Duh

Or stoned, more likely ...

The initiative process is stupid.

Fixed that for you.

How does this work out for restaurants? It seems as if it wouldn't be that unusual for, say, Peso's to need more than that after a long weekend.

Legislation enacted by elected officials, including legislation that gets "hammered out in committee," is by no means immune to this type of problem.

Oh hello, I see this is the problem. This is what I get for checking slog in reverse order when I get up.

As long as the Washington legislature is incapable of fixing problems the only means we have is stupid, stupid initiatives. Without initiatives, nothing whatsoever would change.

It's well within Olympia's power to gauge the needs of the people and respond to them within a timeframe much shorter than the cycle of an initiative. It was before and it is now. They could make initiatives obsolete immediately just by enacting popular legislation.

They could moot initiatives right now by fixing this liquor law. Will they? No.

End of story. Enjoy your next round of initiatives.

@6 gets it.

The legislature could have fixed the problem of state controlled liquor stores. A very good majority of people wanted it to happen. Smartly, it seems they wanted "good enough" to come out of the initiative process. But the legislature, hamstrung by established interests, refused to act.

And the legislature writes stupid niggling details (or often, like this case, lack of details) into bills debated by committee all the time. So the premise that professional lawmakers wouldn't have left this loophole is false.

@5: This is not the problem, but the point.

Costco is not supposed to be considered a distributor, thus allowing it to evade all fees associated with distribution in the legislation it wrote.

Permittig Costco to sell in large quantities is simply a back door into de facto distributorship. It's bullshit and it should be called as such.

This could be easily fixed by making it illegal for Costco, and only Costco, to sell liquor at all.

@6 You're right. With the initiative and referendum process, nothing would change. For example, without the initiative and referendum process, we'd never get marriage equality.

Oh. Wait. The legislature boldly passed marriage equality, and without the initiative and referendum process it would already be law.

Never mind.

@7:

The legislature could have fixed the problem of state controlled liquor stores. A very good majority of people wanted it to happen.

A majority of the people rejected liquor privatization at the polls, every single prior time it was presented to them, including just the year before. So really, it's kinda stupid to accuse the legislature of not listening to the people.

(PS: Give me $24 million and I could pass some real awful shit.)

@6 is completely correct. The State Legislature, and Governor, completely refused to listen to the citizens of the state, instead taking their cues from special interest groups like distributors and the prevention community. So, we got a corporate sponsored initiative.

A Costco rep admitted in one meeting that the initiative was vaguely worded on this issue in order to keep the distributors from spending a ton of money opposing the initiative, but too allow Costco to come back and do what Costco's hired marketing people supporting the initiative said they wouldn't do - become a distributor without paying the same fees as the other distributors have to under the rules.

The Liquor Board then acted, writing in rules the citizens did not vote for, nor would have. In fact, what the voters intended was for liquor prices to decrease, which is what would happen if Costco and other retailers could sell direct to restaurants as the initiative allowed. The liquor board did this in order to punish the voters and Costco for taking away their power.

And so the political world turns.

@11,

As much as you want to believe everyone else fears the demon liquor as much as you do, the fact remains that the people wanted increased store hours, more stores, and better selection. The WSLCB and the legislature refused to offer any of those things in any way that matters. The legislature, in particular, kicked the can down the road every time the issue came up.

Everything about this was foreseeable; it's too bad both institutions refused to reform the system on their terms in a way that would have prevented 1183 from passing.

#12: Really? You're complaining about special interests? How much have you donated to politicians and how many op-eds have you written in order to boost your booze business and keep your taxes low?

I don't remember the title being "Shall Spirit Prices Be Lowered".

Cali just killed a state dollar tax on tobacco, btw.

The rub is right there in Meinert's otherwise-assbackward-defense of Costco's underhandedness:

...vaguely worded on this issue ... do what Costco's hired marketing people supporting the initiative said they wouldn't do - become a distributor without paying the same fees as the other distributors have to under the rules.

Why the fuck is anyone here defending this?

@6:

As long as the Washington legislature is incapable of fixing problems the only means we have is stupid, stupid initiatives. Without initiatives, nothing whatsoever would change.

No, without I&R the Legislature would have no excuse to avoid acting on most issues facing the state. The Legislature would actually do what we pay them to do.

Would there still be lazy bastards who didn't do any legislative work in Olympia? Sure, but their sloth and inadequacy would be more visible to their constituents, who might prefer to elect someone who's able to do what's required to debate and pass legislation.

Would the Legislature write poorly-worded laws? Would the Legislature pass misguided legislation? Yes and yes. But you can be damn sure our elected representatives would do a hell of a lot better job of it than the blockheads who write "lower my taxes, but maintain and increase my services" fantasies and the megacorporations that tailor boutique legislation solely to fatten their own wallets.

@3: They can buy from the distributor now if they want to (in whatever quantities they desire), a privilege denied them in the pre-1183 world.

Of course, their prices are likely higher due to mandated distributor fees, but hey, how else did you expect those school lunch programs to be funded?

18: You may be correct, but the system we have is the one we have, and everyone knew Costco was going to come back after 1100/1105 and the Legislature could have short-circuited Costco and dealt with the issue. But as keshmeshi accurately notes, the Legislature dodged the issue (much as they did with car tabs pre-I-695).

Would get hammered out in committee? Only if there actually were committee hearings. Too many bills in this last session were written behind closed doors and just as poorly written as the liquor privatization initiative.

Wait... You mean that doesn't mean that Costco is going to carry 24 liter bottles (drums?) of Tanqueray?

Shoot.