Agriculture, Alcohol, and Economic Tradeoffs A Comprehensive Analysis of Farming Impacts and Controlled Alcohol Commerce in Virginia

Agriculture, Alcohol, and Economic Tradeoffs: A Comprehensive Analysis of Farming Impacts and Controlled Alcohol Commerce in Virginia

Written by jaradponce

I. Economic Foundations and Regional Constraints: The Western Virginia Context

The economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia is substantially underpinned by its agricultural sector, which functions as the state’s largest private industry. Establishing the current economic landscape and infrastructural challenges faced by the western regions is crucial for evaluating the potential ripple effects of significant policy shifts in related commerce, such as alcohol distribution.

A. State of Regional Agriculture: Output, Commodities, and Agritourism

Virginia’s agriculture industry generated an economic impact of $82.3 billion annually and supported over 381,800 jobs in 2021.1 When combined with the forestry sector, the total economic impact exceeds $105 billion, accounting for 9.3 percent of the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).1 Livestock production, including poultry (broilers and turkeys), cattle, and dairy, represents the largest share of farm cash receipts, accounting for approximately 63 percent.1

Focusing on the geography of Western Virginia, many farms grapple with topography that limits size and soil fertility.2 Statewide, Virginia operates 39,000 farms covering 7.3 million acres, with an average size of 187 acres.1 Significantly, 36.6 percent of Virginia farms are less than 50 acres in size 3, confirming the prevalence of smaller, family-owned operations (95 percent of farms are family-owned).1

For these smaller operations, survival and profitability increasingly depend on diversification into value-added activities, notably agritourism and direct sales. Agritourism involves 210 Virginia farms that engage in both direct sales and tourism activities, specializing in products such as fruit and tree nuts (23.3 percent of direct sales farms) and beef cattle (13.8 percent).3 This strategy mitigates the risk posed by persistent challenges, including fluctuating commodity prices, rising input costs for fertilizer and fuel, labor shortages, and climate change effects such as unpredictable weather patterns.4

B. Infrastructure, Logistics, and the Rural Supply Chain Burden

The efficiency of farm-to-market distribution, especially for high-value specialty products like craft beverages, is intrinsically tied to transportation infrastructure quality. Data characterizing the Appalachian region, which includes much of Western Virginia, highlights significant logistical barriers. For example, transportation infrastructure analysis in neighboring West Virginia indicates that 55 percent of roads are in poor or fair condition, and 20.4 percent of bridges were structurally deficient in 2021.5 Furthermore, congested roadways cost drivers in major urban areas $400 million annually in lost time and wasted fuel.6

The reliability of local infrastructure introduces a critical economic variable. The economic viability of Western Virginia’s strategy—centered on diversification into craft beverage production (wines, ciders, spirits) and agritourism—depends heavily on efficient local logistics. These value-added enterprises require reliable, often small-batch, delivery systems for ingredients (farm-to-distillery) and finished goods (farm-to-retail). The poor quality of last-mile roads and regional congestion substantially increases transaction costs and delivery lead times. These costs act as an effective, unlegislated burden on rural producers, disproportionately affecting smaller operations that cannot benefit from centralized, high-volume shipping economies. Any proposed policy change that expands the complexity or volume of local distribution, such as privatizing alcohol retail, must be paired with substantial investment in rural infrastructure; otherwise, the market liberalization will simply amplify the existing supply chain pressures on local craft producers.

Table I.1 summarizes the key regional economic parameters.

Table I.1: Key Economic and Infrastructural Context of Western Virginia Agriculture
Metric
Virginia Agricultural Output (Total)
Farm Size (VA)
Primary Profit Challenges
Regional Road Condition (WV Proxy)

II. The Control State Model: Virginia ABC’s Fiscal and Operational Profile

The Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (ABC) operates as a state-run enterprise, maintaining a monopoly over the retail sale of distilled spirits. This structure generates substantial revenue and maintains specific regulatory objectives, making its privatization a complex fiscal undertaking.

A. Baseline Revenue and General Fund Contributions (FY 2024)

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, the Virginia ABC generated $1.5 billion in overall sales revenue.7 This financial activity resulted in a total contribution of

$635.7 million to the Commonwealth’s General Fund.7 This aggregate figure represents the immediate revenue stream that privatization legislation must account for.

However, a rigorous analysis requires distinguishing between the Authority’s operational profit (the true loss of the monopoly) and the taxes it collects on behalf of the state (which can be maintained through private systems):

  1. ABC Profit Disbursements (Net Profit): In FY 2024, the Authority’s operational net profit transferred to the General Fund was $243.4 million.8 This figure represents the inherent margin generated by the state’s exclusive retail and wholesale rights.
  2. Taxes Collected by ABC: The Authority collected $392.3 million in various state taxes, including spirits excise taxes, general sales taxes, and wine and beer taxes.7

The distinction between profit and taxes is critical for policy modeling. The $392.3 million tax revenue can theoretically be collected from private retailers via explicit excise taxes. The $243.4 million net profit, however, is the direct operational income derived from the monopoly, and its loss must be replaced entirely through new taxation or licensing revenue if the state aims for fiscal neutrality. Since its establishment in 1934, ABC has contributed a total of $13.9 billion to the General Fund, funding essential public services like education, health, and transportation.7

B. Operational Structure and Public Policy Justifications

The control model’s efficiency stems from its unique market position. Virginia ABC operates as a monopsonist—the exclusive buyer of alcoholic spirits in the Commonwealth.9 This centralized procurement power allows the Authority to extract significant cost advantages and regulate product pricing statewide, benefiting from economies of scale compared to fragmented private distribution networks.9 In FY 2024, operational controls and efficiencies were leveraged to control spending, resulting in the target net profit.10 The operational footprint consists of 402 retail stores and a workforce of 4,321 employees.7

Beyond revenue generation, the control model is justified by its public health mandate. States utilizing the control model aim to reduce alcohol-related harm by limiting consumption.11 Evidence suggests that alcohol consumption in control states is 16–20 percent lower than in decontrolled, or license, states.11 This is achieved by controlling availability through limited hours, specific locations, and lower outlet density (402 stores across the state).12 Privatization is associated with increased per capita consumption, making the control model a recognized strategy for harm reduction.13

Table I.2 highlights the financial components of the ABC operation.

Table I.2: Virginia ABC FY 2024 Financial Summary: Components of the State Transfer
Financial Metric
Total Gross Sales
Taxes Collected (Excise/Sales)
ABC Net Profit Disbursements
Total Transfers to General Fund

The political debate frequently centers on replacing the total $635.7 million transferred to the state. However, the true fiscal burden of privatization—the loss of revenue that must be replaced by implementing entirely new tax mechanisms—is the $243.4 million net profit. The remaining $392.3 million is already a tax stream that can be maintained under a private system by simply requiring the new retailers to remit sales and excise taxes. Understanding this distinction shifts the policy focus from replacing two-thirds of a billion dollars to replacing approximately $243 million through new excise taxes, though this remains a substantial legislative challenge. This structural complexity means the control system effectively utilizes its operational markup as an implicit excise tax, masking the true cost of taxation to the consumer.

III. Quantification of Opportunity Costs Under the Current Monopoly

While the control model offers fiscal stability and public health advantages, it imposes measurable economic inefficiencies, suppressing consumer welfare and private entrepreneurship. These suppressed economic activities represent the opportunity cost of maintaining the monopoly.

A. Consumer Price Inefficiency and Lost Consumer Surplus

Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that control states tend to impose higher prices on distilled spirits. A comprehensive 2012 cross-sectional study comparing 74 brands found that the overall mean liquor price was approximately $2 lower, or 6.9 percent lower, in license states compared to control states.14 This 6.9 percent price differential reflects the cost to Virginia consumers associated with the ABC’s controlled pricing and profit margins.

Furthermore, the lack of market competition under the monopoly structure creates microeconomic inefficiencies, including reduced consumer surplus and increased deadweight loss.9 The low density of outlets (402 stores statewide) compared to an open market, also imposes higher transaction costs on consumers in the form of increased travel time and distance.16 This inconvenience results in “border leakage,” where Virginians intentionally travel to neighboring open states to purchase spirits, resulting in lost retail sales and tax revenue for the Commonwealth.17

B. Suppressed Retail Entrepreneurship and Employment

The state monopoly over spirits retail inherently suppresses private entrepreneurial activity in this sector. The 402 state-run stores 7 replace what could be thousands of independent retail outlets. To estimate the potential economic expansion, the experience of Washington State following its 2012 privatization provides a useful benchmark.

In Washington, the number of liquor stores increased by approximately 327 percent.16 Applying a similar proliferation rate to Virginia’s 402 stores suggests the potential for over 1,700 new licensed retail outlets. This expansion would catalyze significant job creation, as evidenced by Washington’s experience, where proxy liquor store employment (NAICS 445310) increased by approximately 91 percent following privatization.16 Advocates suggest that opening the market could immediately generate a one-time windfall of

$300 million to $500 million through the auctioning of wholesale and retail licenses, funds that could be used for immediate transportation or infrastructure investments.17

While privatization advocates project significant consumer price advantages, the analysis of fiscal replacement reveals a crucial counterpoint. The estimated 6.9 percent lower prices observed in license states 15 only materialize if the state is willing to forego the $243.4 million in monopoly profits. If Virginia attempts revenue neutrality by replacing that profit with a high, visible excise tax, the consumer price advantage may be entirely nullified. The Washington experience supports this: following privatization, consumers faced an

8 percent increase in per-liter cost on average because the state imposed significant fees to offset lost control profits.16 Therefore, the primary and most reliable consumer benefit derived from privatization would be the gain in convenience, choice, and the reduction of travel-related transaction costs, rather than significantly lower prices.

IV. Market Dynamics and the Craft Beverage Sector

The regulatory environment in Virginia currently utilizes a complex hybrid three-tier system, where the state maintains a spirits monopoly while beer and wine operate under private distribution, often with state-supported modifications to aid local producers.

A. Barriers to Entry and Franchise Law Challenges

The post-Prohibition three-tier system (manufacturer wholesaler retailer) is widely recognized as presenting the greatest structural obstacle to competition, especially for small craft breweries and distilleries.20 This system has evolved to heavily favor large distributors, who prioritize high-volume national and multinational brands that provide reliable financial returns and distribution efficiency.20

Small craft brands often find themselves marginalized because distribution companies lack the financial incentive to spend resources building low-volume, specialized brands.20 Furthermore, distributor franchise laws in Virginia are structured to provide overwhelming leverage to large wholesale operators. A notable example involved Bell’s Brewery suspending sales for two years to avoid being forced into an unfavorable distribution agreement, highlighting the leverage large distributors hold over producers, even outside the spirits category.20

B. The Hybrid Distribution Response: VWDC and VBDC

To address the failure of the traditional private wholesale system to support local agriculture and craft producers, Virginia created specialized distribution mechanisms housed within the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).

  1. Virginia Winery Distribution Company (VWDC): Established in 2007, the VWDC is a non-profit, non-stock corporation that provides a “virtual distribution” system for Virginia wineries, allowing them to deliver directly to local retailers and bypass traditional wholesale bottlenecks.21 While highly valuable for access, data indicates that the financial performance of wineries relies heavily on non-wine sales (tasting fees, food, merchandise), which have a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9 percent, while wine sales have seen a slight decline.23 The VWDC facilitates access but does not fundamentally shift consumer behavior toward massive statewide purchasing.
  2. Virginia Beer Distribution Company (VBDC): Modeled after the VWDC, the VBDC was recently established (effective July 2024) to provide low-cost, streamlined wholesale distribution services for small and mid-sized breweries that struggle to secure access to traditional distributors.24 The very establishment of the VBDC underscores the existing market failure of the private three-tier system to adequately serve local, low-volume producers in the non-monopoly sectors (beer and wine).24

C. Logistics and Farm-to-Retail Demand Shifts

If Virginia privatizes spirits retail, the current state monopsony (ABC as the centralized buyer/distributor) is replaced by a decentralized, high-volume retail network. This necessitates the creation of an entirely new private wholesale spirits infrastructure. Given the proven market concentration pressures observed in other sectors, this new wholesale tier will inevitably prioritize the efficient movement of national, high-volume brands to large retailers.

This dynamic creates a significant structural threat to Western Virginia’s small craft distillers. Currently, distillers interact directly with the state monopsonist. Post-privatization, they must compete for access within a private wholesale market that will be focused on servicing large retailers. The resulting consolidation would likely make securing competitive wholesale contracts more challenging than dealing with the former state buyer. This market pressure may force craft distillers to rely even more heavily on direct-to-consumer sales and on-site agritourism, undermining the goal of using privatization to stimulate broader local farming supply chains (e.g., local grains or fruit) for statewide distribution.

The establishment of VBDC and VWDC as necessary governmental workarounds confirms that the private sector is already failing to support small producers. Introducing an open spirits market will likely exacerbate wholesale concentration across all beverage categories, placing greater financial pressure on Virginia’s local farm-to-distillery supply chain.

Agriculture, Alcohol, and Economic Tradeoffs A Comprehensive Analysis of Farming Impacts and Controlled Alcohol Commerce in Virginia

V. Case Study Analysis: Privatization Outcomes and Market Concentration

The most relevant empirical data for modeling Virginia’s potential privatization outcomes is the comprehensive study of Washington State’s Initiative 1183 (I-1183), which privatized retail sales and distribution of liquor in 2012.

A. Washington State Privatization (I-1183): The Paradoxical Outcome

I-1183 delivered massive increases in convenience and access, fulfilling one of the core arguments for privatization. The number of liquor stores increased by approximately 327 percent, and employment in the sector increased by 91 percent.16

However, the privatization yielded paradoxical fiscal and consumer results:

  1. Price Inflation: Contrary to expectations that competition would lower prices, the average per-liter cost of liquor increased by approximately 8 percent.16 This inflation was directly caused by the need for the state to impose high fees and taxes on the new private industry to replace the lost monopoly profit revenue.26
  2. Market Concentration: The new market became rapidly dominated by large multi-outlet chains, primarily big-box stores like Costco, which had aggressively promoted and funded the initiative.19 Two years post-privatization, 16 of the top 20 selling liquor stores were owned by big-box retailers.19 Independent small retailers who purchased former state-run stores struggled to compete due to the inability to secure the deep quantity discounts available to large chains. By 2014, only 113 of the auctioned stores remained open, a 32 percent decrease.27

B. Consumption and Public Health Impacts

The public health consequences of privatization were substantial. The removal of governmental controls on access was associated with an approximate 82 percent increase in monthly liquor purchases and a 26 percent increase in total household ethanol purchases in the state.28 This rapid increase in consumption volume is consistent with broader systematic review findings showing that privatization results in a median 44.4 percent increase in the sales of the privatized alcoholic beverages.13

This surge in consumption resulted in higher downstream social costs, including increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits and impaired driving proxies.29 Consequently, public health entities, such as the Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF), formally recommend

against further privatization of alcohol sales, citing strong evidence that it increases per capita consumption, which is a well-established proxy for harms.13

C. The Global Distributor Landscape and Market Power

In open markets, the size and vertical integration of multinational corporations pose a persistent threat to independent suppliers and distributors. Companies like Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev), which controls nearly half of the beer market nationally 30, maintain high market power. In certain open states, AB InBev owns its distribution, giving it control over 65–68 percent of the market share.31

A move toward an open spirits market in Virginia would subject the state to intense market concentration. The structural outcome observed in Washington—where big-box retailers dominate the shelf space—means that if Virginia intends to maximize convenience and density gains, it must accept that the market will consolidate rapidly, favoring distributors who can service these massive retail accounts. This presents a critical policy dilemma: the pursuit of unrestricted retail freedom actively works against the goal of fostering local, independent commerce.

VI. Scenario Modeling: Fiscal Replacement and Economic Transition

The transition to an open market requires meticulous fiscal planning to ensure replacement of the General Fund revenues currently supplied by the ABC.

A. Scenario 1: Revenue-Neutral Replacement

The immediate fiscal challenge is the replacement of the $243.4 million in annual net profits.8 To achieve revenue neutrality, the state must implement a combination of new fees and a substantial spirits excise tax hike sufficient to generate this annual amount.

If the necessary tax increase is imposed, Virginia must manage two consequences demonstrated by the Washington case study:

  1. Higher Consumer Prices: The required tax burden will likely negate the inherent price advantage of an open market, potentially leading to price increases, eroding the consumer surplus gain.19
  2. Border Leakage Risk: A significant tax increase could incentivize Virginians to continue crossing state lines to purchase spirits in areas with lower tax regimes, thereby undermining the expected tax revenue generation.

A mitigating factor is the one-time revenue generation from the auction of licenses. Historical modeling suggests this initial windfall could range between $300 million and $500 million.17 This non-recurring revenue stream provides a crucial short-term capital reserve (a two-year buffer) to manage the volatility of the transition and absorb any initial revenue deficits while the new tax structure stabilizes.

B. Scenario 2: Revenue-Positive Privatization and GDP Contribution Shifts

Achieving a revenue-positive outcome requires more aggressive assumptions, including significant consumption growth and high tax capture rates. Under this scenario, the market must grow substantially due to increased convenience (1,000+ new stores) 18 and the capture of cross-border sales.

The greatest contribution to GDP growth would occur in the wholesale and retail sectors, fueled by the massive proliferation of new licenses and subsequent employment growth (potentially tripling retail outlets and nearly doubling retail employment).16 These new private businesses would generate new sources of corporate income tax.17 The input-output multiplier effects of this sector expansion (e.g., new retail construction, administrative services, logistics demand) would significantly shift the state’s GDP contribution profile toward commerce and away from state-run retail.

However, a truly comprehensive analysis must incorporate the predictable costs associated with increased consumption. The documented rise in alcohol consumption following privatization (median 44.4 percent increase) 13 imposes corresponding downstream costs on the General Fund, including increased expenditures for public health services, emergency department visits, and law enforcement (DUI patrols).29 These increased public safety and health costs must be monetized and added to the $243.4 million annual replacement target. If these costs are significant, the required excise tax rate for true revenue neutrality would be substantially higher than current political estimates suggest, increasing the probability of consumer price inflation.

C. Employment Transition

Privatization necessitates a detailed plan for the transition of the ABC workforce, which totaled 4,321 employees in FY 2024.7 While the open market promises significant retail employment growth, the state must address the immediate costs associated with employee retraining, severance packages, or integration of staff into a streamlined ABC authority focused purely on regulation and enforcement. The cost of liquidating and winding down the state’s distribution center infrastructure must also be factored into the immediate transition expenses.

VII. Policy Synthesis and Recommendations

The analysis demonstrates that the privatization of Virginia’s spirits monopoly presents a complex set of tradeoffs, balancing potential microeconomic efficiency gains against significant fiscal and social risks. The goal of achieving a positive net public value transfer requires stringent regulatory measures to mitigate the undesirable structural outcomes observed in prior privatization experiments.

A. The Net Public Value Assessment: Balancing Tradeoffs

  1. Net Economic Efficiency: The privatization offers clear benefits in consumer convenience, choice, and substantial job creation in the retail and wholesale distribution sectors. However, the economic gains often sought via lower prices are unlikely to materialize if the state fully replaces the $243.4 million net profit through excise taxes, as demonstrated by the subsequent price inflation in Washington State.19
  2. Net Entrepreneurial Impact: The transition offers a dramatic quantitative increase in retail opportunities (potentially 1,200 to 1,700 new retail outlets).18 This quantitative gain, however, faces a severe qualitative risk: the high likelihood of immediate big-box retail domination, which marginalizes smaller, independent store owners and consolidates the wholesale distribution market, thereby hindering local craft producers.
  3. Public Health Cost: The most quantifiable liability of privatization is the median 44.4 percent increase in sales of privatized beverages, which carries a direct correlation to increased alcohol-related harms and subsequent social costs borne by the General Fund.13

B. Recommendations for Mitigating Negative Tradeoffs

Based on the empirical evidence, a successful transition for Virginia must prioritize targeted regulatory controls over maximizing revenue projections.

  1. Fiscal and Public Health Integration:
  • The General Assembly must enact a spirits excise tax floor that guarantees the replacement of the $243.4 million net profit. This tax mechanism must also incorporate an annual escalator that monetizes and offsets the projected increase in public health and safety expenditures resulting from increased consumption.13
  • Any new tax structure must maintain the existing dedication of a portion of alcohol revenues to localities, ensuring that the fiscal benefits continue to support local budget needs.32
  1. Small Business Protection and Market Access:
  • Zoning and Density Control: Grant local governments expansive authority to impose strict zoning ordinances and limit outlet density, particularly in rural and vulnerable communities.18 This measure mitigates public health risks and restricts the ability of big-box chains to rapidly saturate the market and displace independent entrepreneurs, avoiding the concentration seen in Washington State.19
  • Wholesale Mandate for Craft Producers: To prevent the immediate exclusion of Western Virginia’s small craft distillers, the new private wholesale licensing structure must either mandate dedicated capacity for in-state craft spirits or provide financial support for an expansion of the VDACS-affiliated distribution model (VWDC/VBDC) to officially include Virginia-produced distilled spirits. This ensures continuous, accessible market integration for farm-based supply chains, independent of multinational consolidation pressures.
  1. Strategic Use of Capital Windfall:
  • The one-time $300 million to $500 million license auction windfall should be dedicated specifically to improving rural infrastructure in Western Virginia, targeting the high percentage of roads in poor or fair condition.5 This action directly links the benefits of market liberalization to the relief of the structural “rural tax” currently impeding agricultural diversification and farm-to-retail logistics.

VII. Conclusion with Empirical Estimates

The shift from the Virginia ABC control state model to an open market represents a fundamental economic shift. While the goal of fostering entrepreneurial growth and consumer convenience is achievable, it must be pursued cautiously.

A Revenue-Neutral transition is technically achievable by elevating spirits excise taxes to replace the annual $243.4 million net profit lost from the monopoly. However, this strategy is likely to sacrifice the competitive price advantage sought by consumers, as demonstrated by the 8 percent average price increase observed after Washington’s privatization.

The economic opportunity for new business creation is substantial, with the market capable of supporting an estimated 1,200 to 1,700 new retail and wholesale licenses, driving significant employment growth.16

The overall net public value effect remains highly uncertain. Economic benefits are balanced against a measurable and predictable social cost: the risk of increased alcohol consumption, which historic data suggests could translate to a median 44.4 percent increase in sales of privatized spirits 13, thereby increasing public health and safety expenditures. Policy decisions should therefore prioritize structural protection of local businesses and mitigation of social harms over the short-term goal of maximizing commercial revenue.

Works cited

  1. Agriculture Facts and Figures, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/markets-and-finance-agriculture-facts-and-figures.shtml
  2. ‘Death of the Family Farm?’ New series shows the ups & downs of life on the land – Real WV, accessed September 28, 2025, https://therealwv.com/2025/04/10/death-of-the-family-farm-new-series-shows-the-ups-downs-of-life-on-the-land/
  3. Agritourism in Virginia – Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education – Penn State, accessed September 28, 2025, https://aese.psu.edu/outreach/agritourism/projects/nifa-agritourism/state-factsheets/south/2023-va-at-ds.pdf/@@download/file/2023%20VA%20AT%20DS.pdf
  4. Virginia Farming: Economic Challenges & Agricultural Rollers – Farmonaut, accessed September 28, 2025, https://farmonaut.com/usa/navigating-the-roller-coaster-economic-challenges-and-opportunities-for-virginia-farmers-in-2023
  5. West Virginia – 2021 Infrastructure Report Card, accessed September 28, 2025, https://2021.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/west-virginia/
  6. Keeping West Virginia Moving Forward: Progress & Challenges in Achieving a 21st Century Transportation System, accessed September 28, 2025, https://tripnet.org/reports/keeping-west-virginia-moving-forward-report-april-2025/
  7. Sales and Revenue – Virginia ABC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.abc.virginia.gov/about/sales-and-revenue-2
  8. VIRGINIA ABC ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.abc.virginia.gov/library/about/pdfs/fy2024-virginiaabc-annualreport-final-web.pdf?rev=ac3c18c707dd49cdaf9956e0dba97619&hash=1FE7AD7917F841BDEA264196E6418FCC
  9. Should the Commonwealth of Virginia Privatize Liquor Sales? – GW ScholarSpace, accessed September 28, 2025, https://scholarspace.library.gwu.edu/downloads/0k225b96d?disposition=inline&locale=de
  10. March 27, 2024 Board Meeting – Virginia ABC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.abc.virginia.gov/library/about/pdfs/board-meetings-2023-24/20240327-board-meeting-materials.pdf?rev=71c85b9e94c8491a96659bd726358951&hash=06F3502451D08975939B900097F6A352
  11. What You Need to Know About Virginia’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.tkevinwilsonlawyer.com/blog/virginia-s-liquor-monopoly-provides-a-crucial-revenue-source.cfm
  12. The Effect of Privatization of Alcohol Sale on Alcohol-Related Harms, accessed September 28, 2025, https://phlr.temple.edu/publications/effect-privatization-alcohol-sale-alcohol-related-harms
  13. Alcohol Excessive Consumption: Privatization of Retail Alcohol Sales, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/alcohol-excessive-consumption-privatization-retail-alcohol-sales.html
  14. Differences in liquor prices between control state-operated and license-state retail outlets in the U.S – PMC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3529794/
  15. Differences in liquor prices between control state-operated and license-state retail outlets in the United States – PubMed, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22934914/
  16. Privatization of Liquor – The impact of initiative 1183 – Office of Financial Management |, accessed September 28, 2025, https://ofm.wa.gov/fiscal/pdf/liquor_privatization_initiative1183.pdf
  17. Divesting Virginia – Reason Foundation, accessed September 28, 2025, https://reason.org/commentary/virginia-abc-liquor-privatization-1/
  18. Off the Wagon: Why ABC Privatization is a Bad Idea – In the Public Interest, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/Virginia-Interfaith-Center.pdf
  19. THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION ON ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND STATE REVENUES – Montgomery County Maryland, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/exec/Resources/Files/liquorworkgroup/MCTaskForce_Presentation.pdf
  20. As a customer of many small craft breweries, the biggest obstacle to competition in the adult beverage industry is the Three Tie – Regulations.gov, accessed September 28, 2025, https://downloads.regulations.gov/TTB-2021-0007-0825/attachment_1.pdf
  21. Self-Distribution for Virginia’s Craft Breweries, accessed September 28, 2025, https://virginiacraftbeer.com/self-distribution-for-virginias-craft-breweries/
  22. About | Virginia Winery Distribution Company – VWDC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.vwdc.org/about
  23. BASELINE OF DTC SALES BY VIRGINIA WINERIES: Q1 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – AWS, accessed September 28, 2025, https://vaw-public-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/26e1d21329dfd2da8b775364419e810d.pdf
  24. How VBDC Is Streamlining Statewide Distribution, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.vbdc.org/post/how-vbdc-is-streamlining-statewide-distribution
  25. Annual Report on the Activities of the Virginia Beer Distribution Company and the Quantity of Beer Distributed – Reports to the General Assembly, accessed September 28, 2025, https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2024/RD818/PDF
  26. Analysis of Price Changes in Washington Following the 2012 Liquor Privatization – PMC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4608622/
  27. Washington State spirits privatization: How satisfied were liquor purchasers before and after, and by type of retail store in 2014? – PMC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5971128/
  28. Washington’s privatization of liquor: Effects on household alcohol purchases from Initiative 1183 – PMC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8509083/
  29. Alcohol Deregulation: Considering the Hidden Costs – PMC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6508001/
  30. Anheuser-Busch brands – Wikipedia, accessed September 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anheuser-Busch_brands
  31. AB InBev & US Beer Distribution | In Practise – InPractise, accessed September 28, 2025, https://inpractise.com/articles/ab-inbev-and-us-beer-distribution
  32. A Legislator’s Guide to Taxation ABC Taxes – Division of Legislative Services – Virginia.gov, accessed September 28, 2025, https://dls.virginia.gov/pubs/legisguideabctaxes.pdf