- This topic is empty.
October 6, 2010 at 1:19 am #704432
Twice as many as Calif? Really? JoB, stop drinking the Kool Aid and think.October 6, 2010 at 1:21 am #704433
1.8… read the statistics yourself. i linked to them in a previous post..
this study included areas in CaliforniaOctober 6, 2010 at 1:29 am #704434
Really? You think it will just become the wild west selling booze? Have you seen the Rossi ads saying Patty Murray is responsible for our entire national debt? You can’t believe what you agree with and just dismiss what you don’t agree with. After 1100/1105 pass, and they will pass, easily, the legislature will determine how future sales will be, not anti 1100/1105 groups.October 6, 2010 at 2:20 am #704435
i am absolutely certain that i never referred to the “wild west” in any post i have made on this subject.
i didn’t exaggerate either. I linked to state assessor’s office projections which are generally considered to be conservative..
and to scientific studies.
that is your exaggeration talking.. not mine.
i fear you are right and that those two bills will pass…
i also fear that in a decade or two washington will be part of the statistics used to convince other states that this is a bad idea.
it will be too late then.
what i find difficult to understand is how otherwise reasonable people can throw scientific studies and statistics out the window when it doesn’t agree with what they want to hear :(October 6, 2010 at 2:23 am #704436
how did the anti 1100/1105 people become the biased group on this issue?
pro 100/1105 are the ones who will reap fairly substantial financial gain if they pass…
I would say that gives them a pretty substantial bias.. wouldn’t you?
while pro 1100/1105October 6, 2010 at 2:45 am #704437
The state assessor will not decide who and where the alcohol will be sold, the legislature will. To date, I have not heard them say a thing. Both sides gain/lose if it passes/fails, of course. Again, it will pass, easily, and in 2 years, when its all figured out we can rant/rave.October 6, 2010 at 4:00 am #704438
i think you should read those initiatives more closely.
i read them both and i don’t remember anything in either initiative that talks about the state legislature having a thing to say about where alcohol is sold…
I do remember mention of the fact that local municipalities can pass measures regulating sales… I don’t remember whether that was in the initiatives or in discussions or here..
but the initiatives as written pretty much totally de-regulate the sales of alcohol.
to change that..
i think additional legislation would have to be passed.October 6, 2010 at 4:49 am #704439
JoB that study refers to total outlets, which includes bars and restaurants. And the study says that incidents are more frequent in poor areas. Just what I was saying before.
re: #75 (and also addressing DP’s comment)
I really don’t think urban blight is impending if I can buy liquor at my local Safeway. But even if alcohol-related problems increase I expect those increases to be minimal, precisely because we happen to live in one of the best-educated and most law-abiding cities in the country.
And yes I think the trade-off for passing 1100 especially is totally worth it. Why?
1) The origin of the law dates back to the immediate post-prohibition days in which the consumption of alcohol was deemed a moral failing. Sorry, but I object to some church lady from the 1930’s trying to tell me and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other responsible citizens how to behave.
2) The state has many legitimate roles in providing services to citizens. Operating a retail and distribution outlet for a consumer product is definitely not one of those roles.
3) I highly suspect that the potential for “lost revenue” is exaggerated. It’s really hard to get a good grasp of what will happen until we see the effects. But ultimately the legislature will find a way to recover those funds if the the revenue losses are truly that extreme.
4) JoB you make a good point that additional legislation will have to be passed. Great. I hope the legislature comes up with ways to perfect the system. But if we sit around and wait for the perfect initiative to come down the pike, we’ll be waiting another 20-40 years. The current system has bothered me for years and now we have an opportunity to make changes so I’m all for seizing the opportunity.
5) I’ll admit (although points 1-3 trump this point) I think it’s completely stupid that I should go the Alaska Junction or Westwood Village to buy liquor when I live in N. Admiral. I waste time, waste gas, and I put my car on the road more than necessary. Furthermore I work hard and work late hours sometimes. Why should I re-arrange my work schedule just because someone in the state government thinks that buying liquor after 8PM is bad for me?
So yeah I am willing to take some chances that the new system will be imperfect in a minor way because if we don’t change it now chances are it’ll never get better in the long haul.
And with that I’ll jump off the soapbox until I get sufficiently riled up again. :)October 6, 2010 at 5:28 am #704440
When I moved to Washington State back in ’75, I was appalled that liquor was not available in grocery stores. It just seemed primitive.
I was appalled in Connecticut how early they quit selling beer in stores too!
Our state can’t handle its liquor. Let my liquor go! And quit price gouging us.
No on 1098: Your favorite supply sider to hate Arthur Laffer makes an interesting argument against passing a state income tax in a WSJ editorial. Read the numbers please. Then if you have alternative numbers, by all means bring them to the table. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520241519315372.htmlOctober 6, 2010 at 8:25 am #704441
hmmm…Arthur Laffer…oh, yeah…he was with Reagan and “trickle down” economy. Tell me again how well that worked?October 6, 2010 at 5:22 pm #704442
I am sure you wouldn’t classify the alcohol related fatal beating that was received by a man in Roxhill Park recently as a minor imperfection in the system…
but that is exactly what alcohol related violence can look like.
you aren’t protected from that by wealth.
the kids in the alley around the high school now leave beer bottles and other litter… do you really think nothing will change when their highjinks are fueled by high octane instead of regular? vandalism.. smash and grabs.. muggings and burglary rates rise when liquor is more available. We used to call that dutch courage.
if the trip to the junction to buy your alcohol is the price you pay for keeping that kind of violence from your neighborhood… isn’t it worth it?October 6, 2010 at 7:37 pm #704443
Sorry JoB but now you’re back to arguments that (imo) have already been sufficiently rebutted.
Like I said above, I think the risks are exaggerated and I’m prepared to take a chance on 1100.October 6, 2010 at 9:43 pm #704444
you can dismiss study after study on the social costs of increased alcohol availability because you don’t like when they were done or where they were done or how they were done… but the truth is that each and every study tells exactly the same story…
could it be that there is universal truth in those studies?
i can tell you that from my personal perspective having lived in at least half the states in the United States.. experiencing just about every possible form of alcohol regulation from dry to totally deregulated… that those studies reflect my experience.
When you deregulate alcohol and make it more available… alcohol related crime rises significantly.
You may believe we live in a perfect world where that won’t happen..
but the evidence and the projections from the state assessors office don’t agree with you.
Far from refuting arguments.. the best you have come up with is that it is inconvenient for you to buy hard alcohol in a state run store.
I get that.
Inconvenience and the hope that hard alcohol will become cheaper are the primary reasons this will probably pass.
But those reasons don’t address the social costs of increased availability or the lost state revenue.
Wanting something doesn’t make it right….October 9, 2010 at 5:45 am #704445
And increased social costs and decreased revenue don’t make a policy right, either.
Liquor is legal, it’s a part of the social fabric and it gives people a great deal of pleasure. And the vast majority enjoy it safely.
Washington state simply must re-work the way it raises revenue.
It’s a shame that a person who makes 20 grand a year and enjoys a bottle of whiskey once a month is contributing the same to the state revenue as a person who makes 200k a year and enjoying that same whiskey. This is regressive taxation at it’s ugliest.
There are all kinds of social problems that could be “cured” by regulating and marginalizing pleasurable activities that a minority of people enjoy to excess. Sure – drinking can and does have negative consequences some of the time. See also: compulsive shopping, motorcycle riding, eating a lot of bacon, driving fast, mountain climbing, scuba diving, having unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners, allowing your son to be an alter boy, playing football, backyard pools and trampolines.October 9, 2010 at 3:43 pm #704446
we aren’t talking about regulating something new…
we are talking about deregulating something that is already regulated
and assuming the increased cost of doing so…
this initiative isn’t a referendum on liquor… no matter how much the retailers who stand to make big bucks on this initiative would like to make it seem like one…October 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm #704447
the same sort of rationalizations were successfully used to shoot down the plastic bag “sin tax” …
at best the argument went something like this.. it was an imperfect solution and we could do better …
so.. where is the solution that was going to come later?
passing an initiative that deregulates alcohol access with the idea that we can “fix” it later is a bad idea…October 11, 2010 at 7:16 am #704448
You can buy hard liquor in grocery stores in California…in Mendicino, and in Monterey, and in Sausalito, and in Morro Bay. Not exactly cesspools of alcohol related crime.
You can also buy hard liquor in grocery stores in Oakland, and in Watts, and in South Central, and in Compton. These are all hotbeds of alcohol related crime.
The common denominator in this case is liquor sold at the local grocery. Why the difference in alcohol related crime? I would have to say a number of factors, not the least of which being education and poverty levels.
Please explain how your cited studies account for this major discrepancy.October 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm #704449
What is a greater threat to todays youth? Hard alcohol being sold at Safeway or a Big Mac for lunch every day? I am guessing if we lowered the drinking age to 16, the Big Mac would still be a bigger threat to the health of todays kids. If you want to legislate morality, start with the real threats…October 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm #704450
even in upscale communities.. when liquor access goes up.. alcohol related crime goes up.
and no.. i am not going to dig for any more research. you don’t read it.
i am not interested in morality… in fact the only place morality has been talked about is by those who are for this initiative in response to those who are against.
i am interested in public safety and the increased public health care expense.
btw.. i agree about the Big Macs…
but they aren’t included in this initiative :(October 11, 2010 at 3:53 pm #704451
consider yourself progressive?
all of the emails i have been getting from progressive sources say no on both 1100 & 1105.
i don’t have my progressive voters guide in hand yet or i would link to it.
methinks the stranger is voting his bad boy recs on this rather than his politics.October 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm #704452
The reason many “progressives” are against I-1100 is because limiting alcohol consumption accords with their idea of looking after the interests of others. But you know, people don’t always want to be looked after. And then too, sometimes people just have to take responsibility for themselves, even if some harms comes of it.
Arguments against I-1100 are exactly the same ones that were being made for Prohibition a hundred years ago. You say this is not a moral argument, that’s it a public health one. But where do you draw the line? By advocating a limit on liquor sales, you’re telling people not to drink as much because you think it’s bad for them, not because you think it’s bad for the health of the public as a whole.
I’m afraid that is, essentially, a moral argument.October 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm #704453
No more research is necessary. Of course alcohol related crime goes up if there is more alcohol. I’m just saying to apply a little real-world common sense to how much of an actual problem this is. I’m willing to bet the increase will be mitigated enough because of the education level and affluence of the general population. There will probably be more problems, but I’m willing to accept that in this world in which we live. And I’m also willing to gamble the city won’t drown in a whirlpool of booze driven crime because you can get it easier.October 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm #704454
so lets say you live in an affluent neighborhood that has neighboring areas that aren’t so affluent.
Do you really think the increased crime in their neighborhood is not going to affect yours?
Do you think you are somehow not going to pay the increased costs of policing both your neighborhood and theirs? Or that you won’t pay for the increased costs of social services? Or that their medical costs won’t trickle down to you through increased medical fees and taxes?
and for what?
so that you can buy a wider variety of liquor that might or might not end up cheaper more easily?
I am just saying that it’s high time someone did a cost/benefit analysis on this.
all inflammatory language aside.. it doesn’t look like anyone except retailers are going to get enough benefit from this to justify the cost…October 11, 2010 at 5:49 pm #704455
To liquor or not to liquor is not the question here. i am far from advocating that we ban any form of liquor.
I am just pointing out that the adults in this state have ample access to alcohol now.
All of this inflammatory language just points out the simple fact that it matters how you frame the issue.
if the initiative read…
.. raise taxes to pay for the increased public alcohol related costs in order to fund the public costs of increased choice and availability …
how do you think you would vote?October 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm #704456
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.