`lunatic' Takes Police On Wild Trip 
Ten-hour Battle Ensues Following Routine Arrest

3 Care Centers Get New Owner 
Three Area Personal Care Centers Are Part Of A Major Purchase By 
Mechanicsburg-based Balanced Care Corp.

Sunday, February 02, 1997 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 





Supposed profit from state stores' sale incurs other kinds of losses &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Here we go again. With about the same regularity that efforts are being
made to put a slot machine in every neighborhood, if not a riverboat gambling
casino on every river bend and lake, here comes a proposal to sell the state
liquor store monopoly to private enterpriseThis time the prime sponsor, Sen.
Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, uses the current buzz word "privatization,"
but the intent is the same that has been taken to the General Assembly for the
last fifty years -- and defeated. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; However, this time there are those who think the roll for riches has a
chance. A constant element, of course, is the solicitation for legislator
support from those who seek to profit from private ownership of the booze
business. A lesser but important element are those ignorant, forgetful or
deliberately dismissive of the history of the liquor business and who believe
it wrong for the public to use their government to operate anything that
private enterprise finds attractive. There also is the narcotic of the promise
of vast new revenues for government to spend. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Greenleaf has opted for the revenue pitch, suggesting that sale of the more
than 650 state stores to the highest bidders should bring in more than $1
billion to the state coffers. While that would be a one-time coup, he also
visualizes eventual expansion of opportunity to extend to state-issued
franchises to sell beer and wine at your corner grocery store. The annual
tax-take reaped from these enterprises, it is estimated, would at least equal
the $250 million the state now realizes every year in profits from its own
stores, and probably more. At least, that is the come-on. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Other supporters concentrate on the inconvenience of the state liquor store
system. They complain that even with the 650 stores, there are too few and
that these are not easily accessible to the shopper. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 They complain that the system has too narrow a selection of goodies. "You
can't always get the brand or kind you want, or even a wide selection from
which to choose," the whine goes. "Besides," this line of argument continues,
"because there is no competition among the stores, Pennsylvania drinkers pay
more than folks in other states." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 They also argue that just policing both the store operations and the
incoming traffic from those buying their liquors out-of-state is an effort and
a cost that privatization would eliminate. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In short, every red-blooded Pennsylvanian has an overriding right to a
full-scale New York city liquor store within walking -- or staggering --
distance of his home and office, and both they and the Pennsylvania state
government would greatly benefit from the Greenleaf bill. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 If you think it unfair -- a carry-over from the Prohibition blue-nose era
-- consider a parallel effort: There long has been recognition in this and
other states that, like cigarettes and dope, alcohol is a drug. It can be, and
is, abused at enormous cost to the individual, that person's family,
associates, business and the taxpayer. For several decades now, and unlike
drug abuse, alcohol abuse has been officially recognized as a medical problem
and one on which considerable sums of tax money are spent every year. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The daily police blotter as reported in most newspapers of the state
routinely have one or more items in which police action was necessitated
because of alcohol abuse. Most reports regarding the population of local,
state and federal prisons find that upwards of 2/3 are there because of drugs
and/or alcohol. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Yet, just last week there was that story out of Harrisburg announcing the
joint commitment of Gov. Tom Ridge and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Chairman John Jones III, to a four-year, $4 million program aimed at
preventing underage drinking. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Isn't there a kind of half-baked contradiction in efforts here? On one
hand, the political leadership wants to make it easier for every Pennsylvanian
to get cheaper booze faster, while on the other, they are mounting a program
to spend good money to prevent the young from joining in the rush to drink? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It's not that this kind of confusion of goals is unusual in Harrisburg --
or in the nation's capital, for that matter -- but rarely is it so blatant. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 No, it appears that while the folks in Harrisburg may talk and dream and
wish, there will come a moment when reality dawns and the Greenleaf bill, like
all those before it, will become another collector's item, a memory. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 However, to make sure that avarice -- for it is difficult to believe that
it's only a matter of thirst -- doesn't triumph over wisdom, it would be
helpful if you had a forceful word with your representatives. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Tom Bigler is professor of communications at Wilkes University and a Times
Leader columnist. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Supposed Profit From State Stores' Sale Incurs Other Kinds Of Losses 
Here We Go Again. With About The Same Regularity That Efforts Are Being Made 
To Put A Slot Machine In Every Neighborhood, If Not A Riverboat Gambling 
Casino On Every River Bend And Lake, Here Comes A Proposal To Sell The State 
Liquor Store Monopoly To Private Enterprise.