The issue of Pennsylvania’s out-of-step system of selling beer, wine and liquor is again being debated in Harrisburg.

The issue should be about practical, common-sense reforms. But politics and union power are on display too.

Gov. Tom Corbett has listed privatizing the state store system as one of his priorities for the year, along with transportation funding and pension reform.

Pennsylvania’s level of government control of alcohol sales, from wholesale to retail, is unmatched anywhere in the country other than Utah. Since the Prohibition era, 48 states have mostly left the sale of wine, beer and liquor to the private sector.

Last week, Corbett announced his intention to sell the state liquor stores and use the proceeds, estimated at up to $1 billion, to increase funding for education.

Corbett noted what many Pennsylvanians know — other states offer more convenience, better prices and better selection. Corbett said that when visitors to the state realize that they have to make three separate trips if they are buying food, wine and beer, they say, “You guys are crazy.”

Defenders of the current system say privatization would expose more people to alcohol, implying it’s a public safety issue. That viewpoint is worth considering, but the facts don’t provide any support.

If Pennsylvania’s high level of state control reduced the incidence of alcohol abuse, underage drinking or DUI deaths and injuries, then the current system would be worth maintaining. But when it comes to alcohol abuse, DUI incidents or underage drinking, Pennsylvania does not stand out. Statistics put Pennsylvania in the middle of the pack compared with other states — better than some, worse than others when it comes to DUI reports and other alcohol-related problems.

If advocates for maintaining the current system had evidence that Pennsylvanians are healthier or safer than residents of other states, they would have produced that evidence. They have not.

And if Pennsylvania’s level of control over the sale of alcohol were better than other states’ systems, why have other states not made changes to copy what is done here?

Unions representing workers in the state stores oppose privatization. Union opposition has opposed — and blocked — privatization efforts before. Corbett is the third Republican governor to propose privatizing the state store system. Gov. Dick Thornburgh tried in the early 1980s, but failed. Gov. Tom Ridge tried in the 1990s, but failed.

There is — and should be — concern for state store workers. But if those workers are efficient, dedicated workers and also knowledgeable about the products the state stores sell, then they would likely be hired by private wine or liquor stores that would be established under a new system.

To address the concerns about state store workers, Corbett is proposing tax credits to encourage private wine and liquor stores to hire those workers. His plan also offers other aids to help those employees find new jobs.

The details of Corbett’s privatization plan should be debated. But the issue of whether alcohol sales should be managed by the state or private enterprise seems to be settled, based on the fact that 48 other states have moved away from Prohibition-era state control. The other fact supporting a change is that public health statistics related to alcohol in Pennsylvania do not support the claim that the state store system reduces alcohol abuse or drunken driving.

Pennsylvania should get out of the business of buying and selling alcohol.