I, Anonymous

Booze Blues

  • comments (90)
  • Print
+ Enlarge this Image

As a now-former liquor store employee, I just want to take a moment and say I told y'all so. I told y'all prices would go up, and they did. But hey, as long as there's easier access, that's all that mattered, right? So long as you could get your breakfast cereal, salmon, tampons, and oh god, BOOZE!!, that was all that mattered. Forget the more than 1,000 people who lost their jobs (because while Costco did do interviews, it also did a hiring freeze). Or the fact that small businesses are going to have to raise prices, and who likes that? Who wants to go to the restaurant or bar when OH MY FUCKING GOD the price of a drink went up?! But hey, you can now go to your local grocer and get all your weekly needs plus a bottle of booze for when y'all just can't handle the kids anymore, all in one stop. Because let's face it, it wasn't about the state selling liquor, it was because we are all a bunch of lazy assholes who have to have everything we need at one stop or it is just too much. As for the idea that prices are going down? You hear that obnoxious laughter that seems to be everywhere? That would be me and other former employees laughing our ass off. Why? 'Cause we told y'all so.

P.S. To all the regular customers who came in, showed support, and wished us well—thank you.


Submit your unsigned confession or accusation here. Please remember to change the names of the innocent and guilty. One submission will be published in the paper and online every week.

Comments (90) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
I live in a state where liquor used to only be sold in state-owned stores. It's much better this way, trust me.
Posted by turtlemilk on June 13, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
I am really glad I spent the last 6 months stocking up on booze from the liquor store. I have yet to find a place currently selling liquor that I would consider buying from.
Posted by Mrs.T on June 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM · Report this
baseline price is the same, its the damn 20% tax that will last for the next two years that sucks. But in the long run, well worth getting the state out of the liquor business
Posted by add;jlajlk on June 13, 2012 at 9:18 AM · Report this
Yeah, but Costco has some pretty good top-shelf stuff.
Posted by presently out on June 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM · Report this
Posted by Quit Complaining on June 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM · Report this
wisepunk 6
I'm really glad that I get back that extra hour of my week where I don't have to travel to a shitty store. It's worth that extra dollar to me. Sucks to be you.
Posted by wisepunk on June 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
marymc 7
I feel for you. I was also a state employee who got laid off a year ago due to budget cuts. But you know what? So were a lot of other people. There have been thousands of layoffs of state workers in Washington in the past few years. Services far more essential than providing booze to the masses have been cut. The state's budget was (and is) in tatters, and it won't get better without additional revenues. By at least some reports, privatizing liquor sales might actually help a little. But even if it doesn't...why should state liquor store employees be special and untouchable? I feel bad for the buggy whip makers, too, but when their jobs became obsolete, they had to move on. It sucks for you, I agree, but you're just going to have to do the same.
Posted by marymc on June 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM · Report this
debug 8
Author seems to be mixing up correlation with causation. Possibly people are just buying more booze because it's more readily available and the stock hasn't yet kept up with demand. Doesn't mean prices will stay high once the market levels out.

If the only thing keeping a liquor store open was their license monopoly then they were really weren't serving the public much.
Posted by debug on June 13, 2012 at 10:49 AM · Report this
Dear Anon,

I knew exactly what I was doing when I voted in favor of this.

No love,

some random asshole on the internet
Posted by suddenlyorcas on June 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
Who'd ever in a million years have guessed that requiring a profit margin be built into prices would cause them to go up? It'll be so lovely when EVERYONE has to work for minimum wage to keep those profits up!
Posted by maddogm13 on June 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 11
Yeah, I voted for this JUST so you could lose your job Anon. LOL!!!! Now I am going to go back TO MY JOB THAT PAYS ME MONEY!!!!! Yeah BIOTCH!!!!
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on June 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
NaFun 12
Sucks to be you. You should go to a grocery store and buy a bottle of liquor to cry over. I NEVER WANTED YOU.
Posted by NaFun on June 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
Vince 13
Whoa! You're harshing my buzz!
Posted by Vince on June 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Bigsfrottin 14
@6 you probably shouldn't advertise you spend an hour a week travelling to liquor stores and back. Douche.
Posted by Bigsfrottin on June 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Baconcat 15
Oh, you thought voters were mostly progressives and understood how privatization works? Oh, okay.

Sure, it was stupid to assume that prices would stay the same and it was definitely idiotic to assume you and hundreds of others would have their jobs spared.

...but you know what? It doesn't matter. You aren't going to win against privatization on this scale. To come back and attempt to humanize the problem is too little, too late. You and the campaign against privatization didn't really make this a human issue, the campaigns just talked about crime vs. convenience.

If people are so concerned with privatization, they'd learn about it. They aren't, they won't, you lose.
Posted by Baconcat on June 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 16
The job of the state is NOT to sell booze, nor cars, nor houses, nor boats, nor medicine, nor clothes, nor...........
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on June 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
Bigsfrottin 17
Yeah the people working for state liquor stores were treated a lot better than people that work at Costco.

My biggest thing is just that every argument for this bill is bullshit. If the bill were just run on the fact that it would it be easier to get alcohol for people over 21 i'd be totes down.

However.... The bill was spun to say somehow this will make it harder for underaged drinking in general which is just bullshit. Also, when any one company puts 23 million down on a bill I assume it's not because the owner of costco gives a fuck about people in Washington having better liquor access. Obviously its just better for Costco, which pays way less taxes then it should, lies, and puts signature gatherers at it's front doors.

This was a stupid fucking bill. I'm not saying that because I think it makes sense for the state to be in the liquor business but I think the reasons the bill was run on were complete bullshit. I don't need to rebute your counter claims as I've already thought of them and just.. no.
Posted by Bigsfrottin on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 18
Democracy is great until you lose, then it is childish name calling and wah wah waaaaaaah.

You say you are laughing your ass off, while at the same time crying "woe is me" about being unemployed.

You worked in a liquor store yet decried drinking as just being a way to forget about the kids.

Grow up, li'l hypocrite.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
Actually it was about the state selling it, it has no business doing so. And yes the convenience was a factor, and its not like prices went up that much.
Posted by Seattle14 on June 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this
The entire situation is the fault of an out of touch puritanical liquor control board who couldn't see the writing on the wall, couldn't think out of the box and--as shown by their recent decision about bar closing times--still can't.

It's time to shut the LCB down!
Posted by I Got Nuthin' on June 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Akbar Fazil 21
Sorry you lost your job Anon, but you aren't alone in that. I voted for this bill for one reason only. THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS BE A REGULATOR AND RETAILER.
Posted by Akbar Fazil on June 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report this
Even left-leaners were telling me, when I pointed out the loss of jobs from the initiative, that the loss of jobs would be made up in hires at stores because they will need more people to handle the stocking and sales of the new products.

Really. Have they never been overworked? It's called blood from a stone, and it's the current preferred business model. No one is going to drop dime on extra employees when they can just pile it on top of the workload of their existing employees.

Also, selection is now complete and utter shit.

Thanks, retards who voted for this. Enjoy your Popov and Monarch, and fuck you.

PS. Maybe if we start to see actual liquor stores pop up, that specialize in broad selection, we'll start to see the alleged benefits of 1105. But I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing supermarkets and drugstores stocking the bare minimum -- popular name brands and bottom-shelf crap, of a handful of only the most common liquor types. I managed to buy a bottle of Douglas Fir Brandy at the WSLCB store in FW a couple years ago. And I've bought Chartreuse, absinthe, 10cane, and more. I'm not likely to be finding that at Albertsons, sharing shelf space with Pinnacle and Sailor Jerry. :P
Posted by K on June 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM · Report this
Why don't we all just wait a year or two before passing judgement on this
Posted by Reader01 on June 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM · Report this
onion 24
i'm sorry you lost your job anon. that sucks.
Posted by onion on June 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
I find it amusing to see progressives suddenly become uber free marketeers when it comes to a product they want. Get the state out of XXXXXX. Can we do away with the state selling car tabs? The nice people in the shady office on Aurora are so much easier to get to, and they only charge us $10 extra.
Posted by Chris Jury on June 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
going down to the state milk store, then the state cookie store, then the state frozen pizza store...just think of all the jobs we could create with a separate state store for everything.
Posted by soggydan on June 13, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 27
Can't say I've heard that laughter, but maybe that's because I'm happy that the WSLCB has had a stake driven through its heart. And I didn't even vote for the initiative.
Posted by keshmeshi on June 13, 2012 at 12:35 PM · Report this
r.chops 28
Car tabs are a tax, not a product.
Posted by r.chops on June 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM · Report this
Dougsf 29
Slightly related: BevMo is going to opening stores in Washington soon, starting with Tacoma.
Posted by Dougsf on June 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM · Report this
wilbur@work 30
Came here to say what @7 said, but more rudely. Thanks, @7!
Posted by wilbur@work on June 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
JonnoN 31
Let us know when cars, houses, boats, clothes or candy cause disease and crime. At least state revenues are up, for now.
Posted by JonnoN on June 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
wilbur@work 32
@22, sorry you chose to live by an Albertsons, the Grocer of Choice for Crackheads.

Otherwise, you're welcome.
Posted by wilbur@work on June 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 33
@ 25, your characterization of progressives turning "├╝ber free marketers" is so far off the mark that your entire opinion can be dismissed out of hand. But then again, comparing a necessary state function (car tabs) to an actual enterprise accomplished that, too.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
So now I'm going to have to drive to Tacoma instead of a few blocks away to get a decent selection? Huge fucking improvement!
Posted by taco hut on June 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
@ 22 You mad, bro?
Posted by Seattle14 on June 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM · Report this
@ 25 Being liberal and believing in the free market solution are not mutually exclusive, its not like we are socialists here.
Posted by Seattle14 on June 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
balderdash 37
The anti-alcohol "community" "safety" dickholes should have been supporting the hell out of this initiative, because I, for one, sure as hell can't afford to drink liquor any more.

Seriously, QFC, fuck yourselves. I am not paying $60 for a fifth of Bulleit. And fuck you shortsighted cockmongers who voted for the initiative, too.

@21, not even if it demonstrably makes the state a better place to live? Because so far this initiative has just shitted up everything.
Posted by balderdash on June 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
wah wah have to drive to get your special items. Does the Fred Meyer or Albertsons carry most of my everyday needs, Yes. However, when I have an inkling to make some Thai food at home I have to drive to another town to get the ingredients.

Do you realize how fucking big a grocery store would need to be to carry all the crap everyone "needs"?
Posted by franken stein on June 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
@ 37 How does cheaper booze make a place better to live? I'm not saying outlaw booze but I fail to see how it makes a place better to live by being cheaper.
Posted by Seattle14 on June 13, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
nartweag 40
Really? This one initiative has "shitted up everything"? Cause you know the state was doing just dandy before.

I still think if you give it 6 months things will shake out, and booze prices will be on par with what they were before (even with the higher taxes).
Posted by nartweag on June 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM · Report this
Progressive doesn't mean keeping people in jobs just to keep them in jobs.

You do something it makes sense for the government to do, like teach students, keep the public healthy and safe, and keep common infrastructure working = A-OK.

You do something the government has no business in, like flog booze or do anything in the retail sector = Dumb.

Sorry about the job, man. But the writing has been on the wall since the failure of prohibition.
Posted by dak7e on June 13, 2012 at 1:17 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 42


No, really. Give it up, hon. Imagine a world where you have to go one place for bread, another for milk, and still another for laundry detergent. Would you care that employees of these places were getting $40K and up a year for ringing you up and that that could be in jeopardy if someone thought up something more convenient?
Posted by Bauhaus I on June 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM · Report this
wisepunk 43
@14 I know! I shouldn't advertise that I get to spend that extra hour jizzing all over your mom's face either.
Posted by wisepunk on June 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
First, any time you work in sales and complain about your job (during it, losing it, what happens at it, etc), people who have NO CLUE will treat you like garbage. Happened to me every time I talked about my retail jobs. "Just quit!" or "Get a real job" or "Quit bitching, at least you're working!". Always the same, people are jerks.

Second, I knew this would happen and voted NO. So few considered the added unemployment, but those same will curse the president for it. People don't care about consequences of their votes, they want their booze and they want it NOW.

PS - I hope they increase the tax on it to pay for the stupid new basketball stadium everyone suddenly wants.
Posted by jedifarfy on June 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM · Report this
Wow- Many cynical, selfish people on here. "Sucks to be you" is so 90s. "Sucks to be you" is a typical First World response to other people's concerns. Who taught you haters to talk that way and under what circumstances? Adolescent and mean-spirited. Sad.
Posted by GGuy on June 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
At least I can finally buy booze without being told to get off my Cell Phone, or to leave my backpack behind the counter. Worst part - you were a monopoly, so I had no choice but to do these ridiculous things.

Maybe you guys should have treated your customers better.

Posted by Cainos on June 13, 2012 at 2:09 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 47
I for one will miss the recondite intellectual heft of a conversation with a WSLCB store employee.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM · Report this
Baby Blue 48
Bev Mo is coming...

Liquor Barn too, if we're extra lucky.

Hang in there, sad sacks.
Posted by Baby Blue on June 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM · Report this
@22 Wow, so you're going to start screeching bloody murder because you can't find your uber trendy, top-shelf liquor less than a month after grocery stores start selling? Maybe have some fucking patience and wait for all this to settle- Giant liquor stores with insane selection will open, and if you live in a hipster/douchebag neighborhood your local grocery store will start stocking good shit because there's a demand.
Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER on June 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
@42 Going to different stores for different items, bread, cheese, meat, wine, olive oil, vegetables from the market etc. is one of the best parts of living here in Europe. Sure you pay a bit more and you have to actually make the effort to move your ass from one shop to the next, but the service and expertise you get is about a thousand times better than at a grocery store.

Sometimes it would be nice if some people weren't lazy dickholes, and instead thought about their communities and the people working and living in them in a more holistic way...
Posted by limpdick on June 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 51
@50 - and if I lived in Europe, I would certainly enjoy shopping that way. I would enjoy walking to each and every store and doing my best to support those shops who go the extra mile in customer service and inventory. But you can't walk everywhere here in America - particularly here on the West Coast whose cities were more or less designed and implemented after the invention of the automobile. The green grocer can be 10 km this way and the wine merchant is 8 km that way. You'd literally spend all day just shopping, walking, or riding public transportation.
Posted by Bauhaus I on June 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
@42 Not implying that you're a dickhole, I just got a bit carried away with the insults after reading all of the previous insults being thrown around by others, and then from the safety of my anonymity decided to react as well to these fucking dingle berry munching.... see there I go again!
Posted by limpdick on June 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM · Report this
@50 I was just being a dick really. I've lived in the US so I appreciate the differences between there and here. Lots of good progress on the West coast in Portland and Seattle. You're able to bike to a lot of places, which is cool. Perhaps one day run all of your errands if the trend continues. Good luck pushing for more of that.
Posted by limpdick on June 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
the state is out of the booze business, as it should be, and they are going to reap the rewards. In fact, they will probably come out making more in the long run by NOT running the stores. Isn't that a good thing for the state and its people?
Posted by nador on June 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 55
...and it isn't that I don't care about the public employees getting the boot. But their age has passed. That's why there aren't many blacksmiths anymore. You can't keep bad or antiquated practices in place because of its employees. When the "Do Not Call" Act was passed - a telemarketing law that permitted people to bow out of harassing sales calls and robo-calls (another annoyance), one of the first arguments against it was, "You are going to put a lot of people out of work!" Yeah, and I'm sorry, but you know what? They needed to find other work - less annoying work - anyway.

Hate that they are out of work (if they are), but now maybe they can do something meaningful with their lives.
Posted by Bauhaus I on June 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM · Report this
I am sorry you lost your job. That said, when I moved to CA the only thing I liked better than avocados on everything was booze in every corner and grocery store.

The market will correct, and prices will be better for this.
Posted by davidcon on June 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 57
If the state hadn't made buying liquor so needlessly inconvenient (stores closing at 8pm or earlier, stores not open on Sundays, locations that were few and far between), maybe people would have voted differently.

Not that any of that's your fault, Anonymous, but all had been complaints for years that were never addressed - well, except for a handful of blessed locations that had limited Sunday hours (none anywhere near me). It was easy to get the impression that the WSLCB didn't give a crap about its customers. And, really - why should they have? There certainly was no financial incentive to convenience them.

That said, I do miss my local state store. (Ha! "local" - it was four fucking miles from my house, and I live in Seattle proper!) The people who staffed it were cool and knew their stuff. The prices? I'm willing to pay a couple bucks more for convenience, thanks.
Posted by Free Lunch on June 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 58
I voted for it in November, and I'd vote for it again. It was a dumb, antiquated system. The whole liquor control division is. They held the state's wine industry back for decades with needless regulation and selective distribution.

Now if we can just finish off the WSLCB, we might actually become the "vibrant", "world class" city we supposedly aspire to be,
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on June 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM · Report this
Bring it on down to Liquorville!
Posted by mint chocolate chip on June 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM · Report this
Or maybe we voted because of the crabby, don't care attitude by many of the employees at the State Liquor stores (looking at you, Northgate).

It's not called customer service for nothing.
Posted by westello on June 13, 2012 at 7:40 PM · Report this
@22, I did see that product at the Kamilche Trading post, but that is a ways to go. They also had lavender, lemongrass, and something else. Though I gotta say, being Native American myself, I'm not fond of the idea of the reservations serving, let alone selling, liquor.
Posted by cattycat on June 13, 2012 at 8:45 PM · Report this
I'm so sorry that you lost your ability to make $20+ an hour stocking shelves because you spent years taking advantage of an antiquated state-run monopoly.
Posted by Hutch on June 13, 2012 at 9:15 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 63
Actually, hutch, clerks started at $11 or so an hour, and topped out at $16 or so. They were not particularly good wages, especially for union scale.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on June 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM · Report this
KingofQueenAnne 64
I wonder if the guy who wrote This post is that asshole at the Broadway store who looked like Ron Jeremy and harangued shoppers about their inferior selections. Yeah I know Makers Mark isn't amazing, but it's being mixed in a drink, fucker.
Posted by KingofQueenAnne on June 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM · Report this
watchout5 65
The state has every right to regulate but the stores are a bit extreme. Anyone voting for the bill thinking it would automatically lower prices should have their heads examined. I'm willing to believe some people didn't care. I don't see how it's better this way at all with all the hidden fees the new exclusive businesses that continue to use the same crappy practices I try to avoid in the market place. I'm sure it can only get better/cheaper/faster but we could have done this better even if we don't have to believe in the idea that the government could regulate a product enough to be the only one "allowed" to sell it.
Posted by watchout5 on June 14, 2012 at 12:22 AM · Report this
I'm against privatization when it comes to entities that should be held in the public trust like libraries but for alcohol? Come on, that's ridiculous! There was no need for people to make a special trip just to purchase it. I'm sorry I anon is now out of work but alcohol sales are not a public service that should be handled by the government. As for your selection and prices I hope that evens out for you soon. Even here in Los angeles I have to visit special shops to find the very best but it's wonderfully convenient that I can buy all of the ingredients for a party at one store.
Posted by PenguinGirl on June 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM · Report this
Texas10R 67
@51 "But you can't walk everywhere here in America - particularly here on the West Coast whose cities were more or less designed and implemented after the invention of the automobile."

What a fucking idiot. History isn't just for kids anymore. There is a book at the library for you. Check it out.
Posted by Texas10R on June 14, 2012 at 3:15 AM · Report this
Never met a state liq store employee who wasn't a dumpy and dour little prick. Glad you're out of a job, asshole.
Posted by Sausagefingers on June 14, 2012 at 5:04 AM · Report this
thatsnotright 69
I certainy haven't experienced any convenience. None of the liqour stores on Cap Hill or downtown carry even one of the 4 brands I like to keep on hand at home for entertaining. Paying for a Costco membership, standing in those lines, driving over there in order to buy a bottle of liquor for a party is also the opposite of convenience. For those of you who keep shouting that it is just WRONG for a state to sell liquor, my you have rigid ideas. Capitalism does not equal physics. Markets aren't sub-atomic particles. Economic decisions are arbitrary, not immutable. Humans can make choices. In this case people made a choice which costs more money for less selection locally.
Posted by thatsnotright on June 14, 2012 at 5:25 AM · Report this
Seattlebcc 70
Hello! Bitter, party of one!
Posted by Seattlebcc on June 14, 2012 at 6:41 AM · Report this
@41, well put! That's exactly where I fall. After all, progressives are also anti-monopoly. (We want good public schools--we don't want to outlaw private schools.)
Posted by Belle Starr on June 14, 2012 at 8:33 AM · Report this
I am of course sorry you lost your job, anon. That really, really sucks.

Posted by Belle Starr on June 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 73
@ 67, @ 51 tells the truth. San Francisco was the only big city out West in the 20s, with LA growing rapidly, when cars became ubiquitous and urban planning began to adapt to it.

Follow your own advice. Check out a book at the library and read up, and bite your tongue before displaying your own egregious ignorance.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
I run a bar and am SO GLAD I don't have to deal with the incompetent, lazy and MISERABLE State workers anymore. You guys really sucked and deserved this! Now my bar is able to buy in liters that keeps my cost down. Yay!
Posted by Erok on June 14, 2012 at 10:33 AM · Report this
Retail prices ARE actually better, just so everyone knows. It's the ridiculous state taxation (two separate taxes per bottle of hooch, coming to just over 40% on average) added to this bill that makes it more expensive this way.

Agreed Washington's budget is a complete debacle. Maybe this new revenue from taxation will help things, but history tells me "no". Unless they make sweeping changes to how they approach spending initiatives, Washington will continue to hemhorrage money into programs they can't afford as fast or faster than they can bring it in.
Posted by DuPontDave on June 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
Incredible 76
"Y'all?" What kind of countrified horseshit is that? This IA demonstrates exactly why even a cruddy reform represented an improvement over the status quo, where people were forced to deal with anons like this idiot.
Posted by Incredible on June 14, 2012 at 11:56 AM · Report this
Anthropomorhpise Me 77
@9 +1
Posted by Anthropomorhpise Me on June 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Don't drink. Don't care.
Posted by drinkup on June 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
ScienceNerd 79
I feel for Anon. The workers really got the short end of the stick on this change. I can't understand the voters in this state. I love living here, but I'll never be able to consider myself FROM here.
Posted by ScienceNerd on June 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM · Report this
At least I can buy liquor after 8 pm now - when I moved to WA, it seemed weird that you had to plan way ahead if you wanted to have a real drink.
Posted by Julie V on June 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
i just miss the very nice real change vendor who used to be outside of my local liquor store with his super cute dog.
Posted by heather531 on June 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
So now the state sells malt liquor......I do hope they now provide the cocaine to go along with it.
Posted by bvelvet on June 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
deadrose 83
Pfth. People chose to pass the bill with the extra markup for the state in it, not the previous one that would have actually lowered the price. I'm sure it will go down some as the market settles, and the cut to the state drops to a lower level after a while.

That said, I've already seen things I'd never found at local liquor stores, and I haven't even made it to any of the places that said they'd be stocking specialty goods, like that one place in Wallingford.

I don't expect the local small grocery chain store to carry prime rib racks and Russian caviar, why should I expect them to carry an obscure brand of booze? However if I asked nicely, they might order it in for me. Try that instead of whining.

Posted by deadrose on June 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM · Report this
Here in NH the state liquor stores sell the hard booze and for the most part it is way less expensive than even duty free stores . . . Seems like a total win---Out of staters from MA, VT and ME stock up when they visit and contribute to the state coffers helping keep our tax burden low. Acting as both the retailer and wholesaler, the state makes more money than it would with just taxing the stuff even with the great prices. And the locals get a really good selection at extremely affordable prices.
Posted by ChrisTY654 on June 19, 2012 at 1:22 PM · Report this
A couple bucks extra per bottle that the state can spend on programs instead of sustaining a monopoly on a retail product? I'd vote for it again.
Posted by mister man on June 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM · Report this
internet_jen 86
If people are can't take a 5$ or 6$ increase maybe they don't actually have money for alcohol.

The economy plus commodity prices caused local cafes to be stingy with extra shots in 16oz drinks, but there was no I Anonymous about that.
Posted by internet_jen on June 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM · Report this
Holy SHIT, Batman!! The pop and bottled water aisle at Haggen's now has BOOZE---and pretty soon, a lot more drunks! I'm surprised this I, ANON hasn't yet gotten a post from Arthur Zefferelli---oh, wait--@82 beat him to it. Never mind.

Histrionics aside, I understood what to expect last November, and actually voted against this. Sorry, ANON, about your job loss. That really does suck, especially in this economy.

@84: Wow---good for you guys in New Hampshire! Too bad we're not doing anything like that here. NH's solution to booze sales sounds more sensible.
Posted by auntie grizelda on June 19, 2012 at 8:03 PM · Report this
You guys were lazy and rude glad you finally got canned.
Posted by PuppyMuffins on July 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
Slam1263 89
I just got back from Albertson's.

I am enjoying my 50% off rum.

Booze is cheaper now. Glad I voted for it.
Posted by Slam1263 on August 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM · Report this
Not everyone wants to go to a disgusting bar full of chauvinistic pigs and std ridden whores in tiny dresses. If I want to have a small party or a small kick back every once in a great while I'm not doing it in a bar, I'm doing it at home. and it's convenient for us NORMAL people who don't drink on a daily basis. I don't even drink once a month! Go to a fucking AA meeting you twat.
Posted by Go kill yourselves on October 18, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this

Add a comment