A Letter From Rhino Times Reader Jim Donaldson
Is it time to abolish the NC ABC Department? I say yes as it is a waste of NC Taxpayer’s funds! They close for Christmas Day, New’s Day, Juneteenth, Martin Luther King’s Holiday, Easter Day, New Year’s Day, Labor Day, but not July 4th! Just another tax, inconvenience and waste for our NC Taxpayers. It’s time for a change! NC does not need ABC Stores! Our retail and grocery stores do a fine job handling sales of alcohol, so why does North Carolina need ABC Stores and their related expenses?
Jim Donaldson
—————
Government is like The Mafia, Jim.
They grant themselves monopolies on lucrative businesses, so they can prevent a free market, and enjoy monopolistic profit and control. In the end, it’s what all government craves :
– money and power.
So they control the liquor business.
I come from a country where anyone can bet on anything, with a bookmaker’s shop on every block, so I was shocked to learn that gambling was illegal in NC… until the state created the “Education” Lottery. All that talk about the evils of gambling just disappeared when Raleigh realised they could make millions by muscling in on the gambling business – while shutting down little Mom & Pop shops that dared to compete in “fishing” and “skills” video games.
It’s disgusting hypocrisy of course.
But government and the whole Parasitic Sector is pretty disgusting.
Like The Mafia. Except The Mob are honest crooks.
If government’s only goal is “money and power,” why would North Carolina restrict liquor sales instead of allowing Costco, Walmart, and every grocery store to sell spirits? A true profit-maximizer would expand sales, not limit where and when alcohol can be sold.
You can argue the ABC system is outdated, but reducing every regulation to “the Mafia” ignores the public health and safety reasons these laws were originally enacted.
Cheers
————-
Cornering ANY market with a coercive monopoly gives you money and power (permanent supernormal profits and complete control of the market).
Sad you can’t understand this.
I understand the theory. You appear to be avoiding the question.
If North Carolina’s purpose were simply to maximize “money and power” through “permanent supernormal profits,” why would it restrict the number of outlets, limit sales hours, prohibit private competition, and impose controls that can reduce total sales? A profit-maximizing monopoly generally seeks to increase revenue—not deliberately constrain its own market.
You may believe the ABC system is outdated or should be privatized. That is a legitimate policy argument. But calling every government-controlled market “the Mafia” does not establish that the system was created solely for profit, nor does merely repeating “coercive monopoly” prove the claim.
And “Sad you can’t understand this” is not an argument. It is what people write when they would rather insult the question than answer it.
Cheers
Also note: North Carolina’s ABC stores do not have unrestricted power to charge whatever they want as you falsely claim. Liquor prices are set through a statewide statutory and regulatory pricing system. The price includes the supplier’s price, freight, state distribution costs, and a markup established by the ABC Commission. Retail prices are generally uniform throughout the state, and local ABC boards cannot simply raise the price of a bottle because they have no private competitor.
—————
I am avoiding nothing.
Your inability to understand elementary economics is your problem, not mine.
I clearly showed how your point of view was flawed and again you use the 5 Ds of dodgeball….. Dodge, Duck, Dive, Dip, Dodge.
They don’t have free range on pricing….
They are not established for max revenue and max profit
Yawn
———-
You have demonstrated nothing other than your obtuseness.
The government may not retain a certain business market to maximize profit. I think it is more about CONTROL. And, the ABC system is certainly outdated. Rather than changing to meet market demands, ABC is stuck in the past. One example: Without ABC, a restaurant in Asheville could take direct deliveries from a TN distiller. But the way ABC works is: all that TN whisky is shipped to Raleigh, then shipments go out, back to Asheville. And, for high demand products, ABC allocates how much an establishment is allowed to buy. Some small ones miss out entirely. Better to let the free market work and the state to collect taxes, instead of paying for all the infrastructure, employees, inventory, etc. But, somebody favorable to NC government is obviously getting money off of this and so, nothing changes. It is generally better and more fair when business and politics DON’T mix.
——————-
Good real world examples of the inefficiencies of government run “businesses”.
The state has no right to muscle into the liquor business, and control it.
He’s right; it’s about control (and money).
Ken makes a strong argument with a rationale view on the actual policy that acknowledges why the ABC system actually exists. Take note Austin of what a mature debate looks like.
Ken, I don’t think restaurants would not want to make direct purchases from distillers except for some of the limited exotic labels for high end restaurants. I would assume, the process would be the same as it is for Beer and Wine. Much easier for a restaurant to purchase from a distributor than from each and every distiller. I also would think the state would need to still control retail distribution to avoid the risk of ‘a liquor store on every corner’ given the profit margin of selling liquor.
My 2 cents.
Agreed
Yhe North Carolina Constitution forbids monopolies but you’re right, politicians can circumvent the law when it becomes an inconvenience or a hindrance to collecting revenue.
The anti-monopoly clause generally prevents the government from handing an exclusive economic privilege to a favored private business. It does not necessarily prevent the government itself from creating an exclusive public regulatory system to carry out a recognized public purpose.
—————
And “The Professor” likes to charge “Hypocrisy” towards others at the drop of a hat….
He reckons when the government does it, it’s “..to carry out a recognized public purpose”, but when it’s a private monopoly it’s undoubtedly an outrageous example of predatory capitalism.
But we’re hypocrites.
———–
Exactly !
Thanks Dan.
The drinking age and voting age should both be 20. Two decades is the obvious age to acknowledge adulthood. Because before then, they’re just teenagers….
And it has consistency.
I disagree. It is 21 or higher. I consider a person to be an adult when they are paying all of their own bills (home, car, food, etc). Maybe the old timers had it right when you had to own property to vote!
It’s difficult to draw an arbitrary line at a particular age and say that you’re suddenly an adult, but there’s got to be a societal demarcation between childhood/adolescence and adulthood.
I just reckon that two decades – 20 – is the obvious place to draw the line.
.
0-20 – – you’re a kid
20-40 – – you’re young
40-60 – – you’re middle aged
60-80 – – you’re old
80+ – – you’re waiting to die
.
Easy, obvious 20 year stages of life.
What are you going on about? NC ABC system generates substantial profits and revenues, operating entirely without state funding. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, liquor and fortified wine sales reached nearly $1.9 billion, yielding over $713 million in revenue distributions to the state’s General Fund and local city and county operational funds
It’s known as price fixing. Isn’t that illegal?
—————-
Not when government does it, Glenn. They believe the laws are only for everyone else (as do the Mafia).
I’m not sure you know what you are talking about here. The NC ABC sells all its liquor at the MSRP which is much cheaper than stores that sell it in SC or Kentucky where it’s a free market.
.
I once knew a sucker who bought a car at MSRP.
Love your reply, it hit the nail on the head! Just think about the overhead our NC ABC System has! Inventory costs, utilities, lease expenses, governing boards, and most notable would be the cost of all their employees. Personally, I would rather see these wasted State Funds go to our First Responders! I would rather have safe streets, competent and fully staffed departments of first responders than a fifth of liquor any day!
The State does not budget for any of these costs….they are funded directly from the sale of alcohol, plus it generates a profit. So if you privatized liquor sales, you would have to cut spending on other things because you would lose profits….versus freeing up budgets as you mistakenly think.
Hope that helps.
. Yeah Jim.
Who pays MSRP for anything..? Unless the seller is a state monopoly and you have no choice.
———-
Gee, I dunno Dave. I Googled “Is Scotch cheaper in SC or NC?” and it said booze is generally cheaper in SC.
Try it yourself.
You really need to do some basic research. The vendors set the price and then ABC adds a margin ontop of that price based on a formula.
Calling NC ABC pricing “price fixing” confuses two very different things. Price fixing normally occurs when competing private businesses agree…often secretly…..to charge the same price rather than compete. NC ABC stores are not independent competitors conspiring with one another. They operate under a state-created system in which the retail price of liquor is set uniformly statewide by law and through a published pricing formula.
You can certainly argue that North Carolina should privatize liquor sales or allow stores to compete on price. That would be a legitimate policy argument. But calling the current system “price fixing” is like calling the price of a postage stamp price fixing. It is government-regulated uniform pricing, not a cartel agreement among competing sellers.
Hope that helps.
Those numbers say nothing about how much more might be earned if private businesses handled the business and the state collected taxes. Nor does it address the lack of (or slow reaction to) market driven demand for certain products. For most endeavors, we prefer competition for obvious reasons (prices, product selection, etc). Somehow, the state-entrenched ABC systems gets a pass.
No question that ABC is about control and NOT about profit or maximizing tax revenue. Was interesting reading up on why ABC was established post prohibition. Made sense at the time given the amount of crime surrounding illegal liquor sales. Now? Certainly, worth considering. As a scotch drinker I would love to see a bigger variety of scotch for sale versus what limited brands ABC is willing to carry.
—————
Prohibition was repealed in 1933.
The ABC state monopoly prevents dozens of superb single malt Scotches from being available to us here in NC.
A free market should be allowed. Isn’t this America? At least then you’d be able to buy your favourite Scotch without buying a ticket to Glasgow.
But you keep on defending government, buddy. For people like you, government can do no wrong.
Because the Democrats are the party of the state, over the people.
I am all for disbanding the ABC in the name of greater selection and most likely lower prices (SC is the best comparison as you pointed out).
I just don’t support the false narrative you are making to justify your position. Just because I don’t think we need the ABC system any longer doesn’t mean that I agree that it is appropriate to make false allegations about their motives of power and greed as you keep falsely making with no evidence. I am not defending the government….I am defending honest narratives such as Ken has aptly done versus your conspiracy theories you make up to support your narrative because you ‘hate’ the government.
Not to mention the silly concept of the letter Jim wrote about the ABC being funded by taxes…jaw dropping silliness to fail to understand the ABC is self-funded by sales revenue. It’s like he ‘thunk it so it mus to troo’ as his only research tool.
I suggest…’thinking for yourself’ should involve some basic research before spewing silliness in a public letter.
Cheers
————
I have put forward no conspiracy theories.
——————
And I am not responsible for the content of Jim’s letter.
You’re getting your wires crossed, “Professor”. Do try to think more clearly.
Your words……
“They believe the laws are only for everyone else (as do the Mafia).”
“He’s right; it’s about control (and money).”
“Government is like The Mafia”
“Like The Mafia. Except The Mob are honest crooks.”
Just hyperbolic words that ignore any real sense of truth, history or facts because your opinions are emotionally based versus factually based.
But you be you.
The NC ABC system has faced ongoing criticism, audits, and reports of mismanagement, highlighting systemic issues that demand attention from stakeholders and policymakers.
A comprehensive audit by the North Carolina Office of the State Auditor revealed that poor contract management of LB&B Associates led to roughly $11.3 million in losses, underscoring the financial risks of mismanagement.
The same state audit uncovered that the NC ABC Commission approved spending over $2.1 million to lease a massive 200,000-square-foot facility in Clayton that sat largely vacant. This revelation forced the immediate resignation of a top ABC commissioner.
Criminal abuse has occurred at local store levels. For example, a former long-time manager of the Rutherfordton ABC store pleaded guilty to federal charges after the U.S. The Department of Justice proved he embezzled over $374,000 by falsifying financial documents and budgets.
A state audit found that the system consistently suffers from deep delivery bottlenecks and missed performance benchmarks, frequently leaving local store shelves empty, raising concerns about oversight and the effectiveness of current management practices.
It’s well past time that state-controlled alcohol should be history.
Are we pretending that private industry wouldn’t also have risk of fraud, inefficiency, etc…..? Funny how you think private industry cares about KPIs (ABC stores actually have 96% on-time delivery of inventory to stores). Have you not had ‘bad service’ by private companies? Do private companies not go bankrupt due to poor spending management?
$11.3 million out of the 100s of millions, isn’t bankrupting the ABC distribution model, it just shows (as the audit intended) opportunity for improvement. Private business is not always cheaper more efficient.
The question of State controlled monopoly over liquor sales is a question of ‘would private distribution increase public risk from over availability of liquor stores etc… THIS is a fair question to debate? Do we want private companies putting liquor stores everywhere and anywhere? Is there increased risk of fraud than corruption in private control of such a socially dangerous product? etc… etc… etc… But some blanket idea that private is always better service, more efficient, is not a fair or accurate idea no matter how often conservatives make the claim.
Cheers
———–
Private businesses might well incur fraud, incompetence, and inefficiency, but it would not be a matter for public concern because public funds would not be involved.
Private liquor stores would be independent taxpaying businesses.
Public funds arent really invovled with ABC as they are self funded thru sales revenue.
Private is almost always better because there is usually competition. If you are worried about the number of stores and location, local communities can deal with that through zoning. What I really want to know is this: why is it in 2026 that we allow the state to control the distribution and sale of an entire class of consumer products? Aren’t there more important things for the state to do? Such as: modernize the DMV process of getting licenses and real ID. The service is woefully insufficient. We already allow beer and wine to be sold everywhere. There hasn’t been an issue with that, that I am aware of. The thinking is archaic.
Beer and wine is mostly distributrd one of two distribution companies. Not really a lot of competition to be honest. Aure you can beer and wine lots of places. So can you buy liquor by the drink. But it all flows thru a small group of distribution centers.
My only argument for keeping it is that no one has proven its broken. They hit most of their KPIs, prices are centrally controled but set by the distilleries with ABC only applying an overhead and tax. What would improve by pushing it thru a couple of beer and wine distribution firms?
Never understood why north Carolina is in the liquor business. Let private companies sell it and tax it hard.
It dates back to the end of prohibition. The state didn’t want a liquor store on every corner, so they established the ABC system to control where, when and for how much liquor was sold in our communities.
Seems to work just fine (with there always being room for improvement) so for me the question is, why the need for change? Do we NEED more liquor stores?
Sounds like the professor will soon be supporting City and State-owned Grocery Stores? Just watch and see how that works out for the American, State, and City Taxpayers? It doesn’t appear our government does very well at running any businesses? Wake up, it’s all about private enterprise!
I support government owned grocery stores for urban or rural areas that are considered ‘food desserts’ where commercial grocery stores do not consider the area profitable enough to operate. I am not sure I support what NYC is doing with government also subsidizing prices in these low-income markets, but it will be interesting to see how it works out as a valid experiment
I certainly don’t support government grocery stores directly competing with commercial stores.
Private enterprise will always only operate where they can be profitable. For critical services such as food, education and power…..the government needs to step in to insure equal access to these life critical services regardless of profit.
Weird you would support the idea of people not having access to affordable healthy groceries. But not shocked since you don’t think people have a right for access to healthcare if they have the wrong type of job.
But you be you.
————-
Well said Jim.
If it is good and right for the state to own the liquor business, why not the grocery business?
Mamdani and his grocery stores are going to be taught a lesson. It’s called a reality check, but Leftists will not learn from it. They never do.
Remember the grocery store on Phillips Avenue that was championed by and supported by the City of Greensboro? It flopped within a couple of years. Never made money, just lost money hand over fist.
What lesson do you expect NYC to learn? That offering affordable food close to home for communities ignored by private business will make people fat and healthy?
————–
You’ll see, Chrissy (“Professor”).
Retailing food at 30 per cent below market prices, which Mamdani has promised, is simply not viable. The grocery business is one of the lowest mark-up businesses in the World, generally operating on a 2 or 3 per cent profit.
So Mamdani’s Communist Comestibles will swallow taxpayer money en masse, put the Mom & Pop bodegas out of business, and finally close down when the money runs out.
Then what will the people do?
He has been open that it is a ‘tax subsidized model’ and not a profitable model to offer the discount.
I personally don’t like the idea of a discount funded by tax dollars as it will attract a greater audience than just having the store opened in the ‘food desert’. If the discount replaced SNAP funding for example, it might be more compelling, but the real risk is he is going to create a ‘grey market’ where people buy at the discount and resell at market rates. Hope he is thinking of some controls to keep that from happening.
But certainly, an interesting experiment.
————
I’m glad that you “Don’t like the idea of a discount funded by tax dollars”, but that’s quite an understatement.
Imagine you’re an entrepreneurial immigrant trying to achieve the American Dream by starting your own food store or bodega in NYC. You do everything right and pay your taxes while trying to get ahead. Meanwhile the Mayor declares that he’s going to take some of your tax money and use it to compete against you in a nearby store. To rub salt in the wound, he’s going to sell everything 30 per cent less than you, just to make sure he puts you out of business.
That’s not the free market; that’s Communism.
And I’m pretty sure the small business owners “don’t like” it. Not even a little bit.
The idea is not competition against existing marts….it is to fill in the gaps for areas that are not profitable enough for actual grocery stores. I am interested to see how well this goes as it has potential for being a good thing as well as a bad thing if not handled properly.
North Carolina Moonshiners did pretty well in the day. They just didn’t like the government and their excess taxes. Thanks to the Moonshiners in North Carolina, we now have NASCAR. NASCAR revenues have just given our leaders more extraordinary tax monies to waste! NC ABC is a perfect example!
They also didn’t like health inspectors. One local study in VA of seized moonshine stills found 60% exceeded the EPA’s drinking-water guideline for lead. Local sheriffs would have the whiskey tested and if good…..well the enjoyment was for family and friends. If it tested bad, they took pictures breaking them barrels. LOL
There is no lead in copper, sugar, corn, spring water, and heat! These Moonshiners had nothing but the best interests of their customers in mind!
Lead in moonshine often came from lead-based solder used in making and repairing stills. Some bootleggers also used old car radiators as condensers. Hence the comment that they didn’t like health inspectors.
So I think the phrase you meant to say was “there is not supposed to be lead….” in a copper, sugar, corn spring water, and heat….but there was. And it harmed a great number of people.
Do you even try to research topics before you comment?
Whoops, I also forgot the yeast? Does the Professor eat bread?
So the ABC stores not only collect the sales taxes, but now they also collect all the profits from sales. Maybe they don’t pay property taxes, either?
I think everyone is missing the obvious. Like most government run entities, they are primarily established to allow primarily minorities job opportunities. If you are a non minority, good luck landing any non elected government position. I hope that everyone sees through these leftist policies and we prevent the “progressive ” socialists (communists) from taking over all government.
Ah the classic conspiracy fill comment to drive hate and distrust. No evidence-based support for the comment, just the good ol fashion “I thunk it so it mus be troo” bs spewed by people who to justify their ignorance and hate.
Cheers.
Sorry, no conspiracy here. If I may ask, have you ever stood in line 4 hours for a job interview only to be told that you aren’t what they are looking for. This was done to me even though I was very qualified. The interviewer started with “I will deny I said this but, I will save us both some time because ‘we’re not looking for your kind ‘.”.I have no problem being paused over because someone was more qualified but, when I don’t even get an opportunity to offer my qualifications, that makes me mad. And, check the employment roles for any government position and you will find a disproportionate number of non white people. I think you are the ignorant one here. Go back to what ever socialist state you originated from.
Many qualified people apply for jobs and do not get hired. That is frustrating, but it does not automatically prove that race was the reason—especially when the only evidence offered is, “I didn’t get the job, and the people working there don’t look like me.”
As for your story……” I will take “things that didn’t happen for $400 Alex….”
If an interviewer really said, “We’re not looking for your kind,” then that would be evidence of possible unlawful discrimination, and you would have had every reason to document it and file a complaint. Federal employment law prohibits discrimination based on race—including discrimination against White applicants.
But one alleged experience does not establish your much broader claim that government jobs primarily exist to provide employment opportunities to minorities, or that non-minorities have little chance of obtaining government positions. That claim requires actual evidence: hiring data, applicant-pool data, qualifications, selection rates, or documented policies—not simply counting the races of employees and assuming you know why each person was hired.
And the claim that DEI means “minorities are hired instead of qualified White people” is a caricature. DEI programs vary widely. Some focus on recruiting from broader applicant pools, reducing bias, improving access, or ensuring that qualified candidates are not excluded. If an employer actually makes a hiring decision because of race, that can be unlawful regardless of which race benefits.
You may have had a genuinely unfair experience. But moving from “an interviewer allegedly made a discriminatory remark to me” to “government employment is primarily a racial jobs program” is not evidence-based reasoning. It is an anecdote inflated into a conspiracy.
And telling me to “go back to whatever socialist state” I came from does not strengthen your argument. It merely confirms that, when the evidence runs out, the insults begin.
Cheers.
Not needed. I stream just fine. Save tax payer dollars, please. Thank you.
Is the professor and Christy the same?????
.
Yeah. He used to go by Chris.
The guy’s such a patronizing, pontificating A*hole that I once called him “The Professor”. The sucker liked it!
It feeds his ego to appear smarter than other people.
Correction….I knew using Professor would tick you off….makes me giggle every time you girls get pissy about it.
Cheers