to hear coming from the head of a beer industry association. They are full of statements and implications that are simply not true. They are worrisome.

I understand that the distributors see supermarket sales as the single greatest threat to their livelihood, and this looks like the wedge to open that up. I think that instead of spending their time and money fighting against something that is simply, clearly legal under the Code as it stands, they should be putting their efforts into changing the laws that govern how all booze is sold in PA. Get rid of the case law and allow six-pack and single sales for distributors ASAP. Get rid of the State Store system and let distributors sell wine and spirits. Get normal.

I am on the side of the beer business. I support them, I work with them, I'm grateful to them. But I am a consumer. I want to buy beer where and how everyone else in the Union does, and I don't see any good reasons why I should not be able to. All I see above are bad reasons. Let's fix this. All of it.

Uh. Sell Beer. Joe and Jane Sixpack. Uh. Beer.

Beer gets Op-Ed attention in the Inquirer today; the Sheetz case goes to the State Supreme Court tomorrow. The editorial gets the general idea right, which is good: Pennsylvanians should be able to buy beer in six-packs, like everyone else in the United States. As the Inky says, "Beer must be purchased mostly by the case. Six-packs are available at bars and restaurants - at sky-high prices. The system is tailor-made to restrict competition and choice, and to artificially inflate prices."

So far, so good, although the average reader could easily infer that this "system" was put in place by the taverns and beer distributors, rather than put in place by the State and enforced by its booze law goon squad, the PLCB. But they miss the point. The Sheetz case is not about selling beer at a convenience store; if they win their case -- and they should -- it will not mean that every WaWa will be selling sixers of Coors Light. It's both more and less complicated than that.

What Sheetz wants is to be able to use the license they bought for their big Altoona store, a store that, like many in the chain, is so big that they've included a seating area for their large food menu. Other delis/pizza joints have the same thing, and there's no problem. That's the less-complicated part.

The more complicated part is mostly, pardon me, bullshit. The rub with Sheetz, supposedly, is that the company doesn't want to allow on-premises consumption of the beer; you can't drink it there, you have to get it to go. This is what has brought the case to the courts: a company policy that most Pennsylvanians could care less about if it means they can buy a sixer of Bud Light at a convenience store (Didja see that word? Convenience. Something the PLCB oughta look into).

What's it really about? Well, the Inky bellows about "surly beer sellers who now maintain a monopoly." Get it right: the beer sellers are surly because either the State won't let them sell six-packs (the distributors), or because the State set up rules that led them to base their business model on a monopoly on selling six-packs (the tavern owners).

The taverns are going to have to roll over on this. Places like The Sixpack Store, Suds, Quick Six, and The Foodery have built a business around giving us what we want: sixpacks to go, a good selection, in and out. They see a heavily bankrolled chain moving into their business, they're probably going to fight it. But when the dust settles, it's going to be the same scene, just more competitive. There are only so many licenses; business will go to the stores that best serve the variety of consumer needs.

But the beer distributors are the ones getting screwed, and we're getting it right along with them. They've got the expertise, the selection, the space, the cold rooms...let them sell sixpacks. Please! If you're going to level the playing field, level the whole thing.

Some of you will probably think I'm being too hard on the Inquirer. They are calling for sixpacks for the citizens, after all. But this is a complicated issue that goes to the heart of the problems with the PLCB: interpretation of arcane, archaic laws that would be better off being completely replaced, rather than tinkered with. If I'm dealing with a 'major daily,' I expect the full story.

Is Pennsylvania better off WITH the case law?

My buddy -- and frequent STAG commenter -- Sam Komlenic sent the following as a response to my post on Pennsylvania's initiative to get rid of the case law; he's against it. Hear him out, he's got some interesting angles, interesting enough that I thought it would work better as a post than as a comment. I don't buy much of what he says, though: I'm going to insert my responses in the text, and then we invite you to join in.


OK, I've done my research; here goes. Those who have been paying attention know that some retail entities have been doing yeoman's work to get beer put into their establishments here in PA. The Sheetz convenience store chain and Wegman's grocery have both purchased PLCB "E" retail licenses (I think I've got that right, if not, my bad). These permit the sale of beer on-premise in restaurant-oriented operations.

Sheetz, in their huge Altoona location, is now selling six packs only, prohibiting on-premise consumption entirely, pending a PA Supreme Court ruling on the issue. Wegman's. in their State College location, applied for transfer of a license, purportedly to offer the "convenience" of on-premise beer sales as an option to customers in the restaurant area of the store. This has not yet happened, and I'll bet they're waiting for the court's ruling.

Neither of these entities really wants to assume the liability involved in on-premise consumption, as evidenced by Sheetz's intentional and blatant disregard for the parameters of the license they were granted, even though their initial intent was to provide customers the option of a beer with their hoagie (on-premise, to get the license, then let the court decide). They want to sell six packs, and six packs only, out the door.

I don't really see this as an issue. There are plenty of similar licenses already being used this way in the state's "bottleshops." People assume that there is a special license for places like this, my former state legislator did, he told me they had a "deli license": there isn't such a thing. They've simply bought a tavern license and made it a store policy that you can't drink on-premises, a way to make the state's laws allow a sixpack shop. It's an expensive way to do it in some areas -- these licenses aren't cheap -- but it's hardly new or particularly underhanded.

Now, take this a step further. Once distributors are granted the luxury of selling six packs, what's to prevent Wegman's, or Sheetz, or Weis, or any other retail entity to purchase a distributor's license? Keep in mind that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 distributor licenses in PA, many (most?) of which are not massive operations mastering the brands of large brewing companies. Many (most?) are small, mom and pop "D" distributors with little or no influence in the market, buying all of their beer from master distributors in their territory, and whose licenses would immediately be worth more than their entire business, property included.

As I understand it -- as you said, if I'm wrong, my bad -- D distributors are very limited in the items they can sell besides beer -- snacks, beer glasses and books/magazines, lottery tickets, soft drinks, and smokes, I think -- precisely to prevent grocery stores from 'back-dooring' their way in like this. If the grocery store went to the extent of setting up a separate corporation to buy the license, and put a beer distributor right next door with their name over the door...well, the state already encourages the co-positioning of distributors and State Stores.

One more step: what's to prevent the grocery/convenience chains from buying the more influential "ID" licenses, which permit importation of beer from out of state? This could potentially make Wegman's the master distributor for A-B, Miller, or whatever in your county(ies). Also note that it is not hard to convert any "D" license to an "ID" simply by applying for the change.

Why is a grocery store buying that ID any more threatening than a large and growing wholesaler buying it up? If one wholesaler had A-B for the whole state, would that be different than if Wegman's bought it?

I'll accept this legislation with one small and seemingly insignificant change that will NEVER happen: that it strictly prohibit sales of beer in grocery/convenience stores. That simple. It protects the distributor network as we know it without allowing the transfer of licenses surreptitiously, which has already begun to occur. It would also fulfill the intent of the law that is now being presented: to allow distributors ONLY to enjoy this privilege. These guys are already knocking on the door, the legislature is in their pocket, and they have the funds to beat this horse until they get what they want, and I don't want what they do.

You won't see that, you're right, but why not go whole hog: let's go to a package store system. Break up the damned State Store system and make ONE type of license to sell beer, wine, liquor and all alcohol off-premise, in any amounts, without artificial restraint. Put reasonable limits on the number of licenses per capita per county if you feel you have to -- and they will -- but give these guys a chance. I'd love to see a package store system in PA.

My craft distributor told me that if this law is passed, he will move toward selling by the six and twelve pack only. Space is a major issue, margins are another.

Is that all bad? If he doesn't offer case discounts, someone will. It's his business, Sam.

Let's also look at draft availability. Supermarkets in states that permit their selling beer, in my experience, place very little import on a good selection of kegs. If the distributor system diminishes significantly, where will you go for a good selection of halves, quarters, and sixtels? Pennsylvania may currently be the most draft-friendly state in the Union. Don't expect that to continue.

That's assuming that this will lead inevitably to supermarket sales. As I said above, I don't buy that premise, so I'm not overly concerned about this prospect.

For now, I stand by my initial observation, that this legislation is a back door avenue for grocery store sales in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Once this occurs, the majors will gain exponential influence in the market, which is WHAT THEY WANT.

Also keep in mind that PA is one of the only (perhaps THE only) states where distribution is granted in very small chunks, one (or a few) county(ies) at a time. The big guys HATE this! Many states have one or two distributors for the whole state. It's easier, more convenient (there's that word again), and more profitable for them. This legislation could easily begin the dismantling of that landscape, as well.

Many craft and import brands have granted rights to the whole state to one wholesaler...because it's easier and more convenient. Distribution rights CAN be granted in very small chunks; they aren't always, it's up to the producer and wholesaler. Most other states work the same way...but their wholesalers have consolidated and merged. Pennsylvania is a big, populous state, with a long history of geographic division: we've got chunks of population separated by a lot of open land. That's got more to do with it than laws.

Having been in beer sales in the past, it was my experience that even under the present regulations, when a new bottle shop was being opened, the distributors with clout called the shots. They would lay out the cooler placements for the retailer, to the point of minimizing or excluding the placement of minor brands they did not themselves represent. They buy equipment for the licensee, flaunting existing regulations. They get the tap placements they want. They control it to whatever extent they can. Think this will change for the better with even greater freedom?

This is all too true. I'd love to see more PLCB enforcement of these regulations, instead of looking for domestic animals on premises and registration of brands.

Call me a cynic (I am), but this whole thing is designed to look beneficial to the beer consumer, when in fact, it is only and entirely about convenience(!) and corporate influence, not selection and diversity for the consumer.

Be careful what you wish for...you might get it!

I'm fully behind that statement. We don't know what this law will eventually come out to, what all the effects will be: no one does. But I still don't see it leading directly or indirectly to supermarket sales.

Call for discussion!

Pennsylvanians: Stand Up For Six-Packs

A message to Pennsylvania beer drinkers:

The case law may be in its last months, if your legislator votes for the right bill in the next few weeks. House Bill 606 is making its way to the PA House for a vote, very soon. It's a standard bill about liquor code enforcement, very technical, but an amendment is being attached to it that changes the case law. The changes:

* Before January 1, 2009: Restaurant, deli or tavern may sell one 6-pack, two six-packs, a 12-pack or 3-six packs. A beer distributor may sell any number of six-packs, cases or kegs.

* After January 1, 2009: Restaurant, deli or tavern may sell any configuration up to 18 cans or bottles totaling 288 ounces. Beer distributors may sell any configuration of a 6 pack or greater.

* Permit a holiday package prepared by the manufacturer containing 40 ounces of beer in one or more containers and at least two drinking glasses (mug, stein, etc.) to be sold at beer distributors only.

The key to this is the word six-pack. If you want to break the case law, here's what you want to do. Contact your legislator (the link takes you to a screen where you can type in your ZIP code and get connected to your legislator's e-mail) right now and tell them that you support the amendment to House Bill 606, as written to allow sales of six-packs at beer distributors. Tell them you want six-pack sales; not limited to just 12-pack, 15-pack, or 18-pack sales.

Because that's the tricksy thing: some larger brewers are evidently trying to get the language in the amendment...amended to read "12-pack" instead of "six-pack." Guess which package many craft brewers don't have? Right in one. Your Pennsylvania craft brewers (and Yuengling and Anheuser-Busch, I've been told by people in the legislature and the PA Brewers Guild) want six-packs, and that's what you want to tell your legislator to vote for.

Why is this such a big deal? Pennsylvanians have consistently shown support for an end to the case law (polls show 85+% of Pennsylvanians support being able to buy six-packs at distributors/beer stores); even MADD supports an end to the case law. So why do we still have the case law?

Conservatism, mostly, and I don't mean the political kind. Retailers rarely like to mess with something that's in place, especially in a heavily regulated business like beer sales in the Commonwealth. It's not really fair to them, when you look at it: for over seventy years, the law required them to sell beer by the case, so their stores are set up for that: mostly concrete floors and minimal shelving, room for a pallet-jack, and not much in the way of "pretty." Now, in a matter of months, they're faced with spending a lot of money and labor to make their stores six-pack stores. Makes you think of the old adage: "Be careful what you wish for."

But I'm not talking to you as a friend of retailers, wholesalers, or legislators. I'm talking to you as one of us: Pennsylvania beer-drinkers. The case law is a ridiculous vestige of the early days of Repeal. We are the only state in the Union to have a case law, and it's never done a thing for the good of the consumer (okay, not quite true, but the benefits have all been incidental). This is the best chance we've had in years to kill it. Do your bit to put a stake through the heart of this most asinine of beer laws.

Pennsylvania Beer Action Alert, Take Two

PA Senate Bill 674 has made it out of the Law & Justice Committee!


According to my source, the "six-pack bill" was aided by the desire of Senator Rafferty (my old buddy from when I testified against keg registration) to "do something for the PA consumer." Hey, thanks, Senator.

I called my state Senator's local office -- Robert "Tommy" Tomlinson -- and asked them. (Senator Tomlinson did eventually get back to me, by the way, and confirmed that the bill was in the Law & Justice committee and he would consider its merits once it came up for a vote: fair enough.) The bill is out on the floor, ready for consideration, but I've been told that there's a good chance that won't happen until September.

(Some folks in comments have said they were told this bill will allow supermarket beer sales. Sure doesn't look that way to me, but here's the current text of the bill; take a look yourself (and note how this bill sidesteps the "Case Law" by redefining a "case" as a sixpack!))

Bug your Pennsylvania senator about this bill.

Pennsylvania Beer Action Alert

Pennsylvania Beer Lovers: Please take a look at this.

It's news of PA Senate Bill 674, which proposes allowing beer distributors to sell 12-packs, and taverns to sell up to 3 six-packs. Pathetically incremental, I know, but it's a start. Please e-mail your PA Senator (you can easily do it here) and ask them to vote for Senate Bill 674. This bill will not affect consumption (it lets you buy LESS beer), it will not allow supermarket sales, it will not affect underage drinking. It is a convenience for citizens, that's all.

And for all you tavern owners, beer distributors, and folks in the Biz who would not like to see the boat get rocked...better to settle for a small rocking that might take some of the pressure off.