West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(61 posts)

Vote "Yes" and then "No" on the "Lying Liars" Initiative

Started 6 months ago by DBP
Latest reply from kootchman

DBP
Member Profile

Today I received my 5th glossy mailer exhorting me to vote NO on I-1183 because — now get this — because I-1183's backers are spending TOO MUCH MONEY.

Huh? So that's how you're trying to convince me that the other guys have too much money? —By trying to outspend them?

—Uh-huh. And where did you get YOUR money from, anti-1183'ers? Public health nurses send in their pennies did they? Riiiiiiight.

Stupid!!!

Look, since I quit drinking (pretty much) I don't even CARE which way the sheets blow on I-1183, but I have to tell you that the anti-1183 tactics just plain PISS ME OFF.

Yesterday I got a mailer with a picture of a sweet grandma lady on it with an inset picture of a darling little tyke. The lady is saying (in quotes) that a drunk driver killed her son and that the driver got "that last fatal drink" that "robbed me of my child" at a mini-mart, where soon (if I-1183 passes, God forbid) even more alcohol will be available.

Look. If what Grandma says about the little boy is true, then it sucks, and I'm truly sorry for her. Unfortunately, what Grandma's mailer DOESN'T say is:

1) Just who is grandma anyway? What's her name? —We don't know. So how can we even verify her story? We can't, of course.

2) What was the person who killed her son drunk on? Coulda been beer or wine coolers, right? Yeah. Well . . . those are already legal. And as far as I know, they haven't developed a blood-alcohol test that measures the relative amounts of beer, wine, or whiskey in the blood. Just alcohol.

On the other side of the granny mailer is a amateurishly staged photo of a liquor-swilling teenager behind the wheel, alongside an itemized list of "Facts."

("Fact: The CDC estimates that . . .")

*************************************************************************************

Yeah . . . I know, I know. Costco isn't spending its money in this campaign out of altruistic motives, either . . .

Like I said, I don't really care how the election goes on this, but if I were voting strictly on annoyance factor, I would definitely be voting FOR I-1183 and voting AGAINST the annoying annoyers who are telling me not to.

***************************************************************************************

Actually, I'm hoping for a NEW kind of initiative system in Washington. Under my system, the ballot would look like this:

□ Yes, I'm FOR the proposed initiative.
□ No, I'm AGAINST the proposed initiative.

□ Screw all y'all. Definitely.

****************************************************************************************

Posted 6 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

The part that makes me go buh? is that liquor licenses will only be granted to establishments of at least 10,000 square feet? Is that right? Cause that seems really big. I don't think most of the existing liquor stores (which would close) are that big.

Posted 6 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

There's an exemption for mini-marts (or any other retail stores less than 10,000 sf) if said stores are in rural or "underserved" areas that have historically had liquor sold at smaller stores under state licensing agreements. That's the "loophole" the anti-1183 group is hanging its hat on. They say that the 1183 exemption language is so broad that all mini-marts will be demanding that THEY should be allowed to sell liquor.

Technically, that's possible. I mean . . . it COULD happen. Therefore, both sides should deal with it in terms of probabilities, rather than certainties.

Posted 6 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

but the no on 1183 TeeVee ads make it sound like selling liquor in mini-marts is a done deal. Total scare tactic. I would like to see a little more honesty upfront on all sides.

DPB..you're right about alcohol. I have seen kids from the local highschool drunk, hanging outside behind my building at 10 am. Not this year..5 years ago...10am...with booze they lifted from the grocery store. Alcohol is alcohol...and kids who want to will find a way to abuse it no matter what - and preferably with some flavored malt liquor that tastes more like juice than alcohol.

Posted 6 months ago #
HSG
Member Profile

The bulk of the money for the no campaign came from liquor distributors who could lose out on entering the WA market if sales are privatized through I-1183, which allows retailers to buy directly from distillers. I have no doubt that these same distributors would be pumping money into a yes campaign if the initiative protected their distribution rights.

I think distributors fear that if I-1183 passes, Costco and other large retailers will push for direct buying rights in other states using WA as a case study for why distributors are unnecessary.

Posted 6 months ago #
squareeyes
Member Profile

The "no on 1183" campaign really pisses me off. You know what else pisses me off? The several flat panel monitors that the new liquor store has mounted around the store that play liquor commercials and clips of smiling employees non-stop. I asked the clerk if he could at least get sports on the weekend and he said nope, but he did have the entire loop memorized and it was driving him crazy. What a freaking waste of money.

Posted 6 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

it's things like that that really get me juiced when I'm then told we don't have enough money to meet our budget, and another social welfare program will have to be decreased yet again...sigh..

Posted 6 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Statistics for Dummies & for the "No on I-1183" Lobby

But I repeat myself . . .

Now here's something cute. This is from a big red mailer published by a group called "Protect Our Communities."

Um . . . excuse me, but just what does this 1-in-4 stuff mean anyhow?

Does this mean that if I-1183 passes, all Washington youngsters between the ages of 13 and 19 are gonna rush out en masse to buy booze and that 1 out of every 4 of them is gonna hit paydirt? 'Cuz that's one way you could read it.

I'm sure that's how the "No on 1183" lobby would LIKE you to read it, in fact. But if you did read it that way, I believe you'd be sadly mistaken.

What the State Liquor Control Enforcement "data" probably means — if it means anything at all — is that something like 1 in 4 underage attempts to buy wine or beer at mini-marts is successful.

Again, that's 1 in 4 attempts. It's not the same thing as 1 in 4 people, because remember: many of those attempts will be from repeat "customers."

In any case, it certainly does not equate to 1 in 4 Washington teens being able — or even wanting — to buy hard liquor.

But there's another problem with this argument as well.

*************************************************************************************

Question: Supposing that 1 in 4 underage attempts to buy beer/wine IS currently successful. Does that mean there will suddenly be a GREATER OVERALL NUMBER of underage attempts to buy alcohol of any kind — or that a greater rate of underage attempts to buy alcohol will SUCCEED — if 1183 passes?

Answer: No. Why would it?

Question: Is there a pool of teens out there who are just dying to make an attempt to buy whiskey and vodka but who have thus far been turning up their noses at wine and beer?

Answer: Mm . . . They might, rabbit, they might. But realistically, probably not.

And last but not least . . .

Question: Can you somehow get drunker or more dangerously drunk on hard liquor than you can on wine and beer before you pass out?

Answer: What do you think?

—Yes, you can get drunk QUICKER on liquor. But does that mean that lots of teenagers are suddenly gonna change their drinking (not to mention spending) habits and start chugging vodka if 1183 passes?

Hell if I know. Maybe. I'd be willing to look at some statistics on that. If anyone has them.

"No on 1183" people?
Anybody? Anybody?

[crickets]

Posted 6 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

about that 1 in 4...I'd like to know what the count is right now, and if it means that there will be an increase if the law passes. Like..is it 1 in 5 now? 1 in 6? If they can't tell me that, then how can they possibly come up with 1 in 4?

Posted 6 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

1 in 5. Isn't that a fifth! I'll drink to that.

Posted 6 months ago #
Trick
Member Profile

What the "no on 1183" opponets dont' say, is that their money comes from the big beer and wine companies, and it's all about losing valuable shelf space at the store.

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

The thing I find most irritating about the anti-1183 ads is that they're trying to paint Costco as a big, greedy, evil corporation.

Costco is a successful local company that treats its employees well and offers a good service. They're not the bad guy in this fight.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

I want liquor in as many places as I can get it... when I want it. Cheap as I can get it...

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Give it a rest you or take a drink.. More likely than not, most teens get their booze the same place they get their drugs.... from home. Most states do not franchise themselves to be the purveyor of liquor. The only benefit of a state liquor store is the increased costs of buying liquor and keeping prices too high. Teens stealing.. well let's not attempt the obvious, raising honorable, non theft prone little street cretins. Work for the state? What a dumbass red herring. Nanny, nanny, nanny... always with the laws. this initiative is a great idea. What's to stop a a Merlot from walking out of Safeway, Rite Aid, or any other place? Distributors love this state... a gaurunteed 20% margin? Anybody else run a business where the state underwrites your operating margins?

Posted 6 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

More likely than not, most teens get their booze the same place they get their drugs.... from home.

When I was a teenager and drinking we had two primary ways of procuring alcohol. One was from home, which is to say our parent's liquor cabinets. The other was to purchase, usually through older siblings who had older friends or fake ids. I guess we stole from our families, but never tried stealing from stores. And I grew up in suburban Chicago, where liquor is sold in almost every retail establishment.

Teens are drinking, and they have been all along. The law and the limitations on distribution are not preventing this behavior, nor do I think they can. Alcohol is everywhere and kids will find a way to get it. Heck, we took up home brewing at 17 because, while we couldn't buy beer legally, we could legally by all the ingredients and equipment to make it.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Even college deans across the country are questioning the wisdom of the 21 year old drinking age. You don't HAVE to outlaw every possible harm...the government is not going to stop one single act of rebellion..you teach, coach, be vigilant. What is this obsession we have with deferring adulthood and adult decisions unti later? Guy flies home from a combat tour, can't buy a beer on a commerical flight? You can vote, hopefully, a cautioned, wise decision of grave responsibility, but can't have a Manhattan at age 18? You can vote foror against 1183.. an alcohol policy but can't actually drink for another 3 years? Wonker World.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

sorry. still not convinced. i'm voting "no."

all of this brand spanking new funding for [whatever] that the yes campaign says will be paid by retailers and distributors is going to get passed directly to consumers through higher prices on liquor.

it's a wash, and all for the express purpose of shifting revenue from the state into private hands and pocketing the overhead.

and think about the inventory at the WSLCB store in the junction - not to mention the stock room - and imagine it shoved into the QFC. where's it going to go? someone else mentioned the beer and wine aisle. you know what? i like the variety and scope of the beer and wine aisles.

i'd rather have the broad variety of products to choose from in the state stores, and a broad variety of wine and beer in the grocery stores.

not to mention the fact that closing the WSLCB stores is going to put a lot of union employees in the bread lines.

you want money for firefighters and teachers? then get some spine, take on tim eyman and the tea bag nation in a direct frontal assault, and write initiatives and levies that directly address those problems.

but i won't let some giant retailer - no matter how local it is - try to tell me that we're going to create new back-door funding through liquor sales to pay for things that have nothing to do with liquor.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Yessssss.. putting state workers on the breadline... and employing hundreds more in the private sector! Finally. Firefighters and teachers? The state will collect more in sales tax and we will pay less. Good trade off. Imagine the inventory in QFC, Safeway, Metropolitan market, Target, Fred Meyer, etc.. all getting lower prices and passing then on to the consumer. choice ... it's a good thing. Both sides are paying the advertising piper to play their tune.... the distributors are getting theirs from you in the mandatory 20% mark up... of course they are going to spend money to preserve that inflated price.

Posted 6 months ago #
greatfree1
Member Profile

I'm voting no, we need to privatize but this is not the right bill. I was for it but my friend that owns a small winery said that if this passes it will close many small breweries and winery's. They will not be able to compete with the pricing of the big boys across the country and stores will not carry them. Lower prices are nice but at what cost? Companies do have to make money to survive. It's like when Walmart comes into a small town and puts all the local businesses out of business because all people really care about is cost and not quality. Be careful what you wish for. Many small businesses are against it and I'll trust them.

Posted 6 months ago #
greatfree1
Member Profile

Here is a great breakdown by someone in the distillery business, long read but good.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/micaiah-evans/initiative-1183-liquor-privatization/10150452307457209

Posted 6 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

I'm voting no as well. I agree with greatfree1. Free enterprise is one thing, but when small businesses are priced out of the market it doesn't work for me. And I'm not thrilled about kids having greater access to liquor either. I lived for some years in a state that had looser liquor laws and know that a whole bunch of stores had problems with kids grabbing it off the shelves.

I also have yet to see a breakout of cost and revenue projections if 1183 passes. How exactly will 1183 bring in more money for the state, given the closure of stores and layoff of employees? How many more workers will QFC or Costco hire to put hard liquor in their stores? How much more booze is projected to be sold so that revenues lost from the state stores will be made up by revenues gained from liquor in private stores? Has anyone seen those projections who could provide a link?

Posted 6 months ago #
2 Much Whine
Member Profile

As proof that the world will end in 2012 I confess that I agree with Kootchman on this one. Having lived in other places where liquor could be purchased anywhere, I find the arguments from the "vote no" group inflammatory and misleading. I also have to wonder how the California wine industry has survived with all this terrible competition. Shouldn't they be closing up shop and opening up Quickymarts? I have never, ever found prices in a state that has competition to be higher than they are in our state-run monopoly. Check out prices in Bevmo in CA. I believe many of the folks that are trying to shoot down this initiative are the ones that have been fat and happy for years and now they have to compete and they are scared. Or they're the folks that think kids in the future will get their alcohol from stores whereas now they can't get it. . . . right.

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Safeway and Costco carry wine right now. Why aren't local wineries already out of business?

Posted 6 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

According to the anti-1183 argument, what's keeping small local wineries in business is the preferential shelf space they get at State stores that they'll lose if 1183 passes. They make this claim as a counterargument to the pro-1183 claim that small wineries will benefit from 1183 by being able to sell their wine directly to Costco, which will then sell to restaurants, increasing overall sales for the small wineries.

Neither of those arguments are particularly compelling to me. I don't find the revenue arguments that compelling either, one way or the other.

For me, it's the health question.

You know, it's not a matter of whether drinking will go up. It WILL go up. But by how much? Will it be by an incremental amount that can be addressed by public education and enforcement? Or will it be the public health crisis that the "anti" folks are predicting?

I don't know; I'm asking.

*************************************************************************************

And for those of you out there following the marijuana legalization debate, consider that the issues there are basically the same as with alcohol expansion. If we legalize marijuana, marijuana use by adults AND kids will rise. Addiction and other marijuana-related problems will increase as well.

But by how much? And is it worth it in exchange for the "convenience" of legal marijuana?

Don't know; asking.

Posted 6 months ago #
greatfree1
Member Profile

The initiative will make it easier for restaurants to increase their wine lists by being able to shop for their wines at Costco and grocery stores, but an unfortunate by-product of i1183 is that the selection of wines sold in Washington State's 2357 grocery, drug and mini-mart stores will go down dramatically. Space is at a premium in grocery stores and there simply is no "extra" space readily available to slot in the spirits authorized by i1183. Something will have to be discontinued to make room – in the vast majority of cases this will be wine. Import, specialty and local products will be removed from shelves to make room for the limited selection of national brand spirits favored by grocery chain buyers. National wine brands usually can maintain their shelf placements as they deal with chain buyers on a national level. An examination of out of state stores owned by the initiative's sponsors will support this line of thought – wine and spirits share the same spaces, and a limited selection of national brands and store brands overwhelmingly dominate the shelves.

In fact, spirits selection will be limited as well as grocery stores do not have the room to display more than 150-200 different packages, where the current WSLCB stores offer 750-1200 different packages. A review of grocery stores owned by the initiative's sponsors in states where alcohol sales at grocery are allowed bears this out. Grocery stores also avoid stocking high priced specialty products, and making special orders that have case minimums associated with them. This means that upwards of 75% of the products available to Washington State residents right now in WSLCB stores will no longer be available.

Note also that by having restaurants buying their wines from Costco and grocery retailers, the initiative also weakens the distributors that currently sell wine to restaurants – and that it is these distributors that must stay in business to be able to pay the $400 million expected by the state and defined in the text of the initiative.

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Sorry I don't care about the distributors all that much. If they're providing a worthwhile service, they'll stay in business. If their service is not necessary, consumers won't have to pay for it. (And by the way I am in the wholesale/distribution business.)

Besides, I don't see how an overall increase in the numbers of places selling wine/liquor will limit them. They'll have more places to sell their wares.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

"According to the anti-1183 argument, what's keeping small local wineries in business is the preferential shelf space they get at State stores that they'll lose if 1183 passes"

Let the consumer decide what wines they like. Now the state wants to be the arbitrator of what I want to drink? My favorite bourbon is not stocked ... so I have it shipped from NY or CA, or wait until I go to Oregon to stock up. (cheaper too!) Costco has a space shortage? Ridiculous statement. More distributors, not locked out of the state system, will bring more products to market. You can "preference" order, asking your local liquor store to bring in preferred brand, even on special order. Ask,a state store to do that.

Posted 6 months ago #
Trick
Member Profile

I rarely agree with Kootchman.
But on this, "The dude abides".
Liquor stores are reluctant to do special orders, because they are required to purchase a minimum of a case as well. Depending on the store manager of each store,the uniqueness of the product, you may, or may not get it.
I purchase liquor weekly, and about 20% of my order still does not arrive correct or is missing, and the return process is archaic, and not Licensee friendly.
I have to say,the current distributors do a great job at service and delivery with beer and wine.
This market is unique, in that there is a demand for boutique distillery's, just as there is for craft beers and local wineries.
If you want to support small Washington wineries, beer, spirits, like I do, buy local Washington wine and spirits and your stores will want to carry it.
As far as youth and the alcohol debate goes. I lived in Europe for 6 yrs, with lax alcohol laws, and never did I see the teenagers crave alcohol from Dad's cabinet as they do here.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

DP:

You know, it's not a matter of whether drinking will go up. It WILL go up.

are you being sarcastic, or intentionally obtuse?

actually, what the hell are you talking about?

people who drink will buy liquor wherever and whenever it's available and no matter how much it costs.

but i think costco's bill and their PR campaign is misleading. in my opinion, the system isn't broken, and it doesn't need private market fixing.

except that costco wants a piece of that pie. and they're being disingenuous by claiming that liquor distributors and retailers will contribute millions to the state's coffers for needed services.

bollocks.

consumers will be footing that bill if 1183 passes. call it what it is: a new non-related tax.

you'd think that teabaggers would hate it, too.

kootch:

ahh. an increase in the private work force, eh?

how many more people will QFC employ when they open their liquor aisle?

1?

to all:

WSLCB does nothing but liquor law enforcement - 24/7 - a work force dedicated to enforcing compliance. and they do it with no profit motive.

now, do you want to put that responsibility in the hands of your average retail sales worker?

i mean no offense to retail sales workers. after all, they have other and better things to do.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

So, how does every other state "manage" their alcohol sales without a dedicated "enforcement" division? There is indeed a profit motive, the state collects millions from liquor sales. The private work force includes truck deliveries, warehousing, order processing. Yea I am absolutely fine with checking ID's at the retail store. It breaks down very easily.. state employees and the state are in opposition. Private businesses, consumers are for it. If there is no "profit" why all the money being spent to preserve the current system?

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

really? the state collects profits from liquor sales? what's their profit margin? 15% 20?

taxes are not profits.

and i don't profess to know what those 30 other states do about liquor law enforcement. nor do i much care.

i'd simply like to know what's wrong with the system we have now that costco thinks needs fixing.

yeah, there's profit to be made, and costco wants it. that's why they're spending more on this than any other political ad blitz in the state's history.

Posted 6 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

I am voting no, for many reasons.

greatfree1 & TDe are spot on: 'Free enterprise is one thing, but when small businesses are priced out of the market it doesn't work for me.'

Washington has amazing small breweries and wineries! This bill favors the large companies and will make it much harder for our small, entrepreneurial breweries and wineries to compete. A bill that favors large businesses over small businesses…and also makes it harder to enter to the market as a new business is not Free Enterprise.

Another point that was made is that selection will be limited due to competition for shelf space. It’s true….and again will hurt our small breweries and wineries. Do we really want to impact our small businesses? Entrepreneurs are the backbone of our Nation—at least that’s what I hear many say.

Think about what the 99%’ers are protesting about. This bill favors many corporations that reduce wages, benefits, etc. Granted, Costco treats their people well…I appreciate them for that. But not all companies/corporations are like Costco.

Georgetown Brewing; Schooner Exact, Two Beers, Elliott Bay Brewing Company, Big Al’s, …these are just some of our local brewers. They provide jobs and all of them do some amazing things for our communities. They treat their employees well. Read about them; meet them; think about them when you cast your vote.

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

This measure opens doors for local producers. They can now bypass the distribution system or they can work with it. And overall, they'll have more outlets through which to sell.

And go look around a state run store. I've never seen Manny's or a Big Al brew there, and their local wine selection generally sucks. Actually, their entire wine selection sucks compared to what you'd find in Metropolitan Market or Thriftway.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

maplesyrup: i'd reconsider at least a part of that argument. the junction store - admittedly the WSLCB flagship store and, as such, atypical - has a huge selection of northwest distilleries and wineries.

and as far as i know, big al doesn't bottle their beers.

but if i'm mistaken, please enlighten me on where you've found their brews.

regarding shelf space, though, macrobrews and "craft" brewers like red hook have more money to get their products on the shelf in stores with limted space. so funkietoo is right in that regard.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Well we have local about to launch a vodka brand. What were his chances of getting into a state liquor store? Zero. The distribution is at question here. That will not affect production costs of boutique distillaries. In fact, it will probably lower the costs of distillaries, as distributors will lower margins for market share. This system is a holdover from preaching moralists of the prohibition era..who opposed repeal of the prohibition amendment. It was designed to raise costs, limit access, and make inconvenient alcohol sales. In that regard, it is a success.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

really, kootch?

and how much will micro-distilleries have to pay to get their wares on the shelves at costco and QFC through K&L or columbia?

like i said, look at the washington distilleries aisle at the junction WSLCB store. you'll be surprised; pleasantly, i would hope.

furthermore, washington's governor in the '20's openly told the justice department that he would no-way, no-how enforce the volstead act, and that liquor was for sale in the evergreen state during prohibition.

try again.

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

I was using funkietoo's examples of Big Al and Georgetown. If Big Al doesn't bottle their beers then it's more to my point, which is there's not a big presence in the state stores anyway. And does anyone really go to the state stores to buy local microbrews anyway?

I haven't been to the new store yet but I am pretty familiar with all of the other WSLCB stores in the area and all I know is that I never used to go there to buy beer or wine. I went there to buy liquor and I'd get the other stuff at the grocery store because the selection was a lot better.

And if you're talking about local distillers, once again, they will have many more opportunities to sell their products if there are more stores.

Posted 6 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

But you said yourself that the Junction store was the exception. NONE of the other existing liquor stores I've been in carried local brands. I don't even bother looking at their wine selections anymore, because it's just the same old stuff that I don't particularly like. If I want a good selection on wine, I go to Esquin--which DOES carry local and regional wineries, and quite a good selection of them too.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

and you know, i wouldn't be as opposed to 1183 if it wasn't a big-box initiative. in other words, i don't mind private liquor stores, but i do mind big, unresponsive retailers and distributors running the liquor show.

as an example, ever try to get thriftway - washington's food store, mind you - to carry a particular brand of something you crave? better bring an edict from the pope.

i think 1183 is more about volume sales and far, far less about consumer choice.

edit: and, no, i don't buy beer at WSLCB. i go to met market or beer junction. short stop in morgan junction has a great selection, too.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Itt;s called selling redblack... you go to purchasing agents, you move your products by selling them. It's an odds game... instead of one or two state employees... who can say no.. you go see 500 people who can say yes. Go to a Liquor Barn redblack.... that is variety.

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

1183 doesn't allow for a Liquor Barn redblack unless it's 10,000 square feet.

Posted 6 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is sort of where I'm still at with this issue. I don't see that the Washington way of selling liquor is so utterly broken that it negatively impacts anyone. Seems to me that there are a lot more broken processes in our state that need fixing.

Still looking for those revenue projections on what happens if 1183 passes. Can't seem to find any solid projections. Surely there's some projections somewhere... or maybe not. The Seattle School Board apparently didn't think to put together projections on student population when they closed all those schools one to two years ago. Maybe this scenario is similar.

Posted 6 months ago #
greatfree1
Member Profile

You guys are right that no one buys beer at the Liquor store and The Met does have a great selection of beers and wine. But if 1183 passes and they start carrying hard liquor do you think they're going to add shelves? No, they will limit their selection on wine and beer to make room for the alcohol. Maybe i am completly wrong and everything will be fine if it passes but i don't see anything wrong with the way it works now. I just don't think we should "give away" our liquor business to privatization, we should sell it off. Look how much Costco has put into this, you don't think they would pay the state to take over liquor sales? I'm sure alot of businesses would buy in. So why give it away?

Posted 6 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Under the new law they would be buying in, in the form of license fees.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

baby steps... greatfree1.. of course they will add shelves. They will add and sell the mix that is most profitable. remember Safeway tearing out all the dried food aisles and loading up with wine shelves in Jefferson? Merchants are always adjusting their mix to maximize their profits. The market will decide, not state bureaucrats.

Posted 6 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

Everyone fails to see why this is a bad thing for this state not so much as getting the state out of the business of selling booze. Costco only sees dollor signs and if that person can drive down to safeway at 130 am buy a bottle after they have already drank 2 or 3 that day its ok....teens will buy harder booze its easier to hide when going to events then beer. Alcohol poisonings will increase as we know it. Its one thing drinking a few beers for teens/collage students its a matter of chug chug that tequila down we can get more later just fine a homeless guy offer him a pint and he will buy it.... or that liquor run when teens run in grab and dash out they do it with beer just think how much they can grab now. As for new laws and fines its bull most get off paying the fines attorneys do wonders..... They can stop on their way and get more even thou he/she was cut off for being over served. So before one marks their ballots on this think of the trade off. Untill we force box stores to have closed off areas and they dont sell hard boose after 9 just like the state it won't be safe on the roads anymore just more carnage until we learn the hard way once again and say that was a bad idea...... death all for profit for costco and retail stores sad

Posted 6 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

the anti 1183 adds are very annoying and deceptive. it is the distributors paying mega bucks to protect their fiefdom.

vote yes on 1183 and let the market place decide on what products are to be provided. the state can focus on enforcement with added tax and fee revenue and eliminate the cost to run a monopoly.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Is that so? Let's compare drunk driving rates. Washington with a state controlled alcohol monopoly had 493 auto fatalities. Those with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater, 206. Making 43% of all fatalities in WA related to a BAC of.08 or greater. (2008)

WA RANKED # 49 IN ALCOHOL RELATED DEATHS. ONLY HAWAII HAD A GREATER RATE!!!

The national average was 30 per cent. NJ, NY, CA, MI... all had lower rates and all sell booze widely through supermarkets, small neighborhood liquor stores... and are not "wine and Beer" only bars. The more restrictive the more "binge drinking" it seems.

Kinda shoots the hand wringing and the sky is falling of the anti 1183 folks. FACTS sure screw up a hypothetical, "theory" not based on any comparative analysis. Our neighbor tothe south, Oregon, 30 %

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

BTY Waynster...most college deans admit binge drinking has gotten worse since the age of drinking went to 21... I remember it well .. in NY the age was 18... the death toll on the PA, OH, Canadian borders was a slaughter as the 21 year old states slipped across the state lines. It sure killed a lot of college age jobs. Poor college students who had on campus drinking also meant you didn't have to drive so far for liquor and could consume it on campus, a relatively safer environment. Stumbling the100 yards to the dorm sure beats driving 20 miles off campus.

"Using figures from government databases and national surveys on alcohol use, researchers at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) found that drinking-related accidental deaths among 18- to 24-year-old students have been creeping upward -- from 1,440 in 1998 to 1,825 in 2005."

Didn't prohibition teach us a lesson? If the culture that drinks doesn't buy into the program...and they don't, they will drink anyway. See the pot laws... des anyone REALLY think pot smokers care what the law says?

Posted 6 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

the "yes" ads are even more annoying. costco is trying to buy themselves a fiefdom.

Posted 6 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^