What disturbs me is that this union rep worries about profits "at the expense of safety". First off, the State Stores do a wonderful job of carding people and making sure no minors buy alcohol. Second of all they are state owned, so low profits or no profits at all mean a loss of money and a hit which the taxpayers must make up for.

A lot of the hang ups in this state about alcohol come from the Quaker roots of our state. There are strong religious, Quaker, and Puritan influences on our state. It is reflected in our liquor laws.

There are many of people connected to the State Store system who believe that the state should not make a profit from their sales. They view the state's job as regulation, not profit making.

But I feel that if the state takes it upon itself to own all the liquor stores in the state, it is their obligation to make sure those stores are profitable. It they aren't, then the taxpayers pick up the burden of cost.

If people are that opposed to State sanctioned sale of alcohol, then perhaps the stores should be privatized, that way there is no moral problems with a government selling, and therefore condoning, alcohol use.

For more reading, visit The Nap Room