by Goldy, 02/26/2010, 8:59 AM

State Republicans are trying to use our current budget crisis as an opportunity to sell off our state store system, and privatize the sale of hard liquor. Why? I’m not sure even they know why. I guess they just believe that privatization is always good, kinda like the same way some Republicans believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

But as Rev. Jimmie James and Rep. Zack Hudgins point out in a Seattle Times guest column yesterday, privatization just isn’t worth it. Under our state store system Washington has the highest compliance rate in the nation in terms of restricting the sale of liquor to minors, and one of the lowest rates of alcohol consumption… and its inevitable social impact. All this while adding over $300 million a year to the state budget.

Furthermore, despite all their talk about supporting small business, the Republican proponents of privatization obviously couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the mom and pop private contractors throughout the state who would lose their shirts while the sale of liquor was monopolized by out of state giants like Safeway, Albertson’s, 7-Eleven, and Kroger’s (QFC & Fred Meyer).

So, you sometimes gotta plan a little ahead if you’re running low on liquor. Suck it up. Hell, if you ask me, tobacco should only be available in the state stores too. Along with pot. Now that would generate the state some serious revenue.

66 Responses to “Republicans intoxicated with dreams of selling state stores”

1. Michael spews:

Under our state store system Washington has the highest compliance rate in the nation in terms of restricting the sale of liquor to minors, and one of the lowest rates of alcohol consumption… and its inevitable social impact. All this while adding over $300 million a year to the state budget.

Selling off the state liquor stores would be more privatized profit and public cost. I’m so very tired of this.

2. Mr. Cynical spews:

Michael–
More “private” profit is a bad thing??
Look, this is about saving more State Employee Union jobs. The State should NOT be in any business the Private Sector can handle. The distribution network for Liquor is already there. It would actually result in a net saving in the Cost of Distribution…due to economies of scale. The Grocery Stores may only need to add 1 person to stock the shelves & order…eliminating tons of redundancy.
This is how the “profit” is generated Michael.

Once again, Karl Marx seems to be leading you KLOWNS down the dark Socialist path where government controls as much as possible.

3. Michael spews:

@2

No private profit isn’t a bad thing, didn’t say it was. Privatizing profits WHILE socializing costs is a bad thing. which is what I said @1.

4. Michael spews:

@2

Funny how you never manage to look at all the costs that are included in anything.

5. Speedy spews:

Have to laugh regarding the “Mom and Pop stores losing they’re shirts while the BIG, BAD food GIANTS take all the money” comment. I grew up in California and visit all the time. The Mom and Pop liquor stores seem to be doing just fine. Sounds like the typical “Us against them” talking point.

6. Jeremy Hulley spews:

Privatize the liquor stores. Don’t allow sales of hard liquor in grocery or convience stores. Keep the WSLCB in place to police and monitor.

7. God spews:

Goldy

eeerrrrrrrrrrr ahhhhhhhhhh

Time for an Obamaesque compromise … Goldy gets to keep state booze and Lee gets to sell pot in state stores?

State booze emporia are a silly left over from prohibition. If state booze stores make sense we should also socialize car dealerships. gas stations, and strip bars.

My only concern about privatizing booze would be making sure that the tax payers make a good buck of the deal.

8. Michael spews:

@7

My only concern about privatizing booze would be making sure that the tax payers make a good buck of the deal.

Which would include passing ALL the costs off to the private sector. If we did that would the private sector still want it?

9. Troll spews:

Why does Goldy hate teachers?

Many experts believe that we either cut unionized state liquor store employees, or we’ll have to cut teachers. By saving the jobs of the state liquor store workers, we will have the make the cuts elsewhere, probably starting with teachers.

So I have to ask, why does Goldy value liquor store workers over teachers?

10. notaboomer spews:

can we haz hookerz & blow in state storez too? needz it to get through the liez every day.

11. Michael spews:

@9

Um… These are the “many people” that live in your head, right?

12. Troll spews:

Our state’s auditor says we can save $277 million dollars over 5 years if we privatize liquor stores.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35283605/ns/business-consumer_news/

13. Lauramae spews:

The repubs are gibbering monkeys, not to insult monkeys. #1 is exactly right. With no public dollars, the state would be cleaning up the mess caused by the indifferent and idiotic practices of stores who think it’s the municipal problem to enforce liquor laws, all the while whining, moaning and complaining like little babies at the thought of actually having to pay for it.

14. Don spews:

@6

Dave Ross had a state rep on his show last week who said that instead of fully privatizing the liquor stores she recommended having the state close all their stores and continue with contract stores. The state already has contract stores in small towns where it doesn’t make sense to have the state involved. The rep pointed out that contract stores must follow all the regulations but would save money since there would not be costs associated with owning stores or hiring employees. This from a Democrat.

I say it’s a very good idea.

15. Don Joe spews:

From the Economist:

SEE what you think of this argument: it’s impossible for tax cuts to create jobs. When the government cuts taxes, it simply has to borrow more money to cover its spending. This sucks money out of capital markets, which means financial institutions have less money to lend to businesses. That means businesses can’t start up or expand. Whatever jobs are created by tax cuts, an equal number will be destroyed by increased borrowing; all the government is doing when it cuts taxes is taking money from one place and giving it to another.

Two points: The Economist is not some liberal rag. Indeed, it’s often more conservative than liberal.

Second, anyone who argues that cutting taxes is better than increasing spending simply hasn’t an economic clue. It might make for some kind of nice political rhetoric, but it’s just plain bad Economics.

16. Mr. Cynical spews:

Don @ 15–
Are you saying to eliminate the State Employee Union jobs and allow the contract stores to hire?
Frankly, the question is why should the State even keep their toe in the water. Just tax liquor and stay out of the way. Local government’s job is to enforce the law on underaged liquor consumption & purchasing anyway in their community anyway..

Read Troll’s link at 12…especially this

“To me this isn’t a core function of government,” said Sen. Rodney Tom, a Medina Democrat who is a chief budget writer for the Senate. “It’s a retail operation. Private companies can do it as good or better.”

Tom is absolutely correct!

17. Don Joe spews:

@ 16

Are you saying to eliminate the State Employee Union jobs and allow the contract stores to hire?

No. I’m saying that there is no legitimate Economic argument for done one or the other. Sen. Rodney Tom is certainly entitled to his opinion, but there is no Economic model that he can use to back it up.

18. Alki Postings spews:

Look, I’m a proud liberal, but the state SHOULD get out of the liquor business. The state can and should TAX liquor, but I really object to the state running retail stores (for liquor or anything else). It’s not their job. There is no rational reason for them to run store fronts. The only thing I’ve ever heard is it helps keep hard liquor “in control” and so we won’t all become alcoholics. Silly. People who will abuse alcohol (or drugs like marijuana) will no matter what. I’ve lived in states that have state run liquor stores and not…and my alcohol consumption hasn’t changed. It’s silly, stop it.

19. Michael spews:

@18

I’d be fine with getting the state out of the business, if I thought that the social and societal costs of that business would be picked up by the private sector. Based on the performance of the private sector lately, I doubt that would happen.

20. mikek spews:

I admit to ambivalence on this issue, but I certainly don’t want to throw my lot in with Mr. Cynical, to whom everybody to the left of Reagan is a red. The government, at the appropriate level, needs to run enterprises that provide for the common good, or at least it needs to regulate things so that they serve the common good, and I include health care in this, as well as roads, transit, police, fire, parks, libraries, schools, the courts, and so on. Socializing all of these makes sense to me.

State run liquor stores are a relic from the repeal of prohibition, and it can be argued that they are something the state should only be regulating, not running. That being said, the system is in place, it is working, so from a pragmatic point of view, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? We’ve got lots of other, more pressing problems.

21. Blue John spews:

Currently, liquor brings in about $320 million in revenue to Washington each year, but a recent report by Washington state Auditor Brian Sonntag found that the state could increase revenue by as much as $277 million over five years if it changed its current liquor model.
If protecting the children really matter to conservatives, and this new model keeps under age drinking down, I’m for it.
If it doesn’t, then I’d stay with the current version.
After all, Protecting our kids should be worth 277 million over five years, right?

22. Alki Postings spews:

#21 No. No one cares about children, only in political slogans. MONEY and convenience is always more important. Don’t think so? Drop the speed limit to 35mph. All head on car accidents will be survivable, and you’ll save 40,000 lives a year (9/11 was 3000+ just one time and look at our response to THAT). Hundreds of those are dead children. Do we drop the speed limit to 35mph to save those children, HELL NO! Those kids have to be sacrificed because higher speed limits help our economy (moves goods faster) and is more convenient. I sure don’t WANT to drive to Portland at 35mph.

Sorry to be a pragmatist, but the “if it only saves one child’s life it’s worth it” ain’t true, not in real life, never been done that way. Everything is a balance and we ALWAYS make sacrifices and hedge our bets.

23. Wunderlick spews:

I live in southern California. Having hard liquor sold at grocery stores, 7-11′s, and countless Iranian owned small liquor stores is no big deal. It’s actually pretty cool if you like certain hard booze. I bought a monsterous sized bottle of Grey Goose Vodka for $40 at Costco and a giant bottle of Patron Silver tequila for $80. Both VERY good deals. What shouldn’t that be available to WA residents?

24. Roger Rabbit spews:

“Republicans intoxicated with dreams of selling state stores”

Of course they are. Republicans never met a tax revenue stream they didn’t want to privatize (see, e.g., Social Security), and never saw public money they didn’t want to grab (see, e.g., no-bid contracts and $150,000-a-year mercenaries). Republicans would literally take a hot lunch away from a poor kid to enrich themselves. Why would anyone vote for these people?

25. Roger Rabbit spews:

@23 What taxes are you willng to raise to replace the liquor profits our state would lose?

26. Roger Rabbit spews:

“Along with pot. Now that would generate the state some serious revenue.”

If we could sell pot in state liquor stores, and get the Republicans to do some serious smoking, that would kill two birds with one stone. It would solve our revenue problems, and who knows, maybe even mellow the Republicans.

27. Roger Rabbit spews:

@2 What a load of bullshit. Right now, we have a single distribution system to a single store system. How would replacing that with many distributors and hundreds or thousands of retailers result in efficiencies?

How would replacing state jobs paying $13.50/hr* with benefits and union job protection with minimum-wage nonunion retail jobs with no benefits or job protection be a good deal for the workers?

How is handing over $300 million of annual liquor profits to the private sector a good thing for taxpayers or citizens dependent on the public services funded by that revenue stream?

As usual, Mr. Cynical is full of goat piss.*

* I just want to remind everyone that a few days ago Mr. Cynical tried to peddle some BIAW crap about a state liquor store clerk making $100,000/yr. of “total compensation.” That allegation was unvarnished bullshit! The state liquor agency has TWO employees with the same name, one a liquor store clerk and the other a warehouse operator, and combined their incomes. In addition, to arrive at their “total compensation” figure, BIAW counted leave time (and Lord knows what else) twice. In truth, Mr. Cynical’s $100,000-a-year liquor store clerk is two employees, neither of whom makes over $35,000 a year. Official state salary data show that Thomas D. Taylor, liquor store clerk, makes $13.50/hr and Thomas D. Taylor, warehouse operator, makes a little over $2,800 per month. Don’t believe anything Mr. Cynical or BIAW says, because they’re full of b.s.

28. SJ spews:

I dunno.

It seems to me we could go two ways:

1. Expand WASTATE.CO into MORE retail areas. For example, why not follow the lead of the UW and trademark ALL our stuff? The the WACO stores could replace Nike and sell dawg branded and coug branded stuff alongside the booze!

Imagine: HuskyBrew .. the beer of UW frats!

Or how about trademarking:

the name Washington
pictures of ORCAs
pictures of Mt. Rainier

If Disney can do it, so can WACO!

2. Get the state out of all retail businesses … including booze.

29. Roger Rabbit spews:

Q: How can you tell when a Republican is lying? A: When his lips are moving.

30. Roger Rabbit spews:

@28 Get government out of the war business and all our financial problems are solved.

31. Roger Rabbit spews:

@6 Okay … where are you going to come up with $300 million to replace state liquor profits? Which taxes do you want to raise? Until you answer this question you’re talking through your hat.

32. slingshot spews:

Add guns and ammo (including shoulder-fired missles) to the current product line and the Retardicans will relent.

33. Roger Rabbit spews:

Imposter @7: There’s no chance in hell that God is a Republican, so stop posing as Someone you’re not.

Also, the real God knows how to spell simple three-letter words like “off” — and doesn’t make typos.

34. Roger Rabbit spews:

@9 “Many experts believe that we either cut unionized state liquor store employees, or we’ll have to cut teachers.”

Really? “Experts” believe selling off a $300,000,000-a-year revenue stream to the private sector will enable schools to employ more teachers? What “experts”? The children who dream up GOP talking points? Kevin Cairns, whom BIAW pays $90,000 a year from tax funds to write lying propaganda about $100,000-a-year state liquor store clerks? Your “experts” are the last people I’d listen to about how to fund public schools. Next to you, of course.

35. Roger Rabbit spews:

If a Republican feels the vibration of two coins rubbing together in someone else’s pocket, his antennae go up, and he begins scheming how to get his own hands on them.

36. Roger Rabbit spews:

This, of course, is about free money. It’s about converting a publicly-owned business enterprise into private gain, leaving the schools that liquor profits support in the lurch. The people who advocate this have no intention of making up the loss of $300 million a year in state revenue through other taxes, least of all on themselves. What this is really about is they see a big revenue stream and want to grab it.

This debate has gone on continuously ever since I first came to Washington over 40 years ago. There were newspaper editorials about it back then. It was a Republican objective then, and way before then. Privatizing the state liquor stores has been a goal of GOP-backed business interests ever since the end of Prohibition. It hasn’t happened, and will never happen, because this is Republican bullshit and Washington is a Democratic state. This is what Republicans have talked about for eight decades when they didn’t have anything useful or constructive to talk about. It’s an old, old story.

It’s simply another chapter of the ancient story of private gain vs. public good: Private power vs. public power, private contractors vs. public employees, etc. All of these schemes have failed to produce any benefits for taxpayers and citizens. Their sole purpose is to enrich a few private interests at the expense of the public good. If you want free money, flip stocks like me. If you want free money at public expense, buy stock in companies like Cabela’s and APEI, like I do. Or in defense contractors.

Why are we giving it the time of day?

37. Roger Rabbit spews:

@12 Right, and lose $300 million a year in liquor profits, which works out to a net loss of $1.223 billion. Which taxes do you want to raise to make that up?

38. Roger Rabbit spews:

@14 “I say it’s a very good idea.”

I say you haven’t thought this through very much. In fact, probably not at all.

State liquor sales produce two large revenue streams that support public services, one from liquor taxes, the other from liquor profits. It’s the latter we’re talking about here.

If you move liquor sales from state-owned stores to contract stores, you have to give the contract operators an opportunity to make a profit. To do that, you either have to give them the profits currently going to the state, or you have to raise prices.

So, either taxpayers or consumers would lose.

Any honest discussion of this issue would frame the issue this way: Should Washington citizens spend $300 million a year of public money to create a business opportunity for small retailers? And, if so, can we afford it at this particular time when the state is having to raise taxes and cut services to balance its budget?

Because that’s what we’re really talking about in economic terms — apart from the separate question of whether it’s good public policy to vastly increase the number of liquor outlets in our store, and give up direct state control over those outlets.

39. Roger Rabbit spews:

The fact this is a purely Republican proposal should tip you off that its motivated purely by selfish interest by people with a public-be-damned attitude.

The MSNBC story quotes two nominal Democrats, Rodney Tom, who was a Republican until recently, and Tim Sheldon, who is a Democrat in name only. The truth is, there is scant support for this scheme among the real Democrats in the legislature. That’s because it’s about turning public revenue into private gain without offering any benefits to taxpayers or citizens. It’s bad policy from every standpoint.

The MSNBC story doesn’t mention the $300 million a year the state would lose through privatization. It only mentions the “costs” of running a highly profitable operation. MSNBC also doesn’t mention that this issue has been continuously debated in Washington State for decades, and has been consistently rejected by a majority of the state’s lawmakers and citizens.

If it’s a good idea, don’t they think it would have been done a long time ago?

40. Roger Rabbit spews:

@16 “Frankly, the question is why should the State even keep their toe in the water. Just tax liquor and stay out of the way.”

Are you in favor of raising liquor taxes another $300 million a year to replace the liquor profits that would be lost by privatizing liquor sales?

This question calls for a simple “yes” or “no” answer, Cynical.

41. Roger Rabbit spews:

@21 Where would that $277 million of increased revenue come from? It can come from only two places: Higher prices/taxes, or increased sales. To get $277 million of additional revenue from increased sales, you’d need more sales by a factor of at least 2X or 3X. Do we really want our citizens consuming an additional half-billion or three-quarters billion dollars of liquor a year?

42. Roger Rabbit spews:

@23 Which taxes do you want to raise to make up the $300 million of lost liquor profits?

43. uptown spews:

C’mon Rabbit. Get with the program, we can all invest in the Liquor Stores Income Fund (LIQ.UN on TSX) and live off the poor Repub’s drinking problems.

44. pms90210 spews:

Lee intoxicated.

45. Daddy Love spews:

I haven’t seen Bran Sontag’s report myself, but I’ll look for it.

But the article to which our good Democrat friend Troll linked has some interesting muggets.:

1. According to Sonntag’s report, we wil not see any benefits from this plan until 2012.

2. In 2000, a citizens review committee determined that the costs in turning over the system, as well as public health and safety issues, meant that the state should remain a monopoly.

So we have the review of an independent comittee less than ten years ago on one hand, and former Republican Rodney Tom’s opinion on the other. I’ve never liked him, so that makes it easier for me to choose.

I lived in California once upon a time, and I really liked the convenience of picking up liquor in a drugstore (we liked Sav-on Drugs). But when you look it over, it doesn’t sound liek this works too well.

I liked this quote from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, who are predictably pushing this:

As one Seattle Times editorial remarked, “The Board’s very mission challenges logic: At the same time as it is supposed to keep minors from buying liquor and drunks from getting drunker, it is responsible for keeping liquor profits flowing into the state treasury.”

Yeah, because Safeway’s interest is certainly NOT in increasing alcohol sales. They’ll keep us safer.

46. Daddy Love spews:

BTW, on a slightly different topic, I would like to encourage the Republicans who intimate that those who have lost their jobs and are struggling to find another are just lazy. PLEASE, please keep it up. Thank you.

47. Mr. Cynical spews:

46. Daddy Love spews:

BTW, on a slightly different topic, I would like to encourage the Republicans who intimate that those who have lost their jobs and are struggling to find another are just lazy. PLEASE, please keep

Show me where anyone said this??
A lot of these folks are in the Tea Party.
They understand Obam-Maonomics means to kill the private sector which creates real sustainable jobs. Lots of very good people are out of work…and blame Obam-Mao who promised the Stimulus would not allow Unemployment to go above 8%!!
Obam-Mao===Give FALSE Hope.
Nothing worse than that.

48. Mr. Cynical spews:

Daddy Love–
Your chronically unemployed Komrade YLB is a lazy a$$hole! he makes his wife work while he posts on HA.

49. Roger Rabbit spews:

@47 “They understand Obam-Maonomics means to kill the private sector which creates real sustainable jobs.”

Without a doubt, many of the Tea Parties have been conned into believing that Obama killed the heretofore-thriving private jobs sector. That’s why they’re Tea Partiers, Cynical. To be a TP, you must:

1. Be ignorant
2. Be stupid
3. Be wrong

and they qualify on all three counts.

50. Roger Rabbit spews:

Here’s Hoover’s, er, I mean the Tea Party’s economic remedy:

1. Put the U.S. back on the gold standard;
2. Abolish the Federal Reserve;
3. Let the banking system fail;
4. Slash federal spending;
5. Balance the budget;
6. Eliminate government stimulus; and
7. Wait for the private sector to revive.

That should work as good in 2010 as it did in 1930.

51. DavidD spews:

“The State should NOT be in any business the Private Sector can handle.”

But the private sector can’t handle it.

52. roddy spews:

My biggest problem with the state liquor stores is the constraint on selection. Washington is sitting on the best raw materials in the world to make distiller spirits, yet we’ll never succeed as long as a single buyer filling stores with exactly the same selection of bottles from the same well-financed brands prevents any innovation from a home-grown distiller. Result, a potentially huge local industry languishes, ignored by Democrats primarily to protect a handful of union jobs. It’s sad. The state would gain so much more by letting this industry flourish.

53. zdp 189 spews:

One simple question for Goldy, Rabbit, and all the other pro-state-liquorites: if it’s such a great thing to have state-run hard liquor, why not also state run beer and wine? After all alchohol is alcohol, as they told me in driver’s ed many years ago.

Anyway most kids get started on beer and wine, not vodka and whiskey. If we are doing it to protect the kids, wouldn’t controlling beer/wine be even more critical than hard liquor?

54. Dan Robinson spews:

The stores are state stores because the workers there have a good union and the union lobbies hard.

People working in the state liquor stores make more money than do clerks working in similar stores. Why? Because they have the imprimatur.

The state liquor stores should be scrapped.

55. Dan Robinson spews:

@27 How would replacing state jobs paying $13.50/hr* with benefits and union job protection with minimum-wage nonunion retail jobs with no benefits or job protection be a good deal for the workers?

How is handing over $300 million of annual liquor profits to the private sector a good thing for taxpayers or citizens dependent on the public services funded by that revenue stream?
———-

Hey Roger Rabbit,

Okay, why the sweet deal for just the liquor store workers? Why don’t we put everyone on the public payroll and pay them twice what they would get in other states? And why should we not also have state owned grocery stores? If the state is making $300 million on booze, think of how much profit they could make on groceries. Would you argue for that?

56. Harry Poon. spews:

It would be nice if you could go to Costco for booze.

57. Widget spews:

Rabbit,

Liquor Stores don’t fit within any of the definitions of a “public good” for which government has a necessary role. Under your logic, we would “nationalize” every business that generates a profit because it would contribute to State revenues.

I often agree with you but, on this one, you are off base.

58. Mr. Cynical spews:

Widget–
Rabbit is a Government Employee Union Goon.
It’s all about Union members…the more the merrier.

59. Rita delRenton spews:

I would think if liquor sales were in the hands of private retailers I wouldn’t see small distilleries like Dry Fly from Spokane (my favorite vodka!) or Pendleton Whiskey or 44` North Vodka (Idaho). All the shelf space would be filled up with those major brands that can afford to pay “kickbacks” or heavy advertising. In fact I would like our liquor stores to emphasis local/regional brands.

60. Dan Robinson spews:

@59 Rita delRenton

If there is demand for the products to which you refer, the stores would stock them. I like cognac, but the state stores stock only a few brands of cognac. I used to live in California and there were specialty stores that stocked a lot of brands of cognac. I like champagne and learned to like Hiedsieck Monopole while living in Europe. Try finding that brand here. I used to buy it at Beltramo’s in Menlo Park when I lived in California. Can’t find it up here.

Yes, you would still see Dry Fly and the Northwest brands. Maybe not Safeway, but somebody would sell them.

61. Dan Robinson spews:

@goldy

and one of the lowest rates of alcohol consumption… and its inevitable social impact.
————–

Hmm, maybe not. NIH says that ours is lower than the median, but not drastically so. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/GraphicsGallery/consfigs4text.htm

Oregon is in the 2.50 and over group and they have state liquor stores. Maybe state liquor stores have nothing to do with the amount of ethanol that is consumed. For example, Indiana has liquor sales in supermarkets and they are in the same group as Washington with regard to consumption.

Goldy, you are usually a clear headed thinker, but you missed the ball on this one.

62. manoftruth spews:

the point is, the government should not be involved in selling booze, at least those of us who are not socialists feel that way. lol, did the founding fathers put selling booze in the constitution?

63. BJC spews:

The thing that I find amusing is that those who are proponents of privatization only reason to do so is “get gov’t out of selling booze.” So, if we get the “gov’t out of the booze business,” what are you expecting will happen? Prices will go down? Answer: No. Selection will get better? Answer: Maybe. More places to buy alcohol? Answer: Possibly. Gov’t spending will go down? Answer: not likely.

First, the selection and supply can get better with the gov’t selling hard alcohol, which is already occurring since the LCB is opening up more liquor stores. If anything, the State can adopt what is done in Ohio and set up state liquor stores inside supermarkets like Fred Meyer and Safeway.

Also, do not expect the prices to go down because the LCB will still control the price of liquor. It has every ability to do so and the state needs the prices to stay high to keep consumption down and revenues up.

Also, with additional stores to regulate, the LCB will have to hire more staff in its Enforcement and Licensing division to deal with the increase in private stores (though there is a good chance the the number of small businesses will decrease b/c the super chains will push them out and there will be fewer personnel needed)

64. zdp 189 spews:

I see that no state liquor advocates have tried to answer my question: if it’s such a great idea for hard liquor, why not beer & wine also? Alcohol is alcohol. Kids tend to get started on beer & wine, not ‘hard’ stuff.

65. John425 spews:

Privatize the liquor stores AND the WA State Ferries, then sell off the Evergreen State College land and facilities and plow that money back into real universities.

66. Hugo Cruz spews:

Sell the liquor and the tax! I’m tired of taxes that don’t work for anything.