In the days leading up to Christmas and New Year’s Eve, Pennsylvanians have been reminded of the state-run system for selling wine and spirits.

Holiday preparations in the Keystone State can mean shopping for groceries, then a trip to a State Store and then a separate trip to a beer distributor. Anyone who has visited other states realizes that in most parts of the country, wine and spirits can be bought in privately owned wine or liquor stores. And in many states, customers enjoy the convenience of buying wine and beer in grocery stores.

Another reason Pennsylvanians have recently been reminded of the state Liquor Control Board, which runs the State Store system, is news reports that the new wine vending machines installed by the LCB have been malfunctioning and are shut down until some bugs can be worked out.

The vending machines, officially called wine kiosks, sound more like Rube Goldberg contraptions because they require wine buyers to first swipe a driver’s license through a card reader to prove age and identity (a video camera records the transaction), then to blow into a tube to test for intoxication, and finally to swipe a credit card to complete the transaction.

But the machines, which have been installed in a number of locations across the state, sometimes fail to process the ID card or cannot analyze the would-be buyer’s breath. In other cases, the machines sometimes fail to dispense a bottle.

The wine kiosk experiment — and the machines’ technical problems — only further illuminates the absurdity of alcohol sales in Pennsylvania.

Though privatization efforts have failed in the past, the topic is expected to again be debated next year in Harrisburg.

With Republicans moving into the governor’s mansion and also regaining control of the state House of Representatives, the issue of the state-run liquor system is reportedly a top agenda item, along with General Assembly reforms and the looming budget deficit.

The political influence of the union representing the State Store employees has killed privatization efforts that go back several decades.

There will again be arguments from employees of the State Store system saying that the current system is a public health benefit, and also helps the state budget.

Both claims should be examined in the privatization debate.

Aside from creating a system that is more consumer friendly and more in line with what’s found in other states, there are financial considerations supporting a sale of the State Store system, given the state’s looming $4 billion budget deficit.

The short-term and long-term financial implications of privatization should be considered. Other states offer models for how Pennsylvania might reform alcohol sales. No other state, except Utah, retains such a high level of government control.

If state-controlled alcohol sales make financial sense, other states should soon unveil plans to copy Pennsylvania’s system with government control- ling everything from the wholesale to the retail level. But there are no reports that this is happening, despite most state budgets facing huge deficits.

Defenders of the current system also argue that state control reduces the amount of underage drinking and minimizes alco- hol-related problems, including DUI accidents and deaths.

Again, there is no evidence to support that claim. Accident statistics put Pennsylvania somewhere in the middle of the pack compared to other states when it comes to DUI figures and other alcohol-related accidents.

If alcohol-related problems in Pennsylvania were notably better than in other states, that would support keeping the current system in place. But alcoholism and alcohol-related crimes are just as common here as in other states.

Without any evidence to support claims that the current system benefits all Pennsylvanians, rather than a few thousand unionized State Store employees, lawmakers in Harrisburg should get on with privatization.