Net Effects of 1100/1105 & 1098?

[JoB]

datamuse…

alcohol is easier for minors to obtain from grocery and convenience stores than from state run liquor outlets since minors aren’t allowed to enter state run liquor outlets…

no other retail outlet is going to ban kids from the store.

that’s just common sense.

as is the notion that one is going to become more inebriated drinking hard alcohol than one is drinking beer… people don’t drink till they reach a specified alcohol content.. they drink a a beverage.. or two or three…. or until they are drunk.

and of course the site i linked to was a biased site..

but that didn’t make the scientific studies referenced biased.

as for the need for “current” studies”. LOL.. do you really think the data on the consequences of the availability of alcohol is going to change all that much in a decade? not likely.

SarahScoot…

i am not demonizing alcohol.

I am simply asking why anyone thinks making alcohol more available is a good idea?

I am guessing that any adult who wants to consume has no real difficulty accessing alcohol now.

they may wish it was cheaper which they hope these measures will accomplish…

they may wish they had access to a wider variety of choices as they hope these measures will accomplish…

they may wish it was more convenient to buy hard alcohol… which they hope these measures will accomplish.

But our current system does not prevent any adult from buying hard alcohol and it provides income for the kinds of social services that most of us are unwilling to raise regular taxes to provide.

so why do we need to change the law when increasing accessibility increases public cost and public risk?

I don’t have to demonize alcohol to make a case for the pure economics of defeating both these measures.

Share This

[JoB]

btw…

anyone who thinks passing laws to restrict access to minors and demanding compliance from vendors is enough should drop by their local high school and watch the kids light up as they leave classes :(

Share This

[DP]

JoB said:

According to DPs stats.. which i didn’t check.. you have to drink 6 Mickey’s…. the Cadillac of alcohol delivery for cheap beer … to equal the alcoholic content of one shot of stoly.

JoB, you know it’s hard to keep up with you sometimes. Do you really think you need to drink six Mickey’s to get the same alcohol as one shot of hard liquor? Wrong. The ratio is actually more like one-to-one.

In terms of alcohol content, the general rule of thumb is:

1 beer = 1 glass of wine = 1 straight shot

A shot of vodka is six times the alcohol content of malt liquor BY VOLUME, not by the drink. See how that works? As SarahScoot wryly points out, hard liquor is simply not drunk in the same ways as wine and beer.

Having said that, I believe you made a good point about binge drinking a while back. More hard liquor available at more places will probably lead to more alocohol poisonings of binge drinkers. But how many binge drinkers are out there? And how will more availability affect them? If you could cite some credible statistics to show that binge drinking will rise and become a significant problem for society as a result of this, I think that would be your own best “shot” for convincing people on this.

But please be aware that, even if you cite the stats, some people will still go: “Why should I care if a bunch of spoiled college brats try to poison themselves?”

So that’s what you’re up against, as I see it.

Share This

[Carson]

Here is a great idea. Speak about alcohol to your kids and stop trying to force the government to do your work for you. If someone wants alcohol, they will get it, just make it easier for those of us that can handle it.

Share This

[datamuse]

as is the notion that one is going to become more inebriated drinking hard alcohol than one is drinking beer… people don’t drink till they reach a specified alcohol content.. they drink a a beverage.. or two or three…. or until they are drunk.

Please define “beverage” in this context. A shot? A pint? Of what?

I mean, I did see someone pound a fifth of Jack Daniel’s once, but that’s not exactly a common occurrence. (Admittedly I only have my own observations to go on, here, and I’m not trying to cite anecdotes as evidence, but I hang out with some pretty heavy drinkers and I still can’t say that I see people substituting, say, a pint of whiskey one to one for a pint of beer.)

and of course the site i linked to was a biased site..

but that didn’t make the scientific studies referenced biased.

Of course it doesn’t. But when I did a search on PubMED on this topic (which anyone can do, it’s a freely accessible index), I came up with HUNDREDS of studies on alcohol consumption. That site points to, what, ten? You’ll forgive my operating assumption that they’ll pick the ones that tend to support their point. (Although, let me reiterate that I’m not disagreeing with it. What I’m disagreeing with is the assertion that privatizing sales necessarily leads to a greater concentration of liquor outlets. Personally I’m hoping it leads to greater selection, but that’s not the same thing.)

I do expect, based on other studies I’ve seen (this one, for example) that if liquor sales are privatized, sales will go up. Going by that study, the mere fact of the retailer being a private seller can be a contributing factor. But I don’t see how that’s inherently bad, and if it’s taxed, that’s another revenue stream.

Share This

[JoB]

datamuse…

of course they are going to pick studies that prove their point.. but that doesn’t mean that those studies are the exception to the rule.

in those hundreds of studies on alcohol use that you found .. can you point to any studies that actually refuted the basic results in the studies that site linked to?

it is easy to dismiss evidence because it comes from a “biased” site or because it is “too old” or because …

but if you are making an argument it is a lot stronger argument if you refute the evidence with other evidence.

I suspect you will find a pretty hard time finding a reliable study .. one not funded by the liquor industry.. that proves increased access to alcohol doesn’t have some pretty significant problems associated with it.

And that’s the point.

Why would we choose to increase the the costs of alcohol associated problems while decreasing the revenue for social programs including education?

DP..

sorry if i misread your point earlier…

i am not checking many alcohol labels these days…

unless you count non-alcoholic beer.. which does still have a small amount of alcohol in it :(

i don’t think the binge drinking problem is limited to college kids ..

but if if it was…

you might care a little if one of them drinks and drives and kills someone you love.

or if your child turns out to be one of those routine cases of alcohol poisoning.

Even without that.. you might balk at paying the long term health consequences of the kinds of alcoholism that could have been easily prevented.

by the time we compile the statistics from making alcohol more available it is already too late to reverse the damage.

Carson…

i don’t suppose you ever shoplifted when you were a kid? i know i did.. once. The consequences far exceeded the benefits for me:(

I know my son is a good parent and regularly speaks with his kids but that didn’t stop the 10 year old from getting caught stealing candy and gum from the local grocery:(

with any luck his consequences have convinced him that it isn’t a good risk…

but if the current shoplifting stats are any indication those consequences aren’t convincing many:(

Share This

[Carson]

With the exception of Utah, if you look at both the National Highway Safety Board and MADD stats you will find DUI’s and Drunk Driving deaths high in states that are heavily restricted (like WA) and free for all states (like CA) and low in restricted states and in free for all states. In other words, availability has no relation to abuse. I hope they both pass, as well as 1098!!

Share This

[JoB]

Carson…

you might want to look at broader statistics than DUI…

the first hit off of a google search for

“alcohol related death statistics liquor availability” :(

The relationship between liquor outlet density and injury and violence in New Mexico

http://tiny.cc/tbk9i

I could have gone further and looked just for the statistics involving automobile fatalities and alcohol.. but i didn’t see the point.

These are sad enough.

Share This

[Carson]

Sad, but those that drink need to accept responsibility. Its time the government get out of my bedroom, my kitchen and my medicine cabinet. But thats just me, some people prefer others make decisions for them..

Share This

[JoB]

Carson…

this has nothing to do with the government being in your bedroom…

and everything to do with keeping the streets you drive and the public spaces you visit safer for you and your family.

Not to mention controlling public costs directly generated by increasing the availability of liquor…

I am not advocating that anyone who is old enough to make the decision for themselves give up alcohol…

just that we not change a system that is working and providing public benefit.

Share This

[Carson]

I vote yes an 1100 and 1105…..with enthusiasm

Share This

[DP]

OK, JoB, now you’re getting somewhere. The study you cited and the arguments you followed it up with are persuasive.

The New Mexico study referred to “liquor outlets,” and I would assume that means not only retail outlets but also bars, or any other place one might acquire liquor. Still, an outlet is an outlet, and the number of outlets will definitely be going up if I-1100 passes. If Washington’s experience turns out to be anything like New Mexico’s this means signficant social harm will result.

This doesn’t necessarily trump the non-statistical part of my and Carson’s argument — that government is unduly interfering with our right to drink responsibly — but it does buttress the statistical part of yours.

Share This

[JoB]

LOL…

if the government is unduly interfering with your right to drink responsibly…. or not…. right now…

alcohol abuse statistics and related violence and DUIs would tell us that it is doing a really poor job…

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

OK, I’ve been busy and havn’t been able to check this for a while.

It seems like this is what should have nbeen learned from the conversation.

1) a drink is a drink (for the most part)…they get you drunk at more or less the same speed. So to be clear 1 Mickey’s = 1 shot of Stoli. It is not true that a sixer of Mickey’s = 1 shot of Stoli. Who in the hell chugs a liter of Stoli?!?!?

2) The more availability of alcohol leads to more crime…irelevant of weather or not said booze is in beer form or liquor form. The availability of alcohol will not change with the passage of 1100.

3) The impact of the changes of 1100 or 1105 with respect to state revenue is highly debatable. IN FACT there is no good credible evidence to make a case either way (for or against, financially speaking).

4) people have varying experiences of acquaintances consuming alcohol in varying amounts at different ages to generally detrimental effect.

All this sounds fine. The only real way I could be even mildly convinced by JoB’s statements are if you can say it’s easier to steal hard liquor from the new outlets. Also if this new increase, increases the overall rate of alcohol theft in this area. I’ve lived in states that sell liquor in non state-run stores. They have controls to limit loss due to theft in place. ie: corner stores only allowed to have hard liquor behind the counter (as is the norm for these states). Grocery stores have the bottles in well lit isles with under-cover employees posing as shoppers monitoring the traffic in the areas selling liquor.

Also, yes college kids binge drink. They also do drugs they couldn’t do while at home with mom and dad. They also don’t sleep for days at a time. They also do MANY things that the general public doesn’t do because they are learning how to balance social life and new freedoms with maintaing responsibility. College is never a good measuring stick for society. It’s a time of drastic change and adjustment. Not a time to justify how the the level of education of people relates to the levels of alcohol consumption and abuse when compared to the rest of society. I would be so bold as to say college is not any more good a measuring stick of how people act when compared to anything else but college. Saying college kids drink more is a cop-out to the question of weather or not education level is a major factor to an area’s problems of alcohol related problems

People drink for many reasons. The reckless drunks will continue to be reckless. The responsible drinkers will continue to be responsible. There will continue to be poor decisions made when people are drunk. The difference is people will save money and drink better if 1100 passes.

I also know I can’t convince you to change your already made up mind.

Share This

[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.

Share This

[JoB]

I watched King % fact check an adv for those opposing 100 & 1105.

According to the state assessors office’s estimates..

these initiatives would create 10 times as many locations where you can buy hard liquor…

and if you use those estimates… it wouldn’t quite double the number of liquor outlets per person of those in California…

(1.8 as opposed to 2.0)

and it wouldn’t take 200 million (?) from the police and fire departments..

just 200 milion from city and country budgets….

which could cut other services instead.

they labeled the ad misleading :(

Share This

[maplesyrup]

Does that $200 million account for the money not spent to maintain the state retail and distribution operations, including employees?

Share This

[JoB]

maplesyrup

don’t know…

but i am guessing that answer is yes since the state acctg office tends to account for all that..

they didn’t say on the report and i am not looking it up tonight.

Share This

[JoB]

i am incorrigible :(

here’s the link

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Privatize_State_Liquor_Stores_Act,_Initiative_1100_%282010%29

under the reports and analysis section..

” OFM impact report

On August 11, 2010 the Office of Financial Management (OFM) released a financial impact report should Initiative 1100 or Initiative 1105 be approved by voters on November 2. Contrary to an earlier report by the state auditor, the OFM predicts that the state could lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Specifically, the report estimates that I-1100 would reduce state revenues up to $277 million over the next five years and I-1105 could reduce revenues by $730 million. However, the OFM also reports that both measures could increase liquor sales by about 5 percent.[22][23]

Supporters of the initiatives argue that the OFM’s report does not account for additional revenues paid by increased liquor sales.[22]

The OFM’s report on the fiscal impacts of I-1100 can be read here.

Budget and Policy Center

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center released an analysis of the several Washington 2010 initiatives, including I-1100 and I-1105. According to the study, the impact of I-1100 to the state’s general fund over a 5-year period is estimated at between $115 million and $123 million. The measures, according to the study, could “impose long-term social costs associated with heightened consumption of hard liquor and other alcoholic beverages.”[24][25] “

and they link the report if you want to read the details…

i don’t know where the 500 mill figure came from since the synopsis figures don’t name 500 mil.. but any way you look at it.. it’s big bucks…

and in the same report the guy who sponsored one of the initiatives says it might not even bring liquor costs down:(

on that note i am off to bed.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

I was under the impression the only outlets who would be eligible to sell hard liquor were the ones currently allowed to sell beer and wine. If this is true, then there would be a 0% increase in alcohol availability. There would, however be an over increase in the availability of hard liquor.

Most of the studied cited here state the presence of alcohol to be a factor. I don’t see any that determine any difference in availability of hard liquor vs. beer and wine…just alcohol in general.

Share This

[Carson]

Why would you think if either 1100 or 1105 passes that current beer and wine outlets will also sell hard booze? It might be more, and it might be less, but right now its nothing more than a scare tactic by the anti 1100/1105 group that wants you to think every gas station will sell hard booze. If either or both pass then the legislature will need to figure out the details. I would lay odds that sales and licenses will still be restricted when they pass.

.

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

Share This

[DP]

WorldCitizen: Today I’m visualizing you parked in a geosynchronous orbit somewhere above the 15th parallel, roughly in the vicinity of Saipan. (Am I right?)

The New Mexico study JoB cited refers specifically to “liquor outlet density.”

Unfortunately, her tinyurl link has expired, and I don’t want to recreate it, but the study she cited is on a Web site called “ScienceDirect” and here’s the study abstract:

The relationship between liquor outlet density and injury and violence in New Mexico

Abstract

This study used an ecologic design based on data from 1990 to 1994 gathered from forensic, vital statistic, census, law enforcement and liquor licensing agencies to assess the relationship between liquor outlet density and alcohol-related health outcomes in New Mexico. Linear regression models show that suicide, alcohol-related crash, and alcohol-related crash fatality (adjusted for age, sex, and minority status) are significantly associated with liquor outlet density. Data also show that, compared with the first tertile, suicide and alcohol-related crash rates increase about 50% and the alcohol-related crash fatality rate two-fold with the third tertile of liquor outlet density.

Greater availability of liquor outlets is associated with higher rates of suicide, alcohol-related crash, and alcohol-related crash fatality.

(emphasis added)

This is a peer-reviewed academic study and presumably the researchers knew the difference between liquor and other forms of alcohol. On the other hand, it’s possible that New Mexico always sold liquor, beer, and wine together, so the study may not be differentiating between outlets for beer and wine only vs. outlets for liquor. (Note: I believe this study was undertaken as a result of a law the state of New Mexico had instituted allowing all forms of alcohol to be sold from drive-up windows. Opponents of selling alcohol from drive-ups in other states used the study to argue against instituting similar laws in other states.)

In any event, let’s start with your statement that there won’t be any new alcohol outlets per se created by I-1100. I believe that’s true. However, I still think it’s fair to say that hard liquor sales as such will increase overall (and will increase in all areas of the state) simply because of the increased availability of that hard liquor.

Is that fair to say?

If it is fair to say that liquor sales will increase, then I believe it also fair to extrapolate from the New Mexico study that liquor-related social harm will increase as well.

So the only questions I have now are:

1. By how much will social harm increase?
2. Does the “cost” all of us will bear from this increased harm outweigh the benefit some of us will derive from increased availabililty?

I haven’t made up my mind on this yet, and I think these factors are worth considering before I do.

– Cheers.

Share This

[maplesyrup]

For the same reasons I’m skeptical of the Camden, NJ comparison, I’m also skeptical of the New Mexico comparison. It’s almost like a different country down there.

But focusing on economic data, which correlate to education levels and crime rates, let’s compare New Mexico and Washington:

Washington

Median Income per Household: $58,900

National Rank: 10

Poverty Rate: 11.8%

National Rank: 32

New Mexico

Median Income per Household: $43,700

National Rank: 40

Poverty Rate: 18.5%

National Rank: 4

Sorry, I just don’t buy that we’re going to turn into New Mexico, Camden NJ, or Oakland (another comparison I’ve seen used elsewhere) because liquor is available in more outlets in Washington.

Share This

[DP]

Good points, Maple! The experience of other states only goes so far as an indicator of what will happen here, but I still think there will be some increase in problem drinking, don’t you?

In any case, I predict 1105 is going to pass by a large margin (at least 10 points). Restrictive liquor laws have never been very popular among the masses, and now that people finally have a chance to end the state monopoly, they will.

Share This

[JoB]

maplesyrup…

we don’t have to turn into new mexico or new jersey for an increase in the availability of hard liqour to increase alcohol related problems.

how much are you really willing to pay in social costs just so that it is easier and maybe cheaper for you to buy booze?

would you have believed we would have drive by shootings in the junction or the admiral district or on alki 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

if you think poverty and it’s associated problems aren’t encroaching on Washington..

you should take a little drive east.. or south.. or out to the coast.. or up into that little lost triangle of the state above Bellingham.

I have been exploring the state these past few years and although the wealthy pockets of Seattle Metro do raise state averages… they haven’t even gotten close to floating all the boats.

this initiative is projected to create nearly twice as many hard alcohol outlets per person than in California.

that’s sobering.

Share This

[Author]

Posts