An Altoona Sheetz, and possibly a State College Wegman's, will soon start to sell alcohol alongside bread and milk. This signifies a break with the state's Quaker tradition of keeping alcohol in very specific, limited areas. Perhaps this is a hint that one day Pennsylvania will follow the lead of states such as Florida and Virginia, where Brew Thrus abound and beer is available at the gas station.

Made possible by a loophole in a state statute that qualifies the stores as "eating places," this move brings to mind one clear sentiment: Welcome to the 21st Century, Pennsylvania.However, this also leads to some fairly obvious concerns on behalf of the community. Will being able to purchase alcohol through what are basically fancy convenience stores lead to an increase in alcohol abuse? Specifically, will it encourage already intoxicated individuals to venture out to stores such as Sheetz to get more alcohol, putting themselves and others in danger?

Several of these questions have been raised by Sen. Rafferty, R-Norristown, who plans to block the stores from selling alcohol. These concerns are indeed worth exploring, yet we cannot know the effects for sure unless we can measure the results after the changes are made. While many other states sell alcohol from convenience and grocery stores, even pharmacies, it is unreasonable to apply this mold to Pennsylvania -- especially Centre County.

We cannot preemptively know the effects on any one unique community. One simply has to wait and see. Therefore, it is counterintuitive to block these stores from selling alcohol before it can be proven that it will have a significant negative impact upon the community.

It seems that Sen. Rafferty, however, plans to ignore this logic much like the PLCB has done in the past. In 2001, the PLCB passed a statute called Act 199, which prohibited any publication affiliated with a college or university in Pennsylvania from running an advertisement that revealed the price or availability of alcohol. University of Pittsburgh's Pitt News went through a lengthy process of appeals to contest the statute on the grounds of its First Amendment rights, and it eventually won. The PLCB lost this battle because it could not prove that advertising alcohol specials had a considerable impact on the proliferation of dangerous drinking behaviors. The current situation is very similar -- Sen. Rafferty hopes to block the stores from selling alcohol based on a conjecture, not hard evidence.

The abuse of alcohol in a college town is a fact of life, albeit a negative one. Harsher penalties for violations and increased police presence are two very effective measures to help fight this problem, but shutting down alcohol availability isn't. A per-drink tax will no more stop people from frequenting local bars than the Prohibition stopped a flourishing trade of contraband spirits. As long as Sheetz and Wegman's plan to stop selling alcohol at a reasonable hour, mimicking the practical policies of other beer and liquor outlets, it is reasonable to allow Pennsylvania to step into the 21st Century and start selling beer in venues that are not tied to the bureaucratic heavyweight known as the PLCB.