Advertisement

The Pros and Cons of Initiative I-1100 – Liquor Sales in Washington State

Note: This article is republished due to public interest. The original publication date was June 23, 2010.

On June 23rd, a campaign called Modernize Washington delivered over 396,000 signatures for Initiative 1100 to the Secretary of State’s office in an effort to get the initiative on the November general election ballot. Both the pro- and con- sides of this initiative have produced talking points presenting their positions. Below is text from the YES campaign website for Modernize Washington in favor of Initiative 1100 followed by a press release by to NO campaign, Keep Our Kids Safe, against Initiative 1100.

We present both arguments so you may judge their respective merits.

YES on Initiative 1100

The main goal behind Modernize Washington’s Initiative to the People I-1100 is contained in Section 1:

The people of Washington State desire that the Liquor Control Board focus on its core mission of education and enforcement to protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens.

In order to strengthen the agency to more effectively educate the public, combat abuse, collect tax revenue and enforce state liquor laws, the Washington State Liquor Control Board will stop selling liquor and end its Prohibition-era monopoly on selling distilled spirits. The state will license the sale of distilled spirits to strictly regulated vendors who are already proven to be responsible sellers of beer and wine.

This initiative will improve regulations to prevent abusive and underage drinking, enforce licensing regulations and collect taxes for the State’s general fund.

The Initiative accomplishes this goal by creating these changes to existing law that is called Title 66 in our Revised Code of Washington.

  • Washington State’s Liquor Control Board [LCB] will no longer sell liquor.
  • LCB will end their current contracts with contract liquor stores.
  • Current operators in good standing of contract stores will receive licenses to continue in business as a private retailer, if they wish to continue operating.
  • LCB will no longer distribute spirits. The state distribution warehouse will be sold to generate money for the state.
  • A new distributor can be licensed and may buy from any licensed distillery and sell to licensed vendors just like beer and wine sellers.
  • Any store or distributor currently licensed to sell beer or wine, and in good standing, will be able to obtain a license to sell spirits, for an additional license fee.
  • Local jurisdictions throughout the State can determine how many outlets they will allow in their city via zoning regulations.
  • The state’s ‘mark-up’ on spirits is eliminated.
  • The existing tax on liquor will remain and it will be up to the Legislature to adjust the amount of tax.
  • The initiative mentions a 10% tax on purchases of spirits by restaurants. This is not a new tax or a tax increase. This is a technical update to current law, and merely requires private sellers to collect the existing tax which is now collected only by state stores.
  • Repeals the “Three-Tier System”, a set of Prohibition-era “blue laws” which grant monopoly privileges to middlemen, at the detriment of consumers.
  • Frees the LCB from the burden of enforcing outdated and unhelpful “blue laws”. The LCB will instead focus its mission on enforcement of licensing laws and education against under age drinking and general abuse of alcohol.
  • All license fees from the new licenses to sell spirits may only be used for enforcing liquor laws and educating the public against underage drinking and other abusive alcohol consumption.

No on Initiative 1100

Initiative 1100 Is a Major Threat to Public Safety that Will Cost Taxpayers Hundreds of Millions

Proposed measure puts our children and communities at risk by eliminating sensible regulations and allowing more than ten-fold increase in outlets selling hard liquor

With the State Auditor estimating that teens’ access to hard alcohol will increase by over 400% if Initiative 1100 passes, a growing coalition of public safety officials and others – calling on voters to “Keep Our Kids Safe” – today denounced Initiative 1100, a proposed statewide measure to privatize liquor sales.

“I see people all the time who come into the Hospital after a car accident caused by alcohol,” said Sharon Ness, a Tacoma-area nurse. “Why on earth would we ever want to sell liquor in the same stores where we sell Cheerios? Allowing hard liquor to be sold in neighborhood convenience stores, gas stations and thousands of other outlets across the state is bad for our health and bad for our kids.”

Currently, there are 340 outlets across the state licensed to sell hard liquor. Since any outlet now selling beer and wine will be allowed to sell hard liquor under I-1100, the number of outlets will skyrocket to more than 3,300 if the initiative passes, as controls over the distribution of liquor are wiped out.

“Making hard alcohol more accessible by selling it in convenience stores is a potential threat to the public’s health and to the safety of our communities,” added Kelly Fox, Olympia Firefighter and President of the Washington State Council of Firefighters, who over his career has been a first responder at the scene of many tragic drunk driving accidents.

According to a recent report from the State Auditor, under its current system Washington maintains a 94% compliance rate with no-sale to minors. However, other states with privatized sales have a compliance rate of 75%, meaning that roughly one out of every four underage kids who walk into a convenience store to buy liquor walk out with a bottle in hand.  That represents a 400 percent increase in the rate of non-compliance.  In addition to making alcohol more accessible to minors,  I-1100 would also harm kids by eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars of state revenue from alcohol sales that is currently used to support public safety, education and children’s health care.

If Initiative 1100 were in effect in 2009, Washington State taxpayers would have lost more than $230 million in revenue, which was used to fund schools throughout the state as well as health care and other core services.

About Rob Butcher

Editor and Scribbler of Kirkland Views.
  • Enoughbasta

    The “Keep our Kids Safe” “coalition” consists of the state liquor store cashier's union and a handful of Prohibitionist throwbacks. The claims they're make are so hysterical and over-the-top that they're almost funny.

    There's absolutely no basis to the claim that the state would have lost “$231 million in revenue” for schools, etc.. That's a completely made-up fictitious number.

    If any of the fear-mongering about underage drinking and car crashes had any merit, the statistics should show that states with private-sector liquor sales would have much higher rates of alcohol problems than Washington. In fact, the opposite is true. In spite of our alleged “strict controls”, Washington has a worse than average rate of underage drinking and a worse than average percentage of highway deaths caused by alcohol.

    Maybe the state should stop maximizing revenue for the government through product sales, and instead start doing something effective to reduce alcohol abuse.

  • Bruce2355

    From where does the NO side get the data of a$230 loss in revenue? Revenue is simply what the state stores bring in? With the closure of stores the state will still get all of the taxes it currently does, without the overhead of wages and benefits, lease and maintenance costs, and th cost of a very expensive distribution warehouse. Basically th state will continue to get the same tax base with little expense. If they just take 10% of the departing employees (the top 10%) and turn them into enfocment and compliance officers the state would be so far ahead of the game.

    ONe final thought. This is the United States, land of liberty, personal freedoms, Why does the state continue with the socialist programs. Heck, even most provinces in Canada have abandoned government run liquor stores.

  • http://kirklandviews.com Rob Butcher

    Test

    • http://kirklandviews.com Rob Butcher

      Test 2

  • Jgrailto

    The “YES” side needs to play the “Green” angle. Think of all the fuel saved and reduction in greenhouse gasses by allowing consumers to combine liquor purchase with grocery shopping rather then a special trip to the liquor store… It will certainly save me $$!

  • wwwcowgirl

    How ironic that the states who have already privitized alcohol are the ones in the greatest financial difficulty. They have found out the hard way that deregulating alcohol has no benefits to society and costs taxpayers more in the long run. CA for example is looking to raise taxes on beer wine and alcohol to dig themselves out of the financial mess they created. Statistics from the World Health Organization prove that mass quantities of easily accessable alcohol greatly increases consumption resulting in alcohol epidemics that Russia and the UK are currently experiencing. Large corporations should not be allowed to try and change laws that would only benefit them. They only have profits in mind and not the overall well being of the general public.

    • Pickthisgirl

      uh huh, California is in trouble because they are not a control state…no, it couldn’t be because of corruption and overspending within the state government…

      • Anonymous

        All the more reason why WA state should not go down the same road as them.

  • Ansulman

    The fact that the state made $230 million from liquor sales in 2009 has no merit in this REAL world. The state stands to make millions from the annual permits to sell hard liquor alone not to mention the tax on booze stays the same. Not every gas staition or mini market will want to sell spirits just because they can, the cost to stock hard liquor and the potential loss of shoplifting will cause some small stores to pass on the right to stock and sell alcohol. California has many small stores and gas stations that simply dont sell hard alcohol even though they sell beer and wine.

    The statement about drunk driving is narrow minded, how many drunk drivers on the road today are drunk on beer and wine they bought at safeway? Just because hard liquor is available at costco doesnt mean that there will be more drinking and driving. That is like saying if you legalize grass EVERYONE will get high. If you dont want hard booze now you avoid the state liquor store, if its available at albertsons that alone wont make you buy it nor will it make you a drunk driver.

    The persons opposed to the initiative are mixing up the facts and try to confuse the issue. Prohibition ended in 1933 and its high time that the people in Washington State realize that.

  • Dan Singley

    I worked in a State Managed liquor store for over 25 years and the state needs out of the liquor business. Stores are so far apart a lot of accidents are caused by a driver under the influence driving 8-15 miles to get to a liquor store. Now he can walk because a liquor store will be close by. The state should generate a lot more income because of license fees and an increase in sales that will still be taxed by the state. The state selection process for who gets to run a Liquor Agency is very unfair.The state won't have to hire all those high paid so called executives that run the State Liquor Board. The State should see a huge influx of money from sales of their liquor and sales from their Stores equipment. It is totally insane the hours that most Liquor stores have. Most close at 7PM, so people have to drive if they want to drink. There is a lot more I can say but please pass this bill. I do not drink myself, but I have seen what the state has done to the Liquor business.

  • Csbergsma

    You are truly mistaken with your comments. I have a nephew that lives in California and I am sure all teenagers in that state would agree with your mentallity. After all, they simply walk in to their local grocery store and walk out with a fifth of what ever they choose for the night. Yes, there is beer and wine at our local grocery store and as kids in California will tell you it is much easier to walk in and grab a bottle of hard alcohol than a case of beer and to be truthful our local grocery stores are not doing a good job of preventing theft of the alcohol they are selling now.
    I don't care to go in a grocery store with my children and shop with the local drunks. I have a relative that worked in a liquor store ( not state owned) and the thought of the same clientele wondering the grocery store is not appealing to me! You act as though only the state employees are concerned about loosing their jobs, what about the privately owned stores and their emplyees?

    • Pickthisgirl

      Just for your info, according to research, most “drunks” drink beer; for some reason alcoholics and teenagers seem to favor beer over hard liquor, so you are already grocery shopping with the “local drunks”. Facts are inconvenient, aren’t they?

  • Csbergsma

    Not TRUE!! I am no throwback. I simply do not want to shop in our local grocery store with the “average” liquor store customer. Don't misunderstand, I have seen and heard what these liquor store owners have to deal with on a daily basis. Let's face it do you want to take your kids grocery shopping with the toothless alcoholic screaming in the grocery store because some clerk refused to sell the already drunk guy another bottle? After all, reality is the average liquor store customer is not sitting on their computer posting a comment right now are they.

    • Moparwelder

      that happens now in the stores when some one can’t buy beer or wine. What is your point. Or are you lost in your own little world.

    • Derick74

      I TAKE OFFENCE TO THAT! i am a liquor store customer and i am on my computer RESPONDING. GET OVER YOURSELF. Your no better than i. Infact i most likely have a higher education than you. i definatly drive a better car than you, and make more money. i was the guy behind you in a suit at QFC buying a six pack because i worked late and it was past 7.

  • Thomas

    If the state looses revenue are you willing to pay a state income tax?

    • Budd

      the liquidation of stores, stock and equipment (+ect.) will give a influx to close the gap, if not exceeding the first year. giving time to debate a tax adjustment on alcohol to close the minimal losses, after that you and i sir will vote to approve it.

    • Beckysureg

      FYI Thomas I1100 adds an additional Business & Occupation tax that will be paid as a result of pasing this initiative. Currently, the state Liquor Control Board (LCB) does not pay B & O tax in any form. In a privatized system, both distributors and retailers would pay B & O tax on their sales of spirits. I really doubt that it would be necessary to enact a state income tax to cover any shortfalls.

  • Bill Henkens

    I don't understand how the state would loose any revenue? If anything thier revenue will increase because the mark-up would be smaller and thus more liquor would be purchased, all of the taxes remain the same. The State will save on all of the other expences, rent, payroll, etc…. It's a win /win as I see it.

    • Dfdf

      Liquor sales generated $370.3 million in revenue for essential state and local services in Fiscal Year 2010. They will lose revenue because there is a state markup that will be lost. Before long though prices will creep back up as they have in other states and it will just be companies like cosco benefiting.

      • John Gilday

        Dfdf,
        You miss a few important points…

        370.3 million in revenue is not 370.3 million in profits.

        – Taxes (which will remain) account for 119 million, leaving 259.3 Million
        – 50% mark up means 130 million is left
        – leases on 316 state liquor stores, average cost $36,000 annually,
        – 2,000+ employees eat up much of the remaining 119 million, and they can take their expertise to the private sector

        Vote YES on 1100 and NO on 1105

  • lisaannjarrett

    I'm originally from Chicago and I have NEVER seen the toothless alcoholic stereotype that you mention in the grocery stores there. That's a blatant lie. Moreover, I have many memories about going shopping for groceries with my parents, who sometimes even would pick up a bottle along with that week's groceries, and you know what…? It wasn't a big deal.

    Where do you live, Csbergsma, because the type of people you talk about that buys liquor in the state of Washington are, in actuality, NOT the type of people I've personally seen at the state liquor stores. I've been to liquor stores in downtown Seattle, University Village, Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, etc, and I've NEVER, EVER have seen the type of people that you mention in your above comment.

  • Pam

    Personally I don't drink, and I'm not sure I disagree with you but it is the way in which you present you case that is frought with hysteria and half-truths. In any state if kids want to get liquor they will find a way. In fact many of them don't have to go to either…they raid their parent's stash OR their parent's miriad of pharmaceuticals. Afraid of milling around w/ “Local drunks” at the grocery store – it that the only place you think they are??? And honey the “same clientelle” ARE in the grocery store with you but just becasue they are alcohol consumers, they aren't drunks. Will you lock up your kids when you go out to eat etc.??? I guess my question to you is why aren't you more interested in people not drinking and driving no matter where they get it from? I have had the pleasure of raising kids who are now college age. I don't know how old your kids are but I used to use any public display of drunkedness as a teaching moment for my kids because over-intoxication is NOT pretty… If you want to keep things as they are why don't you appeal to a higher intellect using more of yours.

  • Mbraunworth

    One thing that keeps getting shuffled aside is that this initiative was financially backed by Costco, and in no way is about helping consumers. they also are using thing mention of liquor to cover where they will stand to make the most profit (and cost roughly 4000 jobs statewide, mine included) and that is the current state of beer distribution. That's the “three tier system they mention. Costco does not want to get rid of this system, the just want to replace one of the tiers with themselves. Currently under state law, a beer distributor must maintain the same price per case no matter the size of the account. that means that the “mom and pop” stores have that same starting price point for a six pack of Bud Light or any other beer as Costco, Safeway, QFC, and all the other large accounts. This system helps keep small store competitive with the big stores. Of course the big stores don't like this, and so they are using privatization of liquor sales, which is much easier to get the public to go along with, to accomplish the real goal of making their profit margin on beer higher. Anyone with a brain knows that far more beer is bought and sold everyday than hard alcohol, but, its given very little press when concerning this initiative, which is sad, our news gathering organizations should research this initiatives roots more

    • Ger206

      what about the millions that the beer and wine companies are throwing out against 1100? you forgot that didn’t you. they don’t want to loose the monopoly of being the only alcoholic beverage being sold out side the state stores. good that costco got the ball rolling because i couldn’t all by myself! its no longer Prohibition era 1920′s ….that was nearing a century ago. get with it man.

    • DaddyO

      I’m having quite a difficult time parsing your argument(s). Let’s try to break down your statements.

      1. Financial backing. Yup, Costco helped bring the initiative to the ballot, no doubt. They will make money if it passes. So will lots of retailers, big and small. Expanded sales means expanded opportunities.

      2. Jobs (buried in your Costco sentence). Sorry to hear you might lose your job. Bring that expertise to the private sector and put your experience where your mouth is.

      3. Tiers. I cannot understand what you’re saying. This removes tiers, it doesn’t create them. Price control is NOT a good thing. It limits choice, that’s just one of the downsides. And if you haven’t been in a supermarket here or any other state, you clearly have not been paying attention to the wild swings in pricing on the shelves.

      4. The last section of your post disappears into a fog that I cannot see through. This initiative is about sales of spirits, not beer.

      Finally, I’ll make my own comment. Many, many other states have figured out how to regulate sales of alcohol without being in the actual business of selling it. To imply that we cannot also do this in Washington is to imply that we are stupid. Speaking for myself, I know we’re not in that category. Do you?

  • Ddsmpc

    California did not deregulate Alcohol. It has been privatized there since prohibition ended so any financial problem they are in they created themselves, it was not created because of liquor. Sometimes it takes large corporations to change laws. The average person doesn't have the resources to make changes. I do not drink but I worked in a Wa state liquor store for 25 years and I would have privatized liquor long ago. If you knew anything about how Wa State operates their liquor stores you would agree.

  • www_cowgirl

    As a matter of fact I do know how liquor stores in this state operate, they generate revenue for the state, something you would know about if you worked in a store for 25 years. I don't agree with large corporations thinking they can change the laws only to benefit themselves. The state funds a program to feed school children thru the summer months that otherwise would go hungry, without state funding those children wouldn't get anything to eat. So let's see here, what is more important? Feeding children the only substantial meal they get in a day or major corporations lining their pockets with more money? I think feeding hungry children should be the priority here not selfish thoughtless people buying booze at a grocery store!

  • www_cowgirl

    Costco just wants to rule the world and make tons of money doing it, that is why they bankrolled Initiative 1100. Instead of money going to state funded programs, it will be going into the CEO's pockets. Initiative 1100 has no long range plan in place to support state revenue. Will Costco be sending its employees out to maintain state highways? NO! Will Costco be paying to keep state prisons up and running so criminals are not turned out on the streets? NO! Will Costco be feeding hundreds of hungry school children who's only decent meal is provided by a state funded program? NO! Do the people of WA state want to pay an imposed state income tax to cover the costs of Initiative 1100? Oh Hell NO!

    • WhyCantWeAllGetAlong?

      The Initiative will not eliminate the taxes that the state gets for liquor sales, only the mark up that is used to pay for the employees who sell it. So was your arguement sound? NO. Is it based on facts? NO. Should people like you who have no idea what you are talking about be on here posting, or let alone voting, Hell No. haha

    • WhyCantWeAllGetAlong?

      The Initiative will not eliminate the taxes that the state gets for liquor sales, only the mark up that is used to pay for the employees who sell it. So was your arguement sound? NO. Is it based on facts? NO. Should people like you who have no idea what you are talking about be on here posting, or let alone voting, Hell No. haha

  • Bill Henkens

    Cowgirl,
    Do you have any idea how much Costco pays the State of Washington in B&O taxes? Or how much of the sales tax they collect goes to the City of Kirkland? They are much better suited to sell liquor than the out of date expensive Washington State Liquor Control stores with their high priced state employee’s.
    Liquor sales would increase and the taxes collected should far exceed what is being collected currently. The private sector will always be more efficient.
    Costco Wholesale had more than $400 billion in store revenues as of 2009

  • Jett286

    Let's not forget that state employees have great benefits and only pay 12% of their benefit package. The tax payers pay 88% of those benefit packages. Which means that the cost of those benefits go away if the state gets out of the liquor business, saving the state money. With the Obama health care it shouldn't be an issue for those workers to get health care if they don't have the same benefit package with their new employers.

  • Jameson Whiskey Lover

    California’s financial dificulties have NOTHING to do with alcohol sales. Their sales have been privatized since before I was a teenager. The moron governor is trying to tax yet another vice to bail out the entitlement programs. The $$ saved on wages and benefits can go to increased enforcement and stings to prevent underaged drinking….although…if they want it, they’ll find a way.

    Privatization is ALWAYS more efficient and will provide far more revenue for the state.

  • Willy

    The State has no business being in the liquor business. Free enterprise, the government should not be in business when the private sector can handle it on their own. Government is way to large and must be cut and it seems to me that this is as good a place as any to start. Go to Olympia someday a see the rows of office building filled with nothing more than bureaucrats who produce NOTHING!!

  • Toolguy42

    There are plenty of responsible vendors capable of abiding by the law without government assistance. To say that the only responsible outlet for hard alcohol purchase is the govt is ridiculous. If you are that concerned about your children purchasing liquor, take the time to be a parent and ‘parent’ them not to try purchasing alcohol.

  • Lostnemotions

    i haf to agree with making alcohol accessible in convienient stores it will be easy for kids to shop lift. shop lifting in these small stores is easy to do. as a youth i did it myself and with enough people you can do grab&go type theft as well. so this is not a good thing to pass. i live on capitol hill in seattle and we have alot of partiers, drunks, homeless and the like. those that sit around and drink & pan handle will be more drunk and i believe you will see alot of outside urinations, fecal matter and vomit on the streets because there is no one to control the consumption of alcohol. alot of convienience stores stay open late and some 24hrs a day. so you will have those that will keep drinking 24hrs a day and i believe car accidents will rise, people being caught especially youth with open bottles in their cars and alot more of these hard cor 24hr drinkers will be up during quiet hours causing hell for those of us that haf to go to work the next day. i vote no on i1100. i hope those reading will do so to.

    • Demonicxlizard

      What the hell is a slippery slope?

    • Tjdk

      your not concerned about them steeling beer or wine? all the stores in california that i have ever bought from the liquor is behind locked doors, or counters and if not have anti theft caps that are removed at the registers. THIS INITIATIVE WILL NOT ALLOW 24 HR SALES. get your facts straight. why dont you just vote to ban liquor sales completly? seems thats the way you feel if none can be trusted.

  • Just a guy

    I’m of legal drinking age and all for cheaper and more easily available booze.
    I’m not concerned about it being easily available to kids, If they want it they will get it regardless.
    I am concerned about where the loss in state revenue is going to be made up. More taxes elsewhere?

    • jaycee

      the state can always adjust the taxes to close the gap. turst they will.

  • Clef30

    No 1100 !!!!!

    State liquor stores have the best service in comparison with private ones . Prices on the tags always the same I pay checking out . No kiddings no tricks ! Good choice , friendly atmosphere .
    Get the hell off your greedy hands from State liquor stores !

    • notAcommunist

      great choices?? are u crazy?!!? i went to go buy bubble gum flavored vodka for a bon-bon recipe and was told they don’t stock it or sell it to the general public because it appeals to kids. COME ON! Are you a communist? you really feel you need your hand held? GROW UP!
      Ever been to the liquor barn in california? now that place has choices. Don’t forget just because liquor will be available in a grocery store doesn’t mean there wont be liquor stores.

      • averagejane

        Have you seen what is across the candy aisle in 7-11? CONDOMS!! As a parent I was appalled but bottom line is it’s my job to educate my children and direct them to be responsible grown adults. As a middle schooler I stood in front of a State run liquor store and gave $$ to an adult who in turn came back out with my BOOZE, so who is being responsible.? Beer and Wine can get anyone drunk.

    • Daddyo

      Trying not to be snarky here, but have you ever been out of the state and been in a liquor store not run by the state?
      Great service? They have very little motivation to provide “great service” and it’s demonstrated at least half the time I set foot in a state store. Try to get a clerk’s attention when they’re chatting with their clerk pals. Good luck.
      I say this as someone who gets their paycheck from the state. Selling hooch is not something the government should be doing. Regulating, hell yes. Selling, hell no.

  • Concerned

    Why is no one talking about the job loss? Aside from the social ills and lost revenues, this measure automatically puts hundreds of state employees out of a job, not to mention the distributors, small wineries and breweries at risk as well. How can the public criticize our goverment leaders for not doing more to keep people employed while considering a measure that exacerbates the problem? Liquor stores are profitable businesses, not handouts, and we should be protecting the good jobs our economy has to offer.

    • Bill Henkens

      The 50% mark up that happens at the liquor stores is just enough to make payroll, pension contributions, rent and the utilities. The liquor taxes stay the same. 32 states have successfully turned liquor sales to private business with no major problems. The State of Washington should not be in the retail business period. Retail should always be left to the private sector. Service will improve as well as prices will drop. It’s a win/win for everyone. Don’t buy the scare tactic’s … it’s time to get the State government rolled back to it’s basic responsibilities …. Retail sales is not one of them. Vote YES on 1100

      • Sdf

        actually its more than enough to cover the cost of the approximate 1,300 state liquor related employees. liquor sales generated $370.3 million in revenue for essential state and local services in Fiscal Year 2010.

        • Bill Henkens

          I think you should know two things….
          1. 370 million equals one single day of state spending
          2. The tier 1 pension for the liquor store employee’s is 9 billion under funded.
          VOTE YES on 1100 !

    • Anonymous

      Why is no one talking about the budget pluses?

      This measure automatically eliminates hundreds of state salaries, percs, pensions etc. at a time when we are looking for places to cut fat.

      How can the government leaders say they are cutting wasteful spending when they are paying tens of millions out to people who SHOULDN’T BE EMPLOYED BY THE STATE in the first place.

      Vote YES on 1100
      You will be be practicing good economic sense.

    • julie

      I don’t understand this response. This would not make it impossible for those employees to work, just not to work for, and be paid by, the taxpayer. Budget cuts are happening in every government agency, and job losses are going to happen. When it does, as difficult as it is for those to cut and for those who are being cut, I applaud the efforts of those agencies who are trying to stay within their means. This is a no brainer. We are paying their salaries with the markups on the alcohol purchased. The people don’t want that anymore.

  • Subaruguru

    Just want to point out:

    1.Argument that it will make it more likely to be “ripped off” at stores. California has a cap that “locks” on to the bottle that is taken off when purchased.

    2. Argument that it will increase drunk driving: currently if someone wants liquor and the state stores are closed, they are relegated to go to a bar and then drive back home after drinking.

    3. Argument that revenue will be lost: Possible though it is likely not as all taxes will remain the same. While the over 50% state markup will be lost, so will the cost of contracting out state employees w/ pers 2 pensions, wages etc.

    4. Argument that WA state employees will be jobless: I am sure Safeway, QFC, Trader Joes, Costco, Kroger, Top Foods and the other myriad of stores will be looking for talented employees. I do think it would be great for the WFSE to aid in finding job’s for any laied off workers much like Microsoft does for its employees.

    5. Argument that small/local WA wines will be displaced: It is true that a store can choose what to carry just as WA (currently the ONLY vendor) can. Will people suddenly stop going to a winery because there is liquor at Safeway?

    FYI: I don’t even drink. I just hate monopolies be it a private company (cable co. etc) or be it a Local Government.

  • Cassie

    I am all for the government to stop micromanaging EVERYTHING. This is bullcrap that I have hunt down a stupid special store just to make freaking rum coconut shrimp! I say YES to 1100.

  • hoppy girl

    I am offended by the notion that beer and wine are somehow not responsible for any of the health problems related to “alcohol.” It is simply not true that hard alcohol gets a teenager more drunk than beer or wine or that hard alcohol is more likely to cause a person to drive drunk. If we can stop giving hard alcohol a special place, perhaps we can start to educate our citizens about ALL alcohol!!!!!

  • curious and furious

    I hear and read that hundreds of millions will be lost in state revenue if we close state stores. My question is how are we losing this money? The taxes are still in effect aren’t they? Also how many millions are we spending on employee pay and benefits and rent for the properties that the state stores are in? It just feels like our govt. wants to keep itself large and in everyones business.

    • Curtis

      You really don’t understand how that money will be lost? Jesus christ, that’s exactly why we need to keep those funds for better education.

  • http://twitter.com/LastAshenHero John Dupras

    It’s laughable to suggest that increasing the availability of liquor is going to cause more alcohol related deaths.

    The NO side of this debate seems to be seriously suggesting that beer are wine are somehow LESS responsible for alcohol related deaths? How insulting. Vote YES, and give the citizens the ability to choose for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions.

    We need more freedoms, and less babysitting in this state.

    • Anthony Colon

      John, Your missing the point!! These Asians and other liquor store owners care less about the safety of people and all they care about is making a buck. It takes far less time and amount of hard liquor to get someone drunk. Vote No!!!

      • Tigon

        what asians and what liquor store owners!?!? The current liquor stores?? How does voting no change that.

        And if you’re talking about if the initative passes, WHAT LIQUOR STORES are you talking about? Safeway?? Costco?? Albertsons? QFC?? Are these corporations going to be any less responsible than they already are with beer and wine??

        Preposterous!

  • Gman

    Comments against, for the most part , are irrational, emotional and fear-based. Tonight, we wanted to purchase some Cointreau for a recipe. The liquor store closed at 7pm on a Friday night.

    Ridiculous. For us, this is the real issue. If the state wants to control liquor, at least make it accessable.

    We don’t ask that they stay open until 1am, but 10pm on a Friday or Saturday night is not unreasonable.

  • Sam

    i like pie

  • Cam

    This law is going to kill liquor sales. Why? Because it places the onus on large producers and wipes out current laws against negotiating bulk discounts from distributors. You think that Safeway and Costco are going to bother stocking a selection ANYTHING like the LCB stores have? No. They’re gonna just pull some wine off the shelf and throw some bacardi and smirnoff on it. This initiative is ASININE. If Costco wants to sell liquor, maybe it should man the fuck up and try to compete with the LCB instead of just closing them down and pretending that its a “popular movement.” I’m as tired as our liquor laws as anyone but this is NOT the answer to any fucking problem.

    • Ned

      totally ass-backwards…

    • Tigon

      Really dude? Have you been outside of washington?? I grew up in california and the liquor selection in costco and safeway were more than adequate. For more niche, more expensive and less common liquors you will still go to speciality stores.

      “Current operators in good standing of contract stores will receive licenses to continue in business as a private retailer, if they wish to continue operating.”

      Not all of the current liquor stores will close, the private owner/operators (that DO exist) currently can continue to operate, and it is here you can go to find something other than bacarid or smirnoff if you really feel that’s all you wind up finding.

      Are you really that naive to challenge costco to step up and try to compete? Costco’s success has been built on competing, and competing well.

      Next time, read the entire initiative and come with an intelligent narrative rather than expletives (that means curse words).

      • Publiclisting

        The liquor store near me doesn’t sell beer… Will that change?

        I lived in Florida my whole life until now and in Florida you can’t buy liquor at a grocery store. If a grocery store wants to sell Liquor they have to have a separate entrance and License. To me that seemed stupid, but you know people make rules and people are stupid so the rules will be too… But your current rules here in Washington make the people in Florida look smart and that isn’t easy.

  • Demonicxlizard

    Notice how all of the facts listed in the YES section are simply just facts, all of which are positive and objectively verifiable.

    Now look at all the reasons in the NO section, a bunch of appeal to emotions, unsubstantiated claims not backed up by any empirical evidence (access to alcohol increase 4 fold, wtf???).

    It mentions other states have a 75% compliance. Why does if this is an average of every state with similar laws, or simply just one state. No reason is offered to demonstrate that a 94% compliance rate will suddenly drop with the enactment of this law. Are we all of a sudden going to just stop asking for ID because its a bottle of vodka now?

    “Why on earth would we ever want to sell liquor in the same stores where we sell Cheerios?” What th are we doing now with beer and wine? If we follow your principals, we should be voting to ban alcohol from private retailers altogether.

    The arguments against this initiative barely touch on the actual issue at hand, and look more like reasons to ban alcohol from the state entirely rather than address a subset at issue.

  • ClarenceH

    this initiative just makes sense. no hard liquor after 7 and VERY Limited stores open on sunday?!? whats the deal? isint this the good old free usa? or communist WA? what, i cant be trusted to be responsible im 62?! the state should worry about helping me wipe my bum when i cant any longer, not limit me to beer over gin.
    vote to approve. that simple.

  • Wskeys

    The last big mistake the Washington voters made was electing “The Gargoyle” as Governor.
    1.) Proponents of props 1100 & 1105 say the state has a 51% markup on liquor sales and by privatizing liquor sales there would not be a 51% markup and prices would go down.
    2.) Proponents of props 1100 & 1105 say that privatizing of liquor sales would create jobs.
    Re: 1.) If a State Liquor Store charges (say) $20 for a litre of Kahlua, you can bet a private liquor store will charge close to the same amount which would result in more of a profit for a profit run business of privatized liquor. There is no potential for lower liquor prices.
    Re: 2) Privatizing liquor sales and closing state liquor stores will not create jobs, it will cause state liquor store employees to lose their jobs. Do Washingtonians really want to be the cause of hundreds (if not thousands) of state employees to lose their jobs?
    The only jobs it would create is an influx of Irani (they call themselves “persians”) immigration, and the only people they will hire are other Iranians.
    Don’t believe me? Take a trip down to El Cajon (that’s pronounced CUH HONE) California where there is on the average 1 liquor store every 5 square miles and they are all owned and run by Iranians and none have employed natural American citizens. Not to mention that they are all price gougers.
    If you oppose state run liquor stores there are multitudes of Native American reservations that are allowed to sell packaged liquor at very fair prices.
    Voting yes on 1100 & 1105 would not only be bad for Washington, it would also be bad for the Native American community. Not to mention an increase in the crime rate due to these privatized liquor stores getting robbed, especially ones offering check cashing services.
    Also, I have never seen an intoxicated homeless person (okay, a bum) hanging around outside of astate liquor store bumming for change, because they know they will not be allowed to buy alcohol in a state run store, let alone be let in. As for a private store the mentality of many owners is “hey, it’s a sale.”
    Don’t believe me? Then go ahead and vote yes on 1100 & 1105 and I will just tell you now…I TOLD YOU SO!!!

    • Anthony Colon

      These Asians and other liquor store owners care less about the safety of people and all they care about is making a buck. It takes far less time and amount of hard liquor to get someone drunk. Vote No!!!
      Flag
      Like

    • Yak

      Your arguments are ignorant and it is obvious you have little knowledge of economics. In response to your arguments:

      1) We WILL see a noticeable decrease in prices. In a monopolistic market, what we currently have, only one firm sells goods and has the advantage of setting prices. In a competitive market, what i-1100 establishes, the price is set by market forces caused by competition between every firm in the market. Each store will try to sell the most bottles at the highest prices but will be forced to match the lowest prices offered in the current market, or else the consumers will buy at the cheaper store. Eventually, prices will settle at a competitive level and market equilibrium will be found. I am willing to bet you, how bout we wager a bottle of Kahlua?

      2)This initiative will create jobs. Currently there is around 300-350 state run liquor stores, which employ no more than 2000 employees to staff the stores. The initiative allows private firms the opportunity to participate in sales and we will see an increase in the number of private liquor stores. We will see liquor stores where-ever the demand is high enough to establish them. Estimates have been put around 1500-3000 stores. If each store employs or supports at least 2 employees/citizens, that translates into at least 3000 jobs (1000+ more job opportunities!). The state also has the potential to gain more from taxes because more alcohol will be traded, taxed, and consumed.

      3)Who cares whether it is a native citizen or an immigrant citizen selling you a bottle of alcohal? I’m sure when this passes you’ll be thankful and smiling as you walk out because that Iranian was willing to sell your smug racist a** a bottle of vodka for $7 cheaper.

      4) Homeless people will continue to buy cheap malt liquor energy drinks from gas stations/quicke marts because for $2.50 they can get 6 shots in a can with an energy boost. Which is the cheapest, most economical way of getting drunk.

    • Jeremy

      You are a racist and this is not California. The thousands of liquor store employees will certainly not be unemployed… The state will sell those stores immediately to private owners. This will create jobs: The need for enforcement will skyrocket.

  • drChazPhd

    I’m voting yes because I want to buy booze with my groceries and I just love booze.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_A6L7TX3BLQXMVL4DLPGJRBD6L4 jim

    Wskeys is wrong in his/her assertion that dastardly things will happen if the state is removed from liquor sales. My wife owns a privatized liquor store in Montana. Montana state stores were privatized 15 years ago. State revenue increased, expenses decreased, more employees were hired and competition caused prices to be what the market could handle. Claiming that prices won’t come down flies in the face of logic. Costco already is known as the low price king when it comes to wine. They only have about an 8% markup on wine as much as I can figure. You can count on thier liquor costs dropping about 25% if Initiative 1100 passes. I speak from experience, not guesswork.

  • David

    Alcohol is legal for adults, so mentioning kids is spurious. It is illegal for kids to have alcohol, whether beer and wine (as is allowed today) or liquor (if the initiative passes). Enforce the law. We are all adults longer than we are children, so the world doesn’t need to accommodate children over adults.

    • Emily

      Yes, alcohol is illegal for kids — that doesn’t stop them from attaining it. Making hard liquor more accessible (and more of a temptation) can only increase this.

      Yes, we’re all adults longer than we are children. Does that mean we should accommodate adults over children? …If your parents thought that way, how do you think you would have turned out? Children are our greatest asset to the future; of course we should consider them when making decisions that affect everyone.

      • John Gilday

        It is unquestioned that cigarettes present a FAR greater health hazard than alcohol. Cigarettes kill more people each year, cigarettes exact a greater cost on our GNP every year, people don’t stop working once an hour to go outside to have a martini.

        So the argument that underage kids might get alcohol so it must remain in just a few state operated stores would lead me to believe you want cigarettes removed from all retail establishments and only made available in state operated stores that sell to those 18 and over…

        IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO SELL ALCOHOL TO THOSE UNDER 21. PERIOD.

        • easy

          Here’s the difference for those that can’t figure it out on their own. If you go out and smoke 15 cigarettes in an hour and a half, you can safely drive home without endangering yourself and everyone else. Not the same for booze. Also, go to any high school and ask around. Every kid there will be able to give you a list of stores that will sell them smokes underage. Good luck enforcing the alcohol law in 3,300 stores. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

          • Jeremy

            Erik, your comments on here impress me. How can someone be so convinced in such a faulty argument? I think you’d be a great person to have government debates with. Email me. moc.oohaynull@ymerej_lemah

      • observer

        I think it’s semantics, of coarse children should be taken into consideration, as our greatest assets in our lives and that of the future. But I don’t think this conversation would even have been had among our parents, who drank and smoked as much as they wanted (having both liquor and cigarettes in the house and accessible to us, if we were the type of kids who would steal them), and sent us out into the neighborhoods to play with our friends and entertain ourselves for hours on end. A different world then. But not everything changes. Children still shouldn’t dictate the decisions adults make.
        This is a silly argument, alcohol will still not be accessible 24/7/365. As far as I understand, 2am will still be the cut off time for sales, if not earlier, and selling to minors is still illegal. As for the jobs lost, they’ll have to find a different job, like many, many other Americans. Why should they be so blessed to keep their jobs that we pay for with a 50% markup on the sales price, when we can scarcely afford it anymore.
        By the way, I rarely drink hard alcohol, purchasing maybe once or twice a year, so this isn’t based in a self serving need. This is about the government needing to be out of the retail business. Period. Monopoly’s are not a good thing, no matter who runs them.

        • Cochise

          Distributor jobs are NOT payed for by tax money. They are private companies. I drive a truck for one. YOUR taxes DO NOT pay my bills, my hard work pays my bills. If this passes, YOUR taxes WILL pay my bills in the form of UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS>

          • Jeremy

            How do you figure? Your business will actually grow and you will be making more money… Think about it.

          • observer

            I was referring to the employees of the state run liquor stores. I agree with Jeremy, why as a truck driver/distributor would you think you’d be out of a job? The legislation is not doing away with liquor sales.

    • Raywaterboy

      your a square

    • easy

      You’re an idiot. If an 8 year old accidentally killed his friend you’d want him tried as an adult for manslaughter becuase we can’t make a distinction between kids and adults. Dumb.

  • John Gilday

    I guess my question is this…

    Why is it that the anti-1100 folks seem to beat the drum that this will make hard alcohol available 24/7/365 (a direct quote) when I can’t even get a wine cooler 24/7/365 (not that I’d ever drink one).

    If you want our vote, please just tell us the truth.

    Why am I voting FOR 1100 and AGAINST 1105?
    Because 1105 exchanges a monopoly (the State) for a Diopoly (the two major booze distributors in Washington who sponsored this initiative)

    1100 needs some tweeking but it is worth supporting. The Liquor Control Board needs to make certain that ALL booze sales – whether one bottle or 1,000 – must be wholesaled at the same price. Costco should not be able to buy Smirnoff for one cent less than Ma and Pa Nguyen’s Quikstop.

    So, since y’all hang on my every word, that’s a YES vote on 1100 and a NO vote on 1105

    • Guest

      the 400% more accessible argument is a joke. If a corner store is already selling to minors, or any store for that matter, they can already get drunk if they want to. Adding more variety to what they can buy does not make it more accessible it just means they have more choices. I haven’t heard a single argument against 1100 that makes any rational sense.

      I think Erik would have you believe the sky is falling…

  • Aaron

    If this passes thousands of jobs will be lost and not just people that work for the state. The price of liquor will go up not down. The state will not take such a big hit financialy if u think they will ur crazy. I 1100 & 1105 are funded by Costco and other out of state major corporations. These initiatives will hurt local brewerys, distribution centers, wineries and small corner stores. U will not have as much variety as a state controlled liquor store. These Initiative are alot more than just put liquor in stores.
    Vote no! the unemployment is bad enough let’s not make it worse imagine if it was ur livelihood at stake. And I Don’t work for the state

    • Joe52

      You are ignorant if you believe what you are writing. How do jobs disappear when a new industry us unlocked? Who will work at the new stores? Exactly, your argument reaks of liberal logic. State run anything is not as efficient as the private sector. I do not even drink liquor, but cant stand when I have to go pick it up and I cannot because the stores work asinine hours, and the prices are 15-20% higher than in neighboring states. Please explain how that makes sense for consumers?

    • Anonymous

      You have no facts to back up your assertions. In fact, many breweries and wineries as well as restaurants support 1100. Corner stores would be able to sell liquor if they wished, something they can’t do now, so how could this hurt them?

      Variety? In our state liquor stores? That’s an absolute joke. They carry only a limited selection of the most popular brand names.

      Do you think state liquor stores should exist just to provide non-essential jobs for store clerks and managers? Is that the role of state government?

      • Erik

        The lack of education on this board is scary. Aaron is absolutely correct. The small wineries, breweries and corner stores will be hurt by this. Basically these initiatives make it legal to sell direct to retailers from the manufacturer and allows for quantity discounts. This hurts the local corner stores because they will never have the purchasing power of a Costco or retailers like them so they won’t be able to take advantage of quantity discounts – i.e. their prices for liquor, wine, and beer will be significantly higher and will drive customers to the cheaper stores.
        As for the local craft brewers and small wineries, this initiative will legalize slotting fees – i.e. paying for shelf space at large retailers. Because they don’t have the cash to compete with the big boys in the industry they’ll have to either raise already high prices on their products to pay to be at Costco or limit themselves to the small corner stores that customers are already fleeing because the prices are so much cheaper at large box stores. Many small brewers and wineries simply cannot afford to compete with this new system in place and will go out of business, costing the state thousands of jobs and eventually hurting the selection of local beers and wines that we all love very much.
        As for taxes and state revenue, Washington will suffer greatly at the hands of this initiative. The Washington office of budget and management estimated that the state would have lost around $230 million in 2009 with this system in place. Also, initiative 1100 calls for all tax revenue generated from the sale of intoxicating liquor to be used for law enforcement and alcohol education, meaning that the state can’t use that money to pay for schools, infrastructure improvements, public facilities, etc…
        Now here’s what no one’s talking about. This initiative does away with the distributors of beer and wine. As it stands today, manufacturers like Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, J.P. Gallo, and Chateau St. Michelle are required to ship their products to a licensed distributor they’ve contracted with to sell their products in the state and the distributor delivers the products to retail. These distributors are privately owned businesses that on average employ between 250 to 500 people in high paying jobs with great benefits. Without having and exact count of wine distributors, there are probably about 60 privately held distributors of beer and wine in the state of Washington. Add in the 330 or so state liquor stores which employ usually around 5 or 6 people and you come to the fact that if initiative 1100 passes it will put somewhere between 16,500 to 31,650 people out of work. True it will generate cashier and stock boy jobs – those are great jobs if you’re an 18 year old. But for those who have families to feed and mortgages to pay, stock boy doesn’t exactly pay the bills.
        The real question that bugs me is why do the people of Washington think Costco has their best interests at heart? They are a profit machine that is looking to create their own little monopoly with alcohol sales. Doesn’t it bug anyone that underage kids will have 400% more access to booze? Is getting your 6 pack for a buck cheaper more important that preventing drunk driving fatalities, alcohol abuse, and underage drinking? The first 16 year old that dies in a car accident because some moron in a gas station sold him a bottle of vodka will be even more tragic because it could have been prevented. This is bad for the state and bad for us.

        • jotty

          I like profit machines. It’s what has made us the greatest economic power on earth. It’s what keeps us employed, it’s what pays my bills. Last time I checked, the State of Wa isn’t paying my bills or sending me a paycheck. This comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of the government. Generally, I don’t think the state should not be in the business of ANYTHING relative to selling widgets that can be sold by the private sector. When you say we’ll lose jobs, I hear- cheaper alchohol, and less costly pension plans to pay for out of the tax coffers, and “you need to do more with less”, just like the private sector has to these days. Find efficiencies. You’re playing with MY money. If these State Liquor Employees will be underemployed out in the private sector, then they are OVER-employed now and we need to set the market straight. Access to liquor by minors is a weak argument. I never had any issue getting any alchohol from anywhere growing up. We stood outside the liquor stores and asked chumps to buy us a 5th, and never had a problem. Or we stole it from parents. Didn’t matter who was selling it or where. I’d say we need to turn those sales jobs into enforcement resources wouldn’t you? If you’re trying to reduce accidents and alcoholism, hmmm interesting way of doing it if you are the State. I agree, this is about money alright. Taking MY money (taxes) and spending it as inefficiently as you wish. Furthermore, the state has demonstrated absolutely no penchant for running a business or managing our hard earned paychecks. I’m voting YES.

  • Frank in Spokane

    Yes on I-1100! Goodbye divey state-run liquor stores with their limited selection and insane markups, hello BevMo (http://tinyurl.com/76lqgc), the Home Depot of adult beverages: Brightly-lit and spacious, with tremendous selection … and quite reasonable prices. E.g., the Balvenie Double Wood 12-year-old single malt scotch that cost me $35 at BevMo or Costco in Phoenix, cost $52 up here. Highway robbery, and shops you feel like you need a shower after leaving.

    • Guest

      I want Lagavulin for $35!!!! :)

  • Frank in Spokane

    “I can say with a fair amount of confidence that most American whiskey fans have not had the joy of entering a shop dedicated solely to the sale of a of a specific type of liquor. In the United States, liquor is often distributed and sold under strict government supervision, with many individual states still operating under laws put forth following the failure that was Prohibition. If my experiences with liquor stores bear any resemblance to most people’s in the United States, a liquor store comes across as only slightly more reputable than the local strip club.

    “The last time I had entered a state-run store in Seattle, the place was dark and muted, even as several fluorescent lights strained to provide an adequate amount of lighting for the customers to read the labels on the bottles they were purchasing. Lottery tickets adorned the counters, and the shelves were lined with mostly cheap bottles of vodka, most flavored, some not. For every bottle of decent whiskey, there were three bottles of whiskey that were renowned for how inexpensive they were, and five bottles of vodka flavored with some sort of chemical additive. The deep green carpet was matted with age and had not been cleaned in several years. Marks in the linoleum floor had likely been there since the Reagan administration. Liquor stores in America are, for the most part, fairly sketchy places to congregate.”

    ~ Kate Hopkins, “99 Drams of Whiskey: The Accidental Hedonist’s Quest for the Perfect Shot” (p. 25)

    I grew up in Ohio, which, like Washington, was a “control” state. My folks bought beer and wine at private (i.e., free-market) retailers, but had to buy liquor from what they called the “state store.” My recollection of the place is that it was dull and lifeless and had the air of bureaucracy to it — not unlike the Motor Vehicle Division. Ms. Hopkins’ description above just about sums it up.

    I wasn’t old enough to drink distilled spirits before joining the USAF in Jan. 1980, at age 19, but I *was* allowed to drink beer at my tech school in Illinois. In May, I reported to Bitburg, West Germany, where I was legal to drink anything I liked, whether on base or off.

    By the time I was transferred to Phoenix, AZ (a non-control state) in Nov 1982, I had pretty much set aside drinking due to religious conviction.

    Years later — out of the AF and still living in Phoenix — my wife and I re-examined those convictions and concluded that they were erroneous, so we began once again to enjoy the occasional wine with dinner or beer with pizza.

    About four years ago, a friend turned me on to single malt scotch whisky — probably the first liquor I’d had since the early eighties in Germany. The first bottle I purchased was at a Fry’s Marketplace (AZ’s version of Kroger/Fred Meyer) — a bottle of Balvenie 12 as a gift to that friend. I soon learned that, for a grocery store, Fry’s had a very nice selection of all kinds of liquors at all price points. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that Costco carried maybe a dozen liquors total, including the Balvenie.

    Eventually, though, somebody told me about BevMo. All I can say is, WOW! As I said earlier, brightly-lit, spacious, a HUGE selection at very reasonable prices.

    As we prepared in 2008 to make our move to Spokane, I learned that WA is a “control” state, and checked out WSLCB’s web site. Their prices were a real kick in the gut! So I began stocking up on various single malts to bring up with us.

    I still have a couple of those bottles from Phoenix, and have eventually acclimated to WSLCB’s prices. In fact, when WA recently increased liquor taxes, I resolved to do all my liquor shopping over in ID (also a control state, but several bucks cheaper per bottle). The only stuff I buy in Spokane is stuff I can’t readily find in ID. (Can you imagine, when 1100 passes, all those Idahoans driving to Spokane? They will get a better selection of liquor at cheaper prices, and WA will actually gain tax revenue!)

    So I say YES to 1100! Wrest liquor sales from the hands of nanny-statists and inefficient, overpaid government bureaucrats, and put it out in the free marketplace where it belongs!

  • Emailbaxter

    Yes on I-1100 It’s not the states job to raise our children. Trying to keep kids away from alcohol is very important however it starts at home and the understanding of why 21 is the legal drinking age.

  • Erik

    Maybe I need to clarify why I’m against 1100 and 1105. I do not feel that it’s appropriate for the state to be in the business of selling booze – I have no issue with selling liquor at reputable establishments that do everything possible to prevent the sale of ANY alcohol to minors, be it beer, wine, or booze. But these initiatives are going about it the wrong way. The job losses I’m concerened about have nothing to do with the skeezy state liquor store clerks and cashiers. It’s the jobs that will be lost that no one’s talking about that I disagree with. These include the small, local breweries and wineries and the private sector distribution jobs that will be lost. These people are not over-employed and are very much in the private sector. The state does not pay thier bills or issue them a pay check in any way, shape or form. Price controls and private sector checks and balances are important for a free market system to work – that’s why we have anti-trust cases that eliminate monopolies in the private sector. Say no to 1100 and 1105 and then go tell the state legislature that we want the ability to by hard liquor at the local gas station and corner store, but not at the expense of privately owned breweries, wineries, and distributors and the high paying, economically important local jobs they create.

    • Bill Henkens

      The liquor taxes stay the same. 32 states have successfully turned liquor sales to private business with no major problems. The State of Washington should not be in the retail business period. Retail should always be left to the private sector. Service will improve as well as prices will drop. It’s a win/win for everyone. Don’t buy the scare tactic’s … it’s time to get the State government rolled back to it’s basic responsibilities …. Retail sales is not one of them. Vote YES on 1100

      • Erik

        Did you even read my post Bill? I don’t care about the taxes and how can you call it a win for everyone if thousands of people in the private sector will be suddenly be out of a job? And I agree that retail should be left to the private sector, but not to the detriment of the small private sector employers/producers. Setting a state minimum, disallowing quantity discounts, and ensuring that slotting fees stay illegal is the only way to ensure that competition in the private sector is fair and we don’t experience a huge loss of private, high-income jobs. 1100 and 1105 throw these out so that Costco has an unfair advantage in the market. Re-read the post and then tell me what you think.

        • Jeremy

          No one is losing a job Erik. You don’t get it. This will actually PRODUCE jobs! Imagine all the new distribution that will take place right after this passes… The jobs you speak of will be unaffected. Who goes to 7-11 at midnight for a microbrew? NO ONE. There is no foreseeable flaw in this initiative.

          • Erik

            Jeremy, I work for a beer distributor that has been family owned for 80 years. I work hard every day and get good pay for what I do. I’ll lose my job Jeremey. That’s the flaw with these initiatives. I’m sure you don’t care because it’s not your family’s income on the line, but I did want to tell you you’re wrong.

    • Jeremy

      You are just flat out wrong Erik. The issue with 1100 is this: the opponents (like you) are the ones siding with the monopoly the big beer/wine companies have within the state right now. The state and the beer/wine producers are in bed. In a private sector monopoly, the state goes after the monopoly. Why then, is it such a big deal for us (as voters) to want to end a states monopoly? You have been misinformed Erik.

  • Cochise

    Although I am for a free market system and do not support the idea of government run liquor stores, I do have one major beef with these laws. I work for a distributor and the elimination of the distributor in the supply chain means thousands of unemployed. We work hard to support our families. If it passes, our workforce will be cut down to bare minimum. Also, the next time that you enjoy a beer that is fresh, it is because an employee of the distributor has maintained and rotated that product, insuring that the consumer gets the best possible product. If you think someone at Wal-Mart is going to spend the time rotating backstock and product on the shelf every day of the week, you are delusional. Vote no on 1100 and 1105, or don’t complain about unemployment.