You have to hand it to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Oregon’s regulatory system for hard liquor is a wheezing rust bucket, but the OLCC in recent months has been remarkably diligent with the paint, oil and duct tape. The panel has OK’d the limited ”store within a store” program that recently brought liquor sales to Bend’s west side, for instance. And on Monday, the panel will consider a rule change that would permit liquor stores to sell T-shirts, baseball caps and other merchandise carrying liquor logos.

The OLCC deserves credit for being flexible. But that doesn’t change the fact that Oregon’s vehicle for distributing hard liquor is a Tin Lizzie in a turbocharged world. It’s time for the Legislature to arrange a trade-in.

Now, allowing liquor stores to sell T-shirts and whatnot is a perfectly fine idea. But consider the process. Nothing says ”government inefficiency” like requiring a state body to approve an administrative rule in order to sell knicknacks. And nothing shows just how behind the times the agency is like peeking at some of the other rules still in effect. Liquor stores might soon be able to sell clothes advertising vodka and tequila, for instance, but, under state administrative rules, agents ”may not use or refer to specific brand names of distilled spirits in their advertising.” Who’d have thought that selling liquor apparel would be a quantum leap?

Meanwhile, the store-within-a-store concept – for which, again, the OLCC deserves credit – demonstrates how slowly and imperfectly the system responds to consumer demand. The liquor store inside Ray’s Food Place on Bend’s west side opened last month, and it’s been quite a success. During the week ending Oct. 31, the store sold almost $24,000 worth of merchandise, according to OLCC spokesman Ken Palke. To be sure, this isn’t nearly as much as Bend’s stand-alone stores. They sold about $60,000, on average, during this period, though it should be noted that the sales aren’t directly comparable, as stores within stores don’t have as many ”dispenser” accounts (mainly bars). In any case, $24,000 a week is nothing to sneeze at, and the OLCC isn’t sneezing. Palke says the agency is ”pretty pleased” with the results of the program so far.

That there was a demand for a liquor store on Bend’s west side is hardly a matter of debate, and we’re pleased that the OLCC finally acted on it. The demand, however, undoubtedly existed for years before the store opened, and the store itself is one of only a limited number – no more than six – that will be created under a new pilot program. The long-term prospects of the program are uncertain, as its explicit purpose is to collect data for the Legislature to consider as it devises new ways to sell booze. Meanwhile, as if its bureaucratic baggage weren’t enough of an obstacle, the program faces stiff opposition from many existing liquor store agents, who resent the competition.

Is this really the best, most efficient way to serve the needs of Oregonians? Of course it isn’t. We’d be much better off with privately owned liquor stores that could react nimbly to consumer demand, advertise their products (imagine that!), and even sell T-shirts and baseball caps without a special administrative rule allowing them to do so.

This suggests an opportunity for the Legislature, which, we keep hearing, will react to the looming budget shortfall by further streamlining state government. Whatever else lawmakers have in mind, they should ask themselves why in the world Salem owns and operates a huge chain of liquor stores when Oregonians themselves could do the job better. If they can’t come up with a better answer than ”because that’s the way we’ve always done things,” they should get the state out of the business.