Well, if you don't like it, start another initiative. You won't get my support, though.

I support privatization of the liquor stores and reform of the WSLCB. I voted against I-1100 though to prevent the scenario that is currently playing out in Chicago:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/2…

Hopefully we can come up with some legislation that makes sense, doesn't leave small brewers and wineries open to attack, and keeps the state making some money off of liquor sales through taxing. The current nonsense of state run liquor stores needs to come to an end.

If the liquor store decided to close early, because of bad weather conditions that's there call. I guess they should risk there lives getting home so they can sell your alcoholic ass a bottle of potters whiskey. Are you one of those lushes that can't manage to keep a bottle around longer than 5 minutes? This snow storm was not a suprise, and most people prepare for inclement weather by going,and buying supplies(or Booze). I'm guessing that most of the workers can not afford to live on the hill, and cannot simply walk home like you. If your trendy ass actually left your little bubble on the hill you would've realized that conditions were a lot worse than you seem to think they were. Did you watch the news, or use your laptop to watch buses, and cars sliding down John st on youtube? If the initatives would have passed the state would have lost millons of dollars for critical services...But who cares as long as you can walk to the corner store, and by a your favorite bottle of cheap whiskey. This would have also displaced a lot of workers who would have been having to draw unemployment which the state really wouldn't be able to afford. If the initaive would have passed the same officers that you feel were targeting the gay club would have still been there. In any type of enforcement whether law or liquor they will focus on the chronic offenders. There are plenty of other gay clubs on the hill that have no problems with the following the rules, and operate without being "harassed". I'm really tired of whiney emo kids that always have a chip on there shoulder about something, but I guess that makes for a good story. If you don't like the liquor laws and enforcement move to California! They don't have snow, and you can go to the corner liquor store with bars on the window to get your cheap pint of whiskey as many times you want 24/7. If by chance you don't get robbed when you walk out the door you can finish your pint in the parking lot. After that you can drive off and end up kiling someone on the way home! As long as it's convienent for you were good! Have a great weekend! Just make sure to stock up on your brandy, and whiskey it's going to be a long winter!

What no one talks about is that if 1100 passed, it would have re-directed funding FROM the General Fund (critical services for those in the most need) and INTO MORE dedicated alcohol enforcement. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that when they whine about 1100 not passing??

More discussion on this topic, along with some good input on straight nightlife allies can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=13…

L

...this person(#4) have all their personal and convenient facts wrong...the state would have increased revenue profits by 80% of what they are seeing now with the addition of multiple outlets, but there are handfuls of people like yourself that proclaim such self awareness ...and I have a bridge to nowhere that's up for sale ...Interested? Idiot

...and WALKMAN the reason no one talks about it is cause its missing the point ...The WSLCB can do as they please and have been, and if you think by voting "NO" on 1100 because your trite observation means you have way to much time on your hands! ...

@2, sorry, but I don't know of a puritanical compound that would accept a homosexual such as myself.

As the snow approached I thought to myself "Gee, stores are probably going to be closed tomorrow. Maybe I should stock up." And so I went to the Ballard state store, purchased my various items and happily drank them as I watched the snowflakes fall.

I'm sorry you expect every store in town to be open at your whim Frizzelle. Life is difficult indeed! Do you make all your public policy decisions based on what is most expedient to your transitory whims?

@PSSSSSST could you please share (step by step) your calculations to arrive at your 80% increase, including what you assumed in terms of price reductions? or are you regurgitating a statistic from some unreliable lobbyist?

you think that following where the tax/licensing revenues move out of and in to, is "missing the point" and "trite"?? it's all about the green, baby! I find it hard to believe that all the media outlets (and people like you) seem careless about reducing funding for the elderly, adoption services, people with disabilities... and increasing funding for alcohol enforcement. that's what 1100 would have done. unfortunately, following where the $$ is coming out of, and going to, is usually what it's mostly about. why was 1100 an exception?

even if your 80% increase held any water (it doesn't), you're implicitly saying that alcohol enforcement would be even more greatly funded, which I don't believe most people think we actually need.

@4 and @5, my sentiments exactly.

^ well put.

and we can all drunk call them at Dickslap, won't that be fun?

"SMELL"...you just smell

MMMM..walkman from 375 stores to over 150,000 outlets ...you do the math....
what amazes me is your quick to pull on the heart strings of the "elderly, adoption services, people with disabilities"
to make a mute point
what the hell does that have to do with the income from liquor sales ? the last I read the monies were spent on building sector of roadways and parks and nothing to do with transfer of funding for the enabled.
If your so worried about philanthropy maybe you should get a tax exempt status and get you butt out there and do social work and leave the mob bosses to smart voter...ones that actually read I-1100 ..just a thought

@14

Well put and I support that.

I stock up, everytime I go out of state. Even Portland is cheaper than here.

Are you still complaining about this? Because you couldn't buy liquor on Tuesday and the Eagle got a citation you think that all liquor sales should be privatized? Hate to say it, but I think the people in Kitsap County who had no power and no heat for the night had it worse than you.

It would have been nice if whomever was paid to put up signs on the doors of the State Liquor stores had put up accurate ones. Even that would have made me happy. And maybe while they were there they could have changed the voicemail and alerted people who called that they were closed.

Is that unrealistic to expect?

As for the Eagle: Wouldn't all of you think there might be better things for state employees to do with their time? There are many "victimless crimes" we turn a blind eye to so we can focus on what's important. It's called having priorities.

I do believe we got more than 2.5 inches of snow that day...I had like 6 in my back yard....so sorry if your local store had no employees that could get to work safely so you could drink that day, maybe no one lived in walking/bus routes distance.....I am sure your local bar was open, you should have went there.....sounds like you just wanted a reason to bitch

I do believe we got more than 2.5 inches of snow that day...I had like 6 in my back yard....so sorry if your local store had no employees that could get to work safely so you could drink that day, maybe no one lived in walking/bus routes distance.....I am sure your local bar was open, you should have went there.....sounds like you just wanted a reason to bitch

I've gone to liquor stores at 3pm on a weekday and it turns out they're closed. Inexplicably, with no sign up. That is horseshit. If it were any other business I would stop shopping there, but we don't have a choice here. That, also, is horseshit.

Perhaps I-1100 wasn't a very good piece of legislation. That does not mean the issue is no longer relevant. Buying liquor in this state is pretty much invariably a poor experience; the public is essentially punished for wanting to use a legal substance.

Wanting to buy some whiskey is not alcoholism. Even if you happen to run out at an inopportune moment, or just don't generally keep it on hand.

Hating on things is easy; perhaps if you children actually applied some thought here, you might realize that it is unreasonable to force the public to tolerate inconvenient and unpleasant merchants when there are alternatives that are demonstrably better in every way.

"If the snowstorm had hit before the election, and frustration was still palpable, would the liquor privatizing Initiative 1100 have passed?"

No, because the 500 or so people that were inconvenienced that day would not swing it far enough your way. Besides, most of them probably voted yes anyways.

The majority of Washington voters don't buy liquor, or if they do they buy it in restaurants an bars. You're asking them to get frustrated about something they don't do.

Very tired of saying things like, "Washington has so much potential." It will not lose what soul it has by adopting laws which exist in eastern cities/states. There is a lot of hand-holding which seems counter to what the west supposedly represents. Would have been great if it remained a frontier.

I am surprised by the backlash here.

All these complaints about this are all pedantic. Jobs and drunks are incidental, a monopoly coupled with enforcement is a problem that has to be fixed eventually, so why not now?

And ALL should be worried if a call to an enforcement agency is met with childish yelling and abrupt hanging up. These people have power over business owners that they clearly aren't responsible enough to wield.

If something is BROKEN, do not complain when people try to fix it, help them fix it.

@PSSSSSST ... not sure why you feel the need to attack the point I'm making about following where the $s from 1100 would have been re-directed (from the General Fund, which includes infrastructure investments as well as the services I mentioned, in to a dedicated alcohol enforcement fund... do you honestly believe that Washington needs MORE alcohol enforcement? because that's what you don't seem to acknowledge, or care about...). I actually DID read 1100, which is why I voted NO despite the basic tenants which I agree with.

If you're going to hinge one of your ill-fitted arguments on all this increased revenue profits- then back up where you got your 80% increase from. You're getting all aggressive for no reason and telling me to "do the math" for you? I can't, because 80% is probably something you heard from Fox News or the Costco newsletter...

I seriously doubt you know what type of social work I'm currently doing, or what tax status I already have... again, I'm not sure where your attacks are coming from, but you keep aggressively blurring the point.

If you feel so strongly about these things, then do your homework and get active yourself instead of criticizing people you know nothing about. With all the hanging out you do at the Eagle, you outta be active in this yourself?

Instead of being so negatively critical and aggressive, why not simply agree with @14... get active and call the WSLCB, call your representatives, and ask all your friends / family / business acquaintances to do the same. Get active in sending out the contact info to your allies to work with in also contacting the WSLCB/reps. Work with people instead of uselessly pitting them against each other... that's just a waste of time + energy!!

POSITIVITY! USEFUL ENERGY! PROGRESS! GET ACTIVE and STOP YOUR USELESS ARGUMENTS!! ;)

"Are you still complaining about this? Because you couldn't buy liquor on Tuesday and the Eagle got a citation you think that all liquor sales should be privatized? "

Yeah, that's the ONLY reason, it all just came up right now. There's never been ANY other reason. Ever.

I think the whole point is that you shouldn't have to go to a state run liquor store, it should just be sold everywhere like the rest of the country, our laws are archaic and pointless, and it is a monopoly for the state.

Completely agree Nark, but 1100 would have put more $$ into dedicated alcohol enforcement and moved it out of the General Fund... do we really want the big wigs in Olympia giving more jobs to their friends/family to hound on 20-year-olds who want to enjoy alcohol as the adults they already are? 1100 was a piece of junk IMHO, although I completely agree that we need to get the State out of the alcohol monopoly they created. There are a lot of people working to try to fix this, along with many other stoopid liquor rules (i.e. no shirtless bartenders, bands can't drink when they perform,etc.etc...)

One problem is, no one is actually CALLING their reps and the WSLCB to complain to the people that could create change,, if they only heard the quiet will of the people...

Can we acknowledge it's a little silly to say "After trying to comply with rules and getting dinged anyway...". Please. We all get that the law in this case is insipid, and has been unfairly applied, but there is simply no way the Eagle didn't know Guys Gone Wild jacking off scenes would be considered non-compliant. Stretch much? Weak, weak argument.

Anyway... the state would have lost revenue, and small businesses would have lost revenue, and people would lose jobs, and huge businesses that do not need help would have been the sole beneficiary... nothing showed me satisfactory evidence to the contrary... and I did my research.

At the end of the day, I don't really believe that liquor should be restricted to state-run stores. But it's hardly a pressing issue. And there were reasonable concerns not to buck the status quo. So I voted against the initiatives and feel good about that decision.

And your article is just so... whiny. Like a teenager wrote it.

Hey, Chris, Dan and crew:

Sue the WSLCB on grounds of civil rights violations on behalf of the intellectual-disability community.

How and why?

Have you ever seen one of those idiotic posters that all liquor-licensed establishments are required to post?

[paraphrased]
If you appear to be intoxicated, we must refuse to serve you and must remove your beverage.

What a bunch of nonsensical bullshit!

1) Why should someone with a (statistically) somewhat-diminished intellectual function be denied an ice-cold beer on a hot day (or night)?
A similar arbitrary standard perhaps might have been better imposed on Congress prior to their approval of the USA PATRIOT Act.

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highli…

2) What if a patron of a licensed liquor establishment has, by no fault of personal negligence, suffered a serious head injury, or maybe, at some point, lost oxygen flow to the brain for too long, or suffered some other debilitating injury?

And yet, the law (and by extension, the WSLCB) requires the posting of this insipid declaration, and then hold liable the servers of the libations most people of adult competency should rightly enjoy at personal will and expense.

Demand! We say to The Stranger ("Seattle's Only Newspaper"). Demand account for governance by the idiocratic class over their better, if not hopelessly apathetic people.

Do not go gentle into that good night!

[If that doesn't work, get Charles Mudede to drum up some kind of ethnic high-end literature angle.]

@35: Whining about a whiny article seems so... meta.

If you don't like the liquor board, boycott.

The snow wasn't/isn't the only issue. A few days before snowfall, all of the electronic payment systems went down. This meant "cash only" in 100% of the state liquor stores - because they all use the same system.

I complained about this at a local store (Ballard) where the faux-hawk sporting post-teenage thug promptly kicked me out of the store for suggesting that if we'd voted the initiative in, this wouln't be a problem.

God help that guy if he ever loses his job at that store. I doubt anyone else would hire him or put up with his loudmouth crap.

@ 37- meta yes, in cases where it's true, however here I wasn't whining, only being highly reasoned and sublimely intellectual. That's the difference.

If it's so important for you to have hard alcohol when it snows, then maybe you should buy it before the snow falls, Mr. Frizzelle. All of us knew a bad storm was coming, all of us knew that Seattle can't handle snow, and subsequently the city is half shut down for the duration of the bad conditions. You were here two years ago, so you knew what to expect.

Go to one of the grocery stores that managed to cobble together enough desperate wage-seeking employees to stay open and buy some beer or wine, go to a bar that serves hard drinks, or abstain a couple days. Surely it won't kill you.

Nowhere is it enshrined in state law a private citizen's right to buy hard alcohol for consumption in that citizen's home. The state liquor stores aren't the USPS. They shouldn't have to risk their lives (and with these drivers, on these hills, with these unprepared cars and buses, they would be) to supply you with a bottle of whiskey, and you should be ashamed of yourself for demanding it. Next time buy early, if it really matters so much to you.

The start of your article just makes you seem petty to whine about something as frivolous as a closed shop on a wretched, icy day, when you should be pouring the full weight of your fury against the Liquor Control Board on their unequal enforcement of rules against LGBT bars. You water down your argument unnecessarily.

"hristensen says, "I don't know. They come in undercover. They pay the cover to get in, they float around the area, they take pictures—whatever suits them. Who knows! Your guess is as good as mine. I assume they're in here every day."

I can tell you as a former bouncer at (well known large gay cluibg in seattle) that the WSLCB do NOT pay cover to get in. They often flashed their badges to the door people and expect to get in for free because they are on 'official business.' which apparently includes bringing dates, and getting free drinks or discounted drinks from bartenders. I would often see them come in with a group of six or so, lord knows how many of them were actually 'officers,' flash a badge and ID and then have a party.

Nice work if you can get it, and God help you if you say anything about it. These thugs need to go. Who is watching the watchmen?

No one. That's who.

Sonder is correct. I've seen this firsthand and it's a disgusting abuse of power.

Well, the residents of Washington gave their answer to the well-financed initiative campaigns of Costco and Retailers' Associations.

They won and the initiatives lost.

Swear and pout all you want, but we still live in a democratic state.

@14 "The REAL solution is to change the WSLCB. Give them a call and let them know they are doing a good/bad job as you see it."

This will change absolutely nothing. Ever.

I would love to see the Eagle close down, but not for this reason. Playing the victim card in this case is nothing more than an attempt to get business. I don't have any problem with adult behavior/videos/pictures occuring in adult establishments, particularly in a cruisy bar. So all in all, an event I would support if any other bar were hosting it.