State out of the liquor business? Costco backing Initiative 1100

Robert2715 May 25, 2010 (3:00 pm)

Where do I sign? :-)

Cheryl May 25, 2010 (3:02 pm)

Oh GAWD I hope this comes to pass. I hate the “state liquor store only” laws & would love to buy premium booze @ Costco for dirt cheap prices! Competition is a GOOD thing for consumers. Taxes on liquor sales is a GOOD thing for WA.

Bring it on Costco; I’ll be the first to sign the petition.

Juan May 25, 2010 (3:07 pm)

I’m more concerned about people purchasing and drinking booze on Sunday mornings instead of being at church.

marty May 25, 2010 (3:11 pm)

I hope! It would save the state millions! We could sell the state warehouses and stop paying thousands a month to rent hundreds of liquor stores. The stores already have the warehouse and distribution systems in place, all the state would have to do is sit back and collect the (high) taxes.

steven May 25, 2010 (3:18 pm)

O’K. Let’s think for a minute. This knee jerk reaction will allow Liquor sales at all stores that already sell beer and wine. This change would increase the number of stores that sell liquor by thousands. Every Seven Eleven, grocery store, bodega, Walgreens, Bartells, Rite Aid and countless gas stations. Do you really want to open up Pandoras Box? You will have your booze but you will also have more drunks on the road, more DUI’s and all for what? The real price will be measured in more than dollars.

uglybrowncrow May 25, 2010 (3:20 pm)

Good luck with those signatures. That won’t mean jack in this State.

Juan May 25, 2010 (3:22 pm)

Doh!

Carson May 25, 2010 (3:24 pm)

I despise most initiatives, but this one will have my signature for sure!!

Carson May 25, 2010 (3:33 pm)

Steven, show me the numbers. States that allow sales “everywhere” don’t have higher DUI rates.

independentminded May 25, 2010 (3:47 pm)

I will sign and vote to pass. As far as every store having the right to sell spirits that can be amended by the State as needed. The State has demonstrated that they have no idea on how to effectively run this operation and our tax dollars and State resources can be better spent elsewhere.

WorldCitizen May 25, 2010 (3:47 pm)

But Pandora’s box is where all the booze is!

Seriously though, no truth in there being more DUIs and drunks on the road because of this. In fact, I would argue that if one runs out of booze after already having started drinking, there’s a greater chance of them being able to WALK to the corner store to pick up their next bottle instead of driving miles to get it.

If you could cite an independant study to back up your claims I may check it out, though. I’d be willing to bet there are none, however.

busser May 25, 2010 (3:50 pm)

It would be great to finally get BevMo stores up here! One-stop shopping for the booze, mixers, party supplies, etc. That is 1 big-box store I wouldn’t mind seeing.

moxilot May 25, 2010 (3:50 pm)

Steven, when you buy your booze at the store, you take it home and drink it.

When you can’t buy your booze at the store, you go to the bar to drink it… and drive home.

The “Pandora’s Box” theory went away with Prohibition. Also, saying that having liquor more available will cause all hell to break lose is not a reasonable arguement.

OP May 25, 2010 (3:50 pm)

You mean the liquors might go from the Soviet-era (“dah, you drink what your comrades drink, comrade, and like it!”) limited-selection inventory we have now, to privately run liquor stores that would stock shelves based on demand? Well slap me on the ass and call me Judy….

k2 May 25, 2010 (3:52 pm)

You also have zoning laws, and permits that need to be filed, in order to have liquor, they’re not going to have 50 stores in a 2 block radius selling liquor, that is just dumb…

I want to be able to buy a fifth of Gordons Gin at 2:30AM, just like in New York City, WOOOHOOO…

squareeyes May 25, 2010 (3:56 pm)

Ahhh, BevMo, my old friend. Or the corner party store, my oldest friend. Or Costco, my new friend. I’ll definitely be signing.

Jim Beam May 25, 2010 (4:00 pm)

It would seem that the State has had it’s chance to run the liquor business and isn’t exactly doing a “bang up job”. Competition is great and will only benefit us, the consumers.

Have you ever visited a BevMo in California? They are great — wide selection, bright and well organized stores, reasonable prices and a frequent shopper discount card to save an additional 5-10%! From time to time they even have tastings hosted by various wineries, breweries and distilleries. They often have hard to find products that are not found at a Washington state store.

It seems that it would be much better for the State to just collect the tax and not spend the money on all the store required infrastructure.

As for drinking more, and more drunks on the road… you could use that argument on just about anything. MickyD’s is selling $1 any size soft drinks. Does the additional sales of these drinks increase the likelihood of drivers spilling them in their laps, losing control of their car and causing an accident? If you are concerned about the amount of drunks on the road, maybe more money could be spent on police (from the additional tax revenue from liquor sales) to catch them. Just sayin’.

Where do I sign? This one should be a landslide!

rw May 25, 2010 (4:09 pm)

Costco or QFC or Safeway …. or even our mythical West Seattle Trader Joes (had to get at least one mention of TJs into this thread!)

toddinwestwood May 25, 2010 (4:10 pm)

“WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!”

T-Rex May 25, 2010 (4:17 pm)

I see two things wrong, more people will lose their jobs and more kids will be able to buy booze. Why? Because the dude at the 7-11 isn’t going to be asking for ID. They want the business. The state run stores are very strict and take no crap when someone tries to buy booze without proper ID.

I have been to the BevMo stores and they are nice and much cheaper I must say. However, one stop shopping should not be the only thing we look at it. Throw it on the ballot and let the people speak.

Jeff May 25, 2010 (4:39 pm)

I’m so tired of hearing that this will mean “people will lose their jobs”. You know what, nobody is guaranteed a job for life.

rw May 25, 2010 (4:51 pm)

The children? The jobs? The drunk drivers run rampant? Somehow I don’t think those are any larger problems in states that allow private businesses to sell liquor– otherwise the state can shut them down, just as they can shut bars that sell alcohol irresponsibly. What I do know is we have crappy selection and even crappier prices and inconvenience than in any other state I’ve lived in.

lenguamor May 25, 2010 (4:57 pm)

I grew up in Miami, FL, where booze sells every hour of every day and the bars don’t even close by law. There are just as many drunk drivers here as there are in FL, even with all the medieval restrictions we have.
.
Where and what time booze is sold has no bearing on drunk driving – enforcement does. Our cops here do a good job of enforcing DUI, and they’ll do better when the increased tax revenues and savings from no longer operating the inefficient nightmare of our awful liquor stores.

cjboffoli May 25, 2010 (4:57 pm)

Costco sells certain wines as a loss leader (Dom Perignon champagne, for instance) that prevents small, locally-owned shops like Bin 41 and West Seattle Cellars from even stocking it as it would be impossible for them to compete. I’m generally for private enterprise over government-run monopolies. But I’m not sure that what’s good for big corporate Costco is always necessarily what’s good for me.

Alki Area May 25, 2010 (5:28 pm)

The state will ALWAYS be in the liquor “business” as far as taxes and licensing. Why isn’t that good enough? Why does the state need to own and run actual stores? The state should get OUT of the retail business.

What? You’re worried about liquor stores popping up on every corner? Valid issue. Simple. The state just issues a minimal number of license to retail stores JUST like they can for bars. They don’t need to give out 10,000 retail storefront licenses, just few hundred. The stores would be owned and run privately, able to compete and look nicer probably. The state still gets the tax money and can control the number of stores. What’s the problem?

jessiesk May 25, 2010 (5:36 pm)

Subscribe to the WSLCB twitter feed, and you will see that they happily enforce the law at 7-11s and other corner stores already. For example, I recently saw a Rite Aid lose their beer/wine license for a week because they sold to a minor. Whether it is booze or beer is beside the point.

stb May 25, 2010 (5:46 pm)

cjboffoli: Good point but there are lots of items like Dom Perignon that I know I can get at Costco (imported cheeses, decent olive oil, etc.). I depend on the small, locally owned shops to provide great personal service and sell me hidden gems that I would never find out about otherwise. As someone who loves a finely crafted cocktail, I would like a locally owned liquor store that could provide me with that service as well. And Kirkland Signature tequila suits me fine too. I’ll be signing.

Rod Nelson May 25, 2010 (5:59 pm)

I like the state-run liquor stores.

maplesyrup May 25, 2010 (6:12 pm)

T-Rex, not trying to be confrontational but since when is it the state government’s responsibility to provide retail jobs?

pigeonmom May 25, 2010 (6:27 pm)

“party store” Ha! I haven’t heard that term in years. Good ol’ Michigan memories. :-)

maplesyrup May 25, 2010 (6:54 pm)

Here’s Modernize WA’s website. They’re one of the groups sponsoring legislation.

This page has some information for those who think we’ll turn into a state of drunk-driving teen booze peddlers.

http://modernizewa.com/faq.html

SarahScoot May 25, 2010 (7:52 pm)

maplesyrup, that’s a helpful link, mostly. Too bad they have misrepresented some statistics. Namely, there are a few statistics that they describe as “per 100,000” but illustrate with percentages. Fors example, I’m pretty sure that 57.4% of WA residents have not been arrested for DUI – 57.4 of 100,000, though, makes sense. The site organizers should have proofread for such errors.

marty May 25, 2010 (8:43 pm)

Sarah: Great catch! Worth 10 points. How many points do I get for catching your “Fors example” typo?? Just kidding….

Carson May 25, 2010 (9:09 pm)

Tough to argue on behalf of Bin 41 and others that have started after Costco came into being. You need to know what your competition is before you decide to take that leap. If they and others are allowed to get into the hard booze business you would also hope they know who the competition is !!

SarahScoot May 25, 2010 (9:21 pm)

Whoops! For that, Marty, I have no excuse. ;-)

bridge to somewhere May 25, 2010 (9:42 pm)

Regardless of how this all turns out, I have usually had great customer service at the state-owned stores. Friendly folks. Clean stores. Reasonable prices.

Cheryl May 25, 2010 (9:54 pm)

The people that shop at the state stores and think they’re great, have great selection, great service, great prices, etc. have never shopped for liquor in a state that has no restrictions.
.
Hard liquor is NOT cheap here. I can’t get “economy” sized bottles. And I’m forced to choose from a very limited selection that the State of WA determines I should buy…
.
No thanks.
.
Bring me the CA system. Sell it everywhere. Tax the hell out of it.
.
It will not increase underage drinking. That’s retarded. Where did ANY OF US start drinking (if we drank underage that is)? From our parents liquor cabinets, or those of our friends parents.
.
Also? I didn’t start drinking w/ vodka or gin. I started w/ beer, wine coolers and sweet wines like strawberry Boonesfarm. VERY appealing to a teenager. Guess what? The grocery stores already carry that stuff.
.
Nope. The increase in DUI or teenage drinking doesn’t hold merit with me at all. Show me the statistics, or take the Prohibition mindset on down to a dry county in GA. They’ll welcome you I’m sure.
.
Like I said earlier, bring it Costco! I’m ready to sign today.

cjboffoli May 25, 2010 (11:04 pm)

Carson: I’m glad Zippy’s burgers didn’t subscribe to your logic with McDonalds and Jack in the Box already doing business in West Seattle. You’re missing the point. Small, locally owned businesses will never be able to compete head to head with the economies of scale advantage that large chains enjoy. But some of us value the quality of retail experience a small entrepreneur offers over the bland, impersonal experience a chain offers where absolute lowest price is the sole concern.

lenguamor May 26, 2010 (1:12 am)

Christopher: I’m on your side in the big-vs-little-business debate; but is that really the basis we should use to decide the larger issue of whether the retail sale of liquor should be executed solely by the state?

dawsonct May 26, 2010 (2:26 am)

I don’t want my government to provide retail services. I want my government to provide the natural monopolies like power, sewer, water, transportation, police and fire, schools, libraries, and so on. I don’t want them to make my t.v., or airplanes, or run a market. Those are activities that need to be left to well-regulated private enterprise.
—
As to the fear the big guys will crush their smaller competition, that will only happen if they try to compete directly. If I want Dom, I go to Costco, but if I want an offering from a boutique champagne house I go to one of the smaller shops.
Same will go for booze. If I am restocking my Maker’s Mark or some other widely distributed liquor, I will look for the cheapest price, but if I want something obscure from a small producer, I depend on the smaller specialty shops.
—
CJB, as you pointed out with your comparison of Zippy’s and McDonald’s, there are niches to fill. The business which addresses the needs the larger ones can’t afford to address will prosper in their shadow.

Carson May 26, 2010 (6:02 am)

Total BS Chris. Zippys found a way to be better and different. They know the one place they can’t compete with the big boys is on price. So they competed in a place they can do better. Quality. Small and local is great, I support them, like Zippys for example. But in the end, you need to compete to survive and the state liquor board does not compete and we as the consumers loose.

Ken May 26, 2010 (7:01 am)

State run liquor stores were a compromise with the still politically active “temperance” groups and churches in many states after the repeal of prohibition. Its time has expired.

A bottle of Makers Mark last me a year. Costco might let me get a three year supply for the same price. Might not.

I’m signing.

sun*e May 26, 2010 (8:34 am)

Why can’t both coexist? Just because Costco sells some groceries it doesn’t put all of the neighborhood grocery stores out of business. The same can be said about any grocery store selling liquor… it won’t put the liquor store out of business. Let them sell liquor at grocery stores and still keep our state run liquor stores open where you can find a bigger variety of liquor and gift items as well.

bsmomma May 26, 2010 (9:05 am)

This is how it is in MI and has been forever! I Love the Party Stores! I miss the big pretzel sticks in the container at the counter……. I wouldn’t be worried about “The Big Guys”. I’d definitly walk to the 7-11 by my house for a bottle-o-somethin before driving down to Costco and trying to figure out how the heck to get back! :)

biankat May 26, 2010 (9:13 am)

Yay! I can’t wait to have proper liquor options in all stores (yes, even TJs) as it is in CA.

Kayleigh May 26, 2010 (10:55 am)

Thank gawd the noble, community-minded Costco is stepping up to the plate to provide the poor, deprived people of Washington State more, better, faster, cheaper alcohol. That’s yer Costco, makin’ the world a better place for us all. *cough*

Carson May 26, 2010 (11:05 am)

More like the Capitalist Costco see’s a huge inefficient distribution network that they can both improve on, and make a profit at. I don’t need the Government telling me what I can buy and where I can buy it. Just tax it, heavily, and leave us alone!!

M May 26, 2010 (11:41 am)

I find it amusing that a state that is contemplating legalization of marijuana still has state controlled liquor sales, based on “blue laws” from the early 20th century..

datamuse May 26, 2010 (2:33 pm)

If it means I can finally buy Bretto’s ouzo in this state then I’m all for it.

The selection at the state-run stores leaves a great deal to be desired.

dawsonct May 26, 2010 (9:24 pm)

Y’know kayleigh, I bet there are things YOU do or enjoy like, say, being a moralistic scold, that others may find distasteful.
Maybe you learning to accept (perceived) weaknesses in others would also make the World a better place for us all.

Odessa May 28, 2010 (10:09 am)

This is just bad, bad policy for people. The state would lose nearly 300 million that goes toward the basic health plan and the general fund and would go to the pockets of corporations like Costco and Walmart. The little stores won’t be able to compete so you’ll got o 7-11 to pay as much or more. Plus you’ll see an 20% increase in consumption and not to mention access to teens because now, there is an incentive to sell, where the state does not. We should be advocating for longer hours with the current system so that the money goes back to the state, not to Walmart.