JoB
worldcitizen…
you state that 1100 will not change the availability of alcohol….
“According to the description prepared by the Washington Secretary of State:
This measure would direct the liquor control board to close all state liquor stores; terminate contracts with private stores selling liquor; and authorize the state to issue licenses that allow spirits (hard liquor) to be sold, distributed, and imported by private parties. It would repeal uniform pricing and certain other requirements governing business operations for distributors and producers of beer and wine. Stores that held contracts to sell spirits could convert to liquor retailer licenses.”
one of the stated purposes of this bill is to allow any retailer with a current license to sell beer and wine to convert that to a liquor license.. that would increase availability.
local municipalities may pass laws restricting hard liquor to behind the counter sales as you suggest… or they may not.
so far.. it doesn’t look like that strategy is keeping cigarettes out of the hands of minors..
but hey.. it might work better with booze.
or it might not.
That beer fueled rage that extended to one man might become a vodka or tequila or whiskey fueled rage that escalates to include several targets.
stats indicate that when you add alcohol… violence increases..
it’s all well and good to say a drink is a drink..
but the likelihood of even responsible drinkers consuming more alcohol in a single event when the alcohol is supplied as hard liquor is so well known that it’s a basic tenant of the hospitality business.
It’s possible this measure wouldn’t sell more hard liquor to more people.. but that is the clear intent.. and the assumption built into revenue projections.
so i have to ask.
Why should the public assume the increased costs and risks associated with increasing liquor outlets so that stores selling alcohol can produce more revenue and individuals who choose to drink can save money and drink better?
I just doens’t make sense to me.