Vote No on I-1100… that’s what urge the readers at Slog while joyfully spanking my colleagues at the Stranger for daring to urge otherwise.
See, not all alcoholics are as harmless and lovable as the car-less barflies at theStranger, whose most abusive booze-fueled behavior is mostly targeted at the English language. Alcohol is the most widely abused drug available. It is the most devastating to families, and the most costly to businesses and government. And it is also by far the most deadly.
Anyway, it’s fun and it’s pointed. So read the whole thing.
There’s a reason Bartell Drug now sells wine and beer. Under I-1100 they could get a license to sell hard liquor as well.
Goldy…
I’ve taken you to task for your simplistic assumptions on this issue to effect.
Why will revenue necessarily decrease? The legislature can re-set hard liquor sales licenses to any level they want. Bartells has 46 locations just in the greater Puget sound area. So, if every Safeway, QFC, Bartells, Costco, Albertsons and on and on pay the new licensefeeevery year, where is the revenue loss coming from? Not sales or sin taxes. Those will remain or even be increased.
As I’m sure our resident Puddy can look up, I’m working so I can’t really do it again, I’ve posted the statistics that California has a LOWER incidence of alcohol related fatality and traffic accidents than the currently more restrictive Washington.
So to the bulk of your public safety agument, “Objection your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.” It makes for amusing reading, but your argument is based on pure assumption. And funny, considering your view of Faireview Fanny, that you should link as “substatiation” an S.T. Op.Ed. by the local head of Big Brothers Big Sisters and the Rep. who introduced a bill to allow WLCB increase liscense suspensions beyond 30 days at their whim and sponsored a bill reducing funding for alcohol dependency programs. I for one can’t think of any reasons why these two might overstate the public safety issue.
czech @ 2
Anecdotally, a friend working in the industry (restaurant, events, entertainment) says Washingtonians really put it away, far more than else where. Might be cultural.
Yes on 1100. The state should not be in the booze sales/marketing/distribution business. If the state wishes to regulate it, that’s fine. They can do that and answer for it as required.
BTW: No on 1105
I do think alcohol is misused can be far more deadly than say for instance pot. It’s more a responsibility issue than regulation issue IMHO.
Its ridiculous for the state to be in the booze business. I-1100 may not be perfect but its the only way the state liquor stores will ever be closed.
Here’s a question: what the hell happens if both I-1100 and I-1105 pass? Parts of these two bills are mutually exclusive. Does the legislature get to reconcile them?
I think neither will pass because many who support privatization will vote for one but not the other, dividing a portion of the Yes vote.
I’m against 1105 but on the fence on 1100. 1105 would swap a state monopoly for control by distributors which would be the only place you could buy liquor, by law. If we’re going to go free market, let’s go free market.
I don’t buy the safety argument, as what’s likely to happen is liquor sales will replace beer and wine sales, not add to them.
My concern is small, craft breweries are claiming either initiative will cause them to be crushed due to pricing advantages by big producers. Which I don’t get because price-sensitive beer drinkers already drink swill, not craft beer. I don’t avoid fizzy yellow beer because it cost’s to much, I do so because its flavor is repellant to me. So making it cheaper won’t change what I buy.
The profits made by liquor sales surpass the liquor taxes. 50% of that goes to the general fund, and the rest is split between counties and cities depending on population, to pay for emergency services that you will continue to pay for. In other words, around $170 million goes into Costco’s and Safeway’s pockets while you’ll have to pony it up to pay for the programs the liquor profits currently fund. That all goes into Costco’s and Safeway’s pockets and you’ll still be getting the bill.
Right now, apples to apples, California is LESS efficient than the WSLCB. The average price of Jose Cuervo is $13.95 in California. It is $19.96 in Washington. If Washington taxes were as low as California the WSLCB cost-plus price would be $10.95. Economy of scale and competition on the shelf trumps competition between retailers. There is no competition between wholesalers: the distillers give them a defacto monopoly.
Competition? In Washington? Yes. Right now Jim Beam and Evan Williams and Jack Daniels compete ferociously on the level playing field of Washington’s cost plus system. That keeps prices down. Under privatized systems, distillers license distributors and if you want to carry Jack Daniels (which you have to) you have to pay their prices.
Go to Costco in California. Selection? No. That’s because a lot of Distillers won’t sell to Costco or won’t sell fifths, say.
You’re going to pay more if EITHER of these initiatives pass.
Safety. Yeah, I tend to agree with that one, except that convenience stores sell to drunk people and minors and liquor stores don’t, 74% compliance versus 95%. Minors are not allowed in liquor stores. Under privatization they will be be allowed everywhere liquor is sold retail.
As for whether the government should be selling alcohol, yeah, it seems weird to me too. I’m from Illinois. So not having an income tax is pretty damn strange, too. I say they go together. Replace the liquor tax with an income tax and then get rid of the liquor board.
Currently doctors can prescribe alcohol as a medicine, BUT the patients need to buy their medicine at overpriced state stores. We are TAXING sick people!
So, lets legalize medical booze but restrict its sales to pharmacies.
You wrote:
“That means more alcohol-related health costs, more domestic violence, more crime and more drunk driving fatalities. That’s what’s happened in other states that liberalized their liquor laws, and that’s what will happen here.”
For proof, all you do is link to some Times opinion piece that falsely claims that minors drink less in Washington. The article also falsely claims that this imaginary lower rate of alcohol abuse is due to our liquor officials caring only about public safety and not profits. This is false too: the same editorial is hysterical about the need for the money that alcohol brings in. The truth is that our liquor authorities are the fox guarding the henhouse. The state puts enormous pressure on them to bring in enough money to pay the bills, and, also, by the way, discourage alcohol abuse. Their mission is contradictory.
Which is why they have failed so. That’s why nobody cites proof that alcohol abuse is lower in Washington: its not true. Abuse is *lower* in states with private liqueur sales where the authorities only have one mission, to protect the public. In California, minors drink *less*, even though liquor is cheaper sold everywhere. Same story in other states.
Admit it, Goldy, or show me your proof that our liquor policy is working. Cite your sources, will you?
The workers in the SLS are VERY well paid union members. The SLS is a union jobs issue.
David’s stand on this is not different from the egg beaters and unionists who want to “protect” American jobs from export to low wage, non union countries.
I am positive that David and the Unions would sing a different tune, if we had an initiative 1100.1:
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Amended Initiative Measure No. 1100.1 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
Concise Description: The original measure, 1100, would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributors and producers. The amended measure, 1100.1, would require that all sales of spirits be done by union workers.
@8 Not sure about your point. Can’t the same be said of all Costco wares? If you want a great deal on Pace Picante Sauce, Diet Coke or Doritos, Costco is great. If you want higher end, say Organic Habenero Salso, Dry Lavender soda or Tim’s Chips, you need to shop elsewhere and pay more.
What’s more, the small number of brands approved by the state keeps the playing field artificially level. But want a bottle of Single Barrell Artisan Bourbon? Go to California and bring it home in your luggage. Willing to pay $20 more for a fifth of really superior product? You’re S.O.L. here in WA.
My point is, the profit from sales can be recouped by a combination of eliminating the cost of administering the state sales and distribution network, increased sales license fees and new product label approvals as retailers bring more new SKUs into the state.
(BTW, my previous post is riddled with poor grammar and typos. Taking the laptop in. The space bar is nearly dead. The littlest one thought it was hilarious to pound Daddy’s computer with both fists. Sincerest appologies.)
NO VOTES on all self-serving industry sponsored initiatives went out from my household.
Screw these industries and their greed!
Send in your ballot TODAY!
When we have a fair broad-based taxation system that’s not rooted in the early part of the last century, then we can talk about lifting taxes on discretionary purchases.
<a href="The-Ave.us “>Details on the amended initiative 100.1 can be found posted at The Ave The-Ave.us
Indeed, who speaks for Anheuser-Busch InBev N.V.? Who speaks for Miller Brewing Company? Who speaks for Molson Coors Brewing Company?
We’ve got to stand up to the corporations! I mean, the beer corporations. The other corporations. See? Right?
Repost of my comment on Slog
—
David, David, David, I’ve always said you were a more talented writer than I am — but only when we’re talking about fiction, like you’ve written here:
You and the other opponents don’t cite any actual studies or data to back this up, because there aren’t any. In fact, for example, most states with private sector liquor sales have lower rates of underage drinking, DUI traffic deaths and other alcohol impacts than Washington. But don’t let inconvenient facts intrude on your belief in G-vernment.
I knew that if I waited long enough I’d find you and Pastor Joe Fuiten on the same side of a faith-based issue!
And what now, are you going to change the name of “Drinking Liberally” to “Drinking Like a Church Lady?”
I’ll tell you what: if I-1100 passes, I’ll come back to the Montlake AleTea House and buy you and Sandeep and Joel Connelly and Roger Rabbit as many rounds of Maker’s Mark as you can hold without getting too excited.
So it’s time to call out another.
Sandeep on KUOW not 10 minutes ago…
“(blah, blah, blah) eliminate all liquor taxes, which I-1105 does.”
No pushback from the host. Sandeep is lying and getting away with it since no one actually reads initiatives.
In fact, I-1105 directs WSLCB to recommend to the legislature a new tax rate on a per litre basis that will make I-1105 revenue nuetral. It is then up to the legislature to keep tax levels the same or increase them.
I say it again. Sandeep is LYING!
@16 Stefan …
Can I get in on that deal!
You might enjoy my post at The Ave.
http://handbill.us/?p=405
BTW, The Ave itself is developing a new model for blogs. It would be fun t get your thoughts on this. I think you have me phone number, give me a call.
Goldy, you’ve opened my eyes, we should ban all alcohol sales in the US.