February 18, 2010
It's Time
Pressure Rises to End State's Monopoly on Liquor Stores
Kelly O
STATE-RUN LIQUOR STORES Like a slice of East Berlin.
Shopping for hard alcohol in Washington's state-run liquor stores is a sanitized form of fun: the same brands and prices; bottles uniformly lining every shelf, their colorful labels muted by sad colorless walls and state employees in sad colorless uniforms. It feels less like stocking up for a party and more like asking for a government ration. Which is the point: The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) was established in 1933, right after prohibition was repealed, for the dual mission of promoting public safety and generating state revenue through liquor sales. But critics argue the government's monopoly on liquor stores is failing on both fronts.
Those critics, including lawmakers in Olympia and bar owners across the state, say Washington residents should enjoy the luxury of buying tequila in the same store they buy chips and salsa—like in California and 15 other states.
Stranger Personals
"The bottom line is, the system isn't working," says state senator Tim Sheldon (D-35). Sheldon thinks the state should get out of the retail business, calling the existing model inefficient. He's not alone. As the state struggles to shore up a $2.6 billion budget shortfall, more lawmakers and taxpayers are considering creative ways to increase state revenue.
Indeed, the leading argument for getting the state out of the business largely comes down to money: In 2009, the state made $332.7 million in revenue from liquor sales; some estimates show privatization could increase that by $100 million annually. More conservatively, the state auditor reported in November the state could net $277 million more profit over five years by privatizing liquor sales.
Opponents, including the liquor board, argue that the revenue projections don't take into account the extra enforcement required for more stores and that loosening liquor laws will drive more kids to drink hard alcohol.
But to illustrate the inefficiency of the current system, Sheldon points out that the state-run distribution center in Seattle handles 15,000 to 20,000 cases of liquor a day. "That's it," he says. But a private liquor-distribution center located in Renton that serves all of Alaska, which has roughly the same population as Seattle, handles more than three times that quantity with fewer employees, he says. Washington is one of only nine states still controlling all hard-liquor retail through a state-run monopoly.
Under a bill Sheldon sponsored this year (SB 6204), Washington would follow the West Virginia model of auctioning off liquor-store licenses to the highest bidder—netting anywhere from $119,000 to $1.5 million per store in Washington, he says.
Another bill (SB 6840), sponsored by Senator Rodney Tom (D-48), follows the full privatization model of California. Tom says he estimates it would bring in "over $100 million in additional retailer revenue" per year.
The WSLCB dismisses both of these benefits, saying that if the state sold licenses, it would receive a $200 million bonanza for the initial contracts and then see very little revenue until they were reissued. Rick Garza, deputy administrative director of the WSLCB, speculates that Washington could see the number of retail outlets jump.
"I don't think the public would tolerate a store on every corner," says Garza.
Sheldon doesn't buy this argument: The liquor board is "gleeful to talk up hysteria about how privatization will mean a liquor store on every block, but it would be up to the liquor board to work with cities and counties for setting rules for where licenses would be granted." He says that in Seattle, this would mean added convenience—not liquor stores next to Boys & Girls Clubs.
The state justifies the institutional stores as safeguards that protect kids from liquor. Garza notes that the underage youth generally fail at buying liquor from state employees 95 percent of the time. "In the private sector, it's between 76 and 84 percent," he says.
Jim Cooper, vice president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, says that a survey of Washington youth shows 60 percent of 12th graders used alcohol in the last 30 days. "There's a direct correlation between better access to alcohol and youth drinking," he says.
But national evidence suggests that's not true. A 2006 study from the federal Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration shows that Washington's youth have a 5 percent higher rate of alcohol use and binge drinking than their counterparts in California, which has some of the most lax controls on alcohol retailing in the country.
And the system here is onerous: All liquor in the state, of every brand and volume, is chosen by the control board and then shipped to a state-run distribution center in Seattle. From this distribution center, cases are trucked to the 315 state-run stores across Washington—161 of which are mom-and-pop contract stores operating in rural areas and the others completely staffed by state employees.
"The goal of the liquor board isn't to sell alcohol, even though that's their job," said one of several bar owners who refused to give their names. "Their goal is to do everything in their power to discourage the sale of alcohol."
Every business with a liquor license is assigned one liquor store from which it can buy products, according to existing regulations. That store is the only store guaranteed to do business with them (other stores are allowed to refuse them service and sometimes do). Which means that if a store is out of the gin a business wants, that business is shit-out-of-luck.
"It's frustrating waiting months for a special order I know is sitting in a warehouse less than five miles from my bar," another bar owner said.
Enforcement is another point of contention among bars and the WSLCB. The state bans liquor advertising, such as neon signs or even coasters with logos for hard alcohol. Current rules prohibit bands from drinking onstage while playing venues. Theaters are reprimanded for allowing people to drink in venues that are too dark, forcing the public to drink in lighted hallways instead.
Senator Sheldon says, "This monopoly has the same bullying tendencies as others, but they hide behind [the idea that] they are the protector of children, the promoter of what's right and good in America."
For its part, the liquor board insists it's open to new modes of operation, as long as they're cost-efficient and safe. On February 17, the board testifies to that effect at a hearing on a bill (HB 2846) sponsored by state representative Gary Alexander (R-20). The bill would open up liquor stores to private contract bids while closing some state-run stores, much like a pilot project for privatization.
"We're not against change as long as it's safe and effective," says Garza. "Our position is, let's try it and see." 
2
"try it and see..."
Sorry, but capitolism doesn't work that way. I'm from Cali, where there IS a liquor store on every corner. Kids find the right one that will sell to them, no questions asked. That's how it works. When you're paid by the state, you have a reason to cut people off and not sell to kids, but private stores...THEY WILL SELL IT TO ANYONE!
And if kids don't have the money to buy it at the liquor store, they just steal it from the grocery store. How many kids do you hear of stealing booze from the state-owned liquor stores? Come on..someone post on that!
Just because you never lived it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is easy as hell to steal booze from liquor stores in Cali!
...and all them streeties gettin layed out on fortified wines all over the city, get ready for a whole new low you'll be watching them sink to. Why do you think the panhandlers in Cali are so violent...it's the hard alcohol stupid!
You queefing little Seattlies don't realize how good you have it. Convenience, convenience, conveniece...that's all you white-bread mother-fuckers care about...it's fucking disgusting.
You don't care about money for the state, or the health of your community. YOU WANT PROFITS AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!
"I wanna buy my tequila where I buy my chips and salsa" WAAAAAAAAA!!!!
OH! YOU won't be seeing a liquor store on every corner in whitey land, but take a trip down South...it'll be a much different story. More families ripped apart, more folks thrown into jails.
But what do any of you people care, you just want conveniece...because (horrible whitey voice)"adults should be able to make their own decisions"...you ever hear of jail? It's there for adults who make their own decisions?
With all the educated people in this area, where is the common sense?
More...
Sorry, but capitolism doesn't work that way. I'm from Cali, where there IS a liquor store on every corner. Kids find the right one that will sell to them, no questions asked. That's how it works. When you're paid by the state, you have a reason to cut people off and not sell to kids, but private stores...THEY WILL SELL IT TO ANYONE!
And if kids don't have the money to buy it at the liquor store, they just steal it from the grocery store. How many kids do you hear of stealing booze from the state-owned liquor stores? Come on..someone post on that!
Just because you never lived it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is easy as hell to steal booze from liquor stores in Cali!
...and all them streeties gettin layed out on fortified wines all over the city, get ready for a whole new low you'll be watching them sink to. Why do you think the panhandlers in Cali are so violent...it's the hard alcohol stupid!
You queefing little Seattlies don't realize how good you have it. Convenience, convenience, conveniece...that's all you white-bread mother-fuckers care about...it's fucking disgusting.
You don't care about money for the state, or the health of your community. YOU WANT PROFITS AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!
"I wanna buy my tequila where I buy my chips and salsa" WAAAAAAAAA!!!!
OH! YOU won't be seeing a liquor store on every corner in whitey land, but take a trip down South...it'll be a much different story. More families ripped apart, more folks thrown into jails.
But what do any of you people care, you just want conveniece...because (horrible whitey voice)"adults should be able to make their own decisions"...you ever hear of jail? It's there for adults who make their own decisions?
With all the educated people in this area, where is the common sense?
3
GET BIG GUBMINT OFF MY BACK!! DEREGULATE!! The State can't sell liquor right-FREE MARKET RULES...OMG I have turned into a TEABAGGER for BOOZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
@2 When you capitalize the word "is" you're trying to sound literal. And if you are saying there is literally a store on every corner in California, you are a fucking retard. That is obviously not true and it makes me wonder how much more of your post is bullshit. My guess? A lot.
6
I think Jay7 is an idiot.
Obviously there are drawbacks to every scenario.
The thing to keep in mind is that if there is a will there is a way, so if children want to get "crunk" no amount of legislation will prevent them from doing so.
The key with those children and in any situation is to educate. Not the effective abstinence only stuff that Sarah Palin's daughter proved to be successful but real conversations about the affects of alcohol, the kids motivations for consuming, and simply speaking to them in an intelligent way that doesn't cause them to tune-out.
Based upon his lovely and racially unbiased remarks I'm going to take a guess that Jay7 sound to be someone who wouldn't have supported Ref 71 either...
Obviously there are drawbacks to every scenario.
The thing to keep in mind is that if there is a will there is a way, so if children want to get "crunk" no amount of legislation will prevent them from doing so.
The key with those children and in any situation is to educate. Not the effective abstinence only stuff that Sarah Palin's daughter proved to be successful but real conversations about the affects of alcohol, the kids motivations for consuming, and simply speaking to them in an intelligent way that doesn't cause them to tune-out.
Based upon his lovely and racially unbiased remarks I'm going to take a guess that Jay7 sound to be someone who wouldn't have supported Ref 71 either...
7
The statistics cited by the WSLCB don't make sense. If kids fail to buy liquor in Washington 95% of the time, how have 60% of 12th graders managed to have a drink? Clearly, access to liquor directly is little, if any, impediment to underage drinking. I hardly doubt that lowering the purchasing failure rate to 75% (at the very minimum) is going to cause a catastrophic rise in underage drinking, for the simple reason that the current system doesn't leave much room for expansion as is.
8
so wait, can someone explain this? "In 2009, the state made $332.7 million in revenue from liquor sales; some estimates show privatization could increase that by $100 million annually"
Until weed is legalized I'm all for state regulation and taxing of alcohol. We just need a few more locations and better hours and I'd be happy as a clam.
Until weed is legalized I'm all for state regulation and taxing of alcohol. We just need a few more locations and better hours and I'd be happy as a clam.
9
Open it up to private competition, makes the licenses expire after a certain time so they have to be renewed, limit advertising, give communities a non-onerous way to regulate stores in their jurisdictions, do a cops-in-shops program to help curtail selling to those underage, allow for sales 7 days/week and be done with it.
10
Are you joking?
I'm originally from Alberta, where we took the full-privatization step about 15 years ago. It resulted in much higher prices (because the purchasing power of the government liquor authority was split up between many smaller, private companies) and the government lost a reliable source of revenue, as well as an easy way to regulate the liquor industry. Nobody was happy except the owners of the private liquor chains.
Liquor is cheap in Washington. Since I've already given myself away as a Canadian, I might as well say this: I love visiting Seattle because I can get drunk FOR CHEAP. You guys don't know how good you have it. Leave well enough alone.
I'm originally from Alberta, where we took the full-privatization step about 15 years ago. It resulted in much higher prices (because the purchasing power of the government liquor authority was split up between many smaller, private companies) and the government lost a reliable source of revenue, as well as an easy way to regulate the liquor industry. Nobody was happy except the owners of the private liquor chains.
Liquor is cheap in Washington. Since I've already given myself away as a Canadian, I might as well say this: I love visiting Seattle because I can get drunk FOR CHEAP. You guys don't know how good you have it. Leave well enough alone.
11
Privatization is a seriously bad idea. It's being pushed by a few large companies, trying to make a buck off the budget crisis. The fact remains that the LCB is one of the few sources of constant and reliable state revenue right now. Privatization might make a buck in the short term, but long term we lose that revenue stream. Meanwhile, Walgreens makes bank.
This won't result in corner Mom and Pop stores, it will result in Pharmacies with shoebox liquor stores attached to them that you see in other states. When the bidding process for licenses comes up, major corporations will be the ones able to pony up $1 million dollars per license, not local businesspeople.
Prices won't magically drop for consumers, if anything they'll stay the same because these are the prices we're used to paying and the companies know that. And in the next few years, when the state is still strapped for cash and missing out on its former liquor store money? Increased taxes on alcohol (and other "sin" taxes: cigarettes, etc.) almost always pass without objection in state legislatures. Welcome to more expensive hooch.
Bottom line is that certainly the LCB could use a rethinking of some of its more 'quaint' prohibition-era laws, but privatization deprives the state an important resource that we will never get back again.
Also, all you dear Stranger Readers out there wondering where all the Teddy Grahams disappeared to last night, think about this: the current setup was designed to regulate and control a substance that was seen as an unfortunate but inescapable evil after the troubles of Prohibition. Through state control, alcohol became available to those who wanted it, and the state made a lot of money during the Depression, even though it was considered wrong back then by a majority of the population of the state.
Sound familiar? Want to legalize marijuana anyone?
Use the state liquor stores! Ooops, we privatized them.
More...
This won't result in corner Mom and Pop stores, it will result in Pharmacies with shoebox liquor stores attached to them that you see in other states. When the bidding process for licenses comes up, major corporations will be the ones able to pony up $1 million dollars per license, not local businesspeople.
Prices won't magically drop for consumers, if anything they'll stay the same because these are the prices we're used to paying and the companies know that. And in the next few years, when the state is still strapped for cash and missing out on its former liquor store money? Increased taxes on alcohol (and other "sin" taxes: cigarettes, etc.) almost always pass without objection in state legislatures. Welcome to more expensive hooch.
Bottom line is that certainly the LCB could use a rethinking of some of its more 'quaint' prohibition-era laws, but privatization deprives the state an important resource that we will never get back again.
Also, all you dear Stranger Readers out there wondering where all the Teddy Grahams disappeared to last night, think about this: the current setup was designed to regulate and control a substance that was seen as an unfortunate but inescapable evil after the troubles of Prohibition. Through state control, alcohol became available to those who wanted it, and the state made a lot of money during the Depression, even though it was considered wrong back then by a majority of the population of the state.
Sound familiar? Want to legalize marijuana anyone?
Use the state liquor stores! Ooops, we privatized them.
12
I've been to other states and I agree with Sea Otter. Washington liquor is cheap compared to other states where its sold in the private sector.
I think you guys are being a little harsh on Jay7. I'm sure Jay7 does not believe there IS a liquor literally on every corner however, i've been to california and i've been to neighborhoods where liquor is in fact, literally sold on every corner. Granted, not all neighborhoods have a store on every corner but most of them do. This i a fact.
For example, in Belltown where I live, there are 3 stores currently selling beer and wine on the same block. If privatization of liquor becomes legal, these same stores will be selling booze. That's fine with some people but not with me. There is alcohol theft from these 3 stores almost daily - this just makes it easier for some 14 year old kid to steal a bottle of booze but thats not what bothers me the most.
i have my own personal reason for not wanting this to happen. i happen to work in a bar and after liquor stores are closed they've got to go to the bar if they want liquor. the bar is easy access to liquor for anyone over 21 and the only place to get it after 10pm or so. i quite like things the way they are.
I think you guys are being a little harsh on Jay7. I'm sure Jay7 does not believe there IS a liquor literally on every corner however, i've been to california and i've been to neighborhoods where liquor is in fact, literally sold on every corner. Granted, not all neighborhoods have a store on every corner but most of them do. This i a fact.
For example, in Belltown where I live, there are 3 stores currently selling beer and wine on the same block. If privatization of liquor becomes legal, these same stores will be selling booze. That's fine with some people but not with me. There is alcohol theft from these 3 stores almost daily - this just makes it easier for some 14 year old kid to steal a bottle of booze but thats not what bothers me the most.
i have my own personal reason for not wanting this to happen. i happen to work in a bar and after liquor stores are closed they've got to go to the bar if they want liquor. the bar is easy access to liquor for anyone over 21 and the only place to get it after 10pm or so. i quite like things the way they are.
13
I'm not sure where these "other" states are that sell liquor at cheaper prices than WA, but I just moved back from Texas where I lived the past 2 1/2 years. All the liquor sales were privatized and the costs were MUCH lower than they are here. A half gallon of cheap vodka, McCormicks for instance, costs $12.47 at Specs (often $9.99 with your key card!) a Houston-based fine wine, liquor, and food store. Here, the same bottle is $22.80. And why does privatization of liquor mean that convenient stores and grocery stores will HAVE to carry liquor? Personally, I'm all for the idea of the grocery store selling booze, but even in TX, only liquor stores are allowed to sell hard liquor.
14
Let me firstly say that i'd love to visit 'East Berlin' and I had a nice girlfreind from Leipzig (though the article uses the former DDR as a negative).
Next I'll mention that though I grew up near 'Jack Daniels Distillary' and it's beautiful country (in a dry county, by the way) and though my father brought the first 'liquor by the drink' club or Western Bar in to the district (though now he's a Baptist sunday school teacher), and though I love a good shot a Tequila (real mezcal), that rather I usually drink only beer (micro-brew IPA) or Red-Wine when in California, and that I really don't mind the state taxing the booze to make money (over the wishes of private enterprise). Peace.
Next I'll mention that though I grew up near 'Jack Daniels Distillary' and it's beautiful country (in a dry county, by the way) and though my father brought the first 'liquor by the drink' club or Western Bar in to the district (though now he's a Baptist sunday school teacher), and though I love a good shot a Tequila (real mezcal), that rather I usually drink only beer (micro-brew IPA) or Red-Wine when in California, and that I really don't mind the state taxing the booze to make money (over the wishes of private enterprise). Peace.
15
Uh... California is WAY cheaper than Washington when it comes to liquor. And I've heard that other states are better also.
Also, how does the allowance of licenses THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE to be issued to private entities get twisted into 'every place that sells beer and wine will now sell alcohol'. That is idiotic. YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS. If you read that, it was meant for you.
Also, how does the allowance of licenses THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE to be issued to private entities get twisted into 'every place that sells beer and wine will now sell alcohol'. That is idiotic. YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS. If you read that, it was meant for you.
16
I live in New Hampshire. Love those state liquor stores. Unlike WA, NH has its act in gear and buys in bulk. Our state stores have excellent wine prices due to their massive buying power.
Everybody from Mass. comes up here to buy their liquor. Just ask ANYONE from Mass where they go to buy booze for a party, the universal answer is "New Hampshire!"
Everybody from Mass. comes up here to buy their liquor. Just ask ANYONE from Mass where they go to buy booze for a party, the universal answer is "New Hampshire!"
17
If the state is using the "protect kids from liquor" argument, they're hypocrites.
There used to be a liquor store next door to the Boys and Girls Club at the corner of 45th and Stone (where Archee McPhee's currently sites).
There used to be a liquor store next door to the Boys and Girls Club at the corner of 45th and Stone (where Archee McPhee's currently sites).
19
About 12-13 years ago I was on a tear to get Washington state to privatize liquor sales so I wrote to just about every conceivable person in state government who might have some influence.
I received lots of letters back thanking me for my interest in state government, etc. and the entire thing fell through the cracks, not unsurprisingly. For one thing, the government employs a ton of people who would lose their jobs and revenue from liquor sales would plummet. Sure, there would be an initial influx of cash from the sale of the stores, but after that... nothing but taxes dollars would be generated.
Although it sounds like a good idea to privatize liquor, Washington State isn't about to let go of their niche revenue stream from the sale of liquor. Period.
I received lots of letters back thanking me for my interest in state government, etc. and the entire thing fell through the cracks, not unsurprisingly. For one thing, the government employs a ton of people who would lose their jobs and revenue from liquor sales would plummet. Sure, there would be an initial influx of cash from the sale of the stores, but after that... nothing but taxes dollars would be generated.
Although it sounds like a good idea to privatize liquor, Washington State isn't about to let go of their niche revenue stream from the sale of liquor. Period.
20
I grew up in Tacoma and currently am attending college in California. The fact is, anyone can get alcohol. If kids aren't stealing from grocery stores (as my lowlife californian friends did), they're stealing from their parents (as I did) or getting their older siblings or friends to buy for them (duh).
For the record, there is not a liquor store on every street corner. In my college town, there are 6 liquor stores serving 60000 people, although I don't know why they exist since you can buy alcohol from the grocery store.
Washington should definitely privatize liquor sale, if only so that liquor stores won't be closed on government holidays.
For the record, there is not a liquor store on every street corner. In my college town, there are 6 liquor stores serving 60000 people, although I don't know why they exist since you can buy alcohol from the grocery store.
Washington should definitely privatize liquor sale, if only so that liquor stores won't be closed on government holidays.
21
I'm with fellow Canadian Sea Otter. I think you would be wiser to fix your public booze system. Also, are your public liquor stores unionized? If so, part of the political appeal of privatization might be that it targets union jobs by opening up a lucrative sector of the economy to lower-paid, non-union workers. Not what you want in a recession.
22
The majority of kids in Washington get their liquor in the traditional fashion: from their family or their friends' families. When I was an underage drinker, we asked a 21-year-old cousin or an older co-worker to buy us booze. Hard alcohol access was never a problem.
Since most alcohol that teens drink is obtained legally, privatizing liquor sales is going to have very little effect on teen drinking rates.
Privatization means price-competition, not a stagnant monopoly. Why are we so careful about not letting big businesses have monopolies, when we let our government get away with it? Plus, I want to be able to buy alcohol on Sundays and when I'm out grocery shopping at 10 p.m. Privatization for a boozier future!
Since most alcohol that teens drink is obtained legally, privatizing liquor sales is going to have very little effect on teen drinking rates.
Privatization means price-competition, not a stagnant monopoly. Why are we so careful about not letting big businesses have monopolies, when we let our government get away with it? Plus, I want to be able to buy alcohol on Sundays and when I'm out grocery shopping at 10 p.m. Privatization for a boozier future!
23
I've lived in Florida, Louisiana, California, and Washington in my drinking years. Washington's prices are BY FAR the most expensive and Washington's selection is BY FAR the worst. I mean, not even close.
24
This is a case for reforming LCB policies.
Anyone who thinks that a combination of:
* Having to buy a highest-bidder license to sell
* Having the state slap on excise taxes
* Having private companies who's purpose for selling is to make a profit
* Having private companies purchase wholesale in smaller bulk than the state
is going to lower the price of alcohol is fooling themselves.
Privatization might be good for the state; it's very good for massive retailers; it's really really bad for consumers.
Anyone who thinks that a combination of:
* Having to buy a highest-bidder license to sell
* Having the state slap on excise taxes
* Having private companies who's purpose for selling is to make a profit
* Having private companies purchase wholesale in smaller bulk than the state
is going to lower the price of alcohol is fooling themselves.
Privatization might be good for the state; it's very good for massive retailers; it's really really bad for consumers.
26
We had real fun trying to block another liquor store (Walgreens) from being built in my San Jose neighborhood, so don't tell me that we should follow CA's lead.
This says it all...
"a private liquor-distribution center located in Renton that serves all of Alaska, which has roughly the same population as Seattle, handles more than three times that quantity"
So you're saying they drink 3x the hard liquor in Alaska?
This says it all...
"a private liquor-distribution center located in Renton that serves all of Alaska, which has roughly the same population as Seattle, handles more than three times that quantity"
So you're saying they drink 3x the hard liquor in Alaska?
27
I grew up in St Louis where you can buy Everclear at the grocery store. The world doesn't end. If you wanted to drink, you still had to convince an adult to buy you alcohol or steal it from your folks. The spirits were always in a very visible location in the grocery store - I knew kids that stole smokes, but never whiskey.
In the 70s you could drive across the bridge to East St Louis when you were 19, but that's changed now, after Reagan withheld highway funding for states with drinking ages under 21.
Most of my childhood friends didn't drink, we preferred pot and acid :-)
In the 70s you could drive across the bridge to East St Louis when you were 19, but that's changed now, after Reagan withheld highway funding for states with drinking ages under 21.
Most of my childhood friends didn't drink, we preferred pot and acid :-)
29
Liquor on every corner for everybody. What the hell is wrong with that?
Privatization has destroyed just about everything it has touched. The government is run for the companies and by the companies. The rest of us need to get drunk.
Privatization has destroyed just about everything it has touched. The government is run for the companies and by the companies. The rest of us need to get drunk.
30
@22 You have it exactly right. And Jay7--coming from a state with nonprivatized liquor stores, let me tell you, the kids almost *always* found someone willing to not card them and sell them liquor, in spite of notices stating that they would card. There was a police sting in the city of my youth that had teens go undercover to visit the 9 liquor stores--8 of them sold to the undercover youths and never asked for ID.
Government run liquor stores do nothing to prevent teens from drinking liquor anymore than it prevents them from drinking beer.
And really, it's quite idiotic to have a government monopoly on a harder form of alcohol, yet allow all other forms of alcohol to be sold everywhere else. Anyone can get completely drunk form beer and wine coolers--I fail to see how keeping liquor sales in the hands of a few prevents drunk driving when anyone can drive drunk off the readily available beer, wine, hell even, Nyquil, that's out there.
Privatize liquor already, geez, its not going to hurt anyone any more than privatizing any other form of alcohol does. If a society already permits any other kind of drink to be sold, it's ridiculous to prohibit the private sales of another.
I don't mind if the tax on booze, any booze, is sky-high, but its absurd to let a drink of higher alcohol proof be government run out of some silly notion that they are protecting the children or preventing alcoholism.
Government run liquor stores do nothing to prevent teens from drinking liquor anymore than it prevents them from drinking beer.
And really, it's quite idiotic to have a government monopoly on a harder form of alcohol, yet allow all other forms of alcohol to be sold everywhere else. Anyone can get completely drunk form beer and wine coolers--I fail to see how keeping liquor sales in the hands of a few prevents drunk driving when anyone can drive drunk off the readily available beer, wine, hell even, Nyquil, that's out there.
Privatize liquor already, geez, its not going to hurt anyone any more than privatizing any other form of alcohol does. If a society already permits any other kind of drink to be sold, it's ridiculous to prohibit the private sales of another.
I don't mind if the tax on booze, any booze, is sky-high, but its absurd to let a drink of higher alcohol proof be government run out of some silly notion that they are protecting the children or preventing alcoholism.
31
My problem with the state liquor stores are the fact that they are closed on Sunday. What is the justification for this? I'm sure some state busy body thinks closing the stores on Sunday protects the children. It's just another reminder that the Puritans are still here and doing everything they can to prevent people from seeking anything that is pleasurable.
32
I think the ownership should be left alone. The costs will not way out. It is harder for kids to get access because of the incentives are higher for state employees to keep kids from buying hard liquor. The kids that are getting access to alcohol now get it through wine/beer that is sold in private stores or they steal it from parents.
The state does need to take a lesson from the private industry and diversify its selection and hours of operation, but other then that I think the model is fine.
The state does need to take a lesson from the private industry and diversify its selection and hours of operation, but other then that I think the model is fine.
33
When I first moved to WA (10+ years ago) I was appalled by the state owned liquor stores. Limited hours, few locations, horrible selection and exorbitant prices can't be conducive for maximizing state revenue.
And as others have said - if kids want booze, they will find a way to get it. Just ask the kids that hang out with the vagrants at your neighborhood parks.
And as others have said - if kids want booze, they will find a way to get it. Just ask the kids that hang out with the vagrants at your neighborhood parks.
34
I knew this article was way off base when it quoted Tim Sheldon. Please follow the money -- the beverage industry are some of his biggest contributors.
Also note that if we legalize pot this fall (I hope we do), the stores are the best way to control.
Also note that if we legalize pot this fall (I hope we do), the stores are the best way to control.
35
Cienna Madrid - Can you please give more details of the "leading argument" for privatization?
You state this argument as: "In 2009, the state made $332.7 million in revenue from liquor sales; some estimates show privatization could increase that by $100 million annually. More conservatively, the state auditor reported in November the state could net $277 million more profit over five years by privatizing liquor sales."
How do "some estimates" arrive at the $100 million number?
How does the state auditor arrive at $277 million over 5 years?
At the very least provide a link to a pdf of these studies.
All you've got to support the argument is a sidebar graphic with a single noteworthy future estimate - a roughly 10 fold increase in the number of liquor retail locations. The other information is either contained in the above argument, or not explored in your 1,100 word piece at all.
Cienna, how are we supposed to analyze an issue backed by data so weak that it needs a "depending on whom you ask" disclaimer? Moreover, a ten fold increase in retail outlets is one hell of a claim, and you don't do a great job supporting it with quotes from nameless bar owners. Doesn't it raise your eyebrows to see the estimate for the number future liquor outlets (3,357) ends with a 7? That's a very specific number in the context of an over 1000% increase.
You state this argument as: "In 2009, the state made $332.7 million in revenue from liquor sales; some estimates show privatization could increase that by $100 million annually. More conservatively, the state auditor reported in November the state could net $277 million more profit over five years by privatizing liquor sales."
How do "some estimates" arrive at the $100 million number?
How does the state auditor arrive at $277 million over 5 years?
At the very least provide a link to a pdf of these studies.
All you've got to support the argument is a sidebar graphic with a single noteworthy future estimate - a roughly 10 fold increase in the number of liquor retail locations. The other information is either contained in the above argument, or not explored in your 1,100 word piece at all.
Cienna, how are we supposed to analyze an issue backed by data so weak that it needs a "depending on whom you ask" disclaimer? Moreover, a ten fold increase in retail outlets is one hell of a claim, and you don't do a great job supporting it with quotes from nameless bar owners. Doesn't it raise your eyebrows to see the estimate for the number future liquor outlets (3,357) ends with a 7? That's a very specific number in the context of an over 1000% increase.
36
@2 - In middle school and high school, my friends and I had a bum that lived in a garden shed and he bought all the liquor we could pay for, as long as he got beer and Taco Bell. Where there is a will, there is a way.
37
Liquor stores in Seattle are terrible. The selection is pitiful and the prices are way too high.
I live in Atlanta and was shocked by the tiny little state-run liquor stores the first time I visited. South Carolina also has state run liquor stores, but they're not the tiny little shops like Seattle has.
You should see the liquor warehouse stores here in Atlanta. Dozens of vodkas, whiskeys, rums, etc; aisle upon aisle of wine from around the world; and hundreds of beers to choose from. And the prices are way lower ($6-8/six-pack micro brew, $9/twelve-pack Bud, $16/1.75L Smirnoff).
Maybe state run liquor stores in Washington wouldn't be such a problem if they would just expand and have more offerings. This would also likely drop prices. Privatizing things would just make profits go to individuals instead of the state.
I live in Atlanta and was shocked by the tiny little state-run liquor stores the first time I visited. South Carolina also has state run liquor stores, but they're not the tiny little shops like Seattle has.
You should see the liquor warehouse stores here in Atlanta. Dozens of vodkas, whiskeys, rums, etc; aisle upon aisle of wine from around the world; and hundreds of beers to choose from. And the prices are way lower ($6-8/six-pack micro brew, $9/twelve-pack Bud, $16/1.75L Smirnoff).
Maybe state run liquor stores in Washington wouldn't be such a problem if they would just expand and have more offerings. This would also likely drop prices. Privatizing things would just make profits go to individuals instead of the state.
38
You can easily stop kids stealing liquor by keeping it behind the counter. That's what pretty much everywhere over here does.
39
Amazes me that in such a liberal state so many of you are willing to embrace Republican ideas. Surprised that our Democrate state legislators are trying to employ Republican ideas too.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
40
Amazes me that in such a liberal state so many of you are willing to embrace Republican ideas. Surprised that our Democrate state legislators are trying to employ Republican ideas too.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
41
anyone who supports privatization of liquor is an idiot.
Okay, let's do the math on this. According to the bill's sponsors (Senator Tim Sheldon, D-35) and Senator Curtis King, R-14) privatizing the WSLCB means taxpayers will save $120 million (the WSLCB operating budget), and lose $330 million (the revenue from liquor sales).
Wow, that's negative $210 million. Some savings!
All of this for convenience...and there is not a single person here that can put up a good arguement other than "it will be more convenient". You're idiots if you think this is a good idea.
Okay, let's do the math on this. According to the bill's sponsors (Senator Tim Sheldon, D-35) and Senator Curtis King, R-14) privatizing the WSLCB means taxpayers will save $120 million (the WSLCB operating budget), and lose $330 million (the revenue from liquor sales).
Wow, that's negative $210 million. Some savings!
All of this for convenience...and there is not a single person here that can put up a good arguement other than "it will be more convenient". You're idiots if you think this is a good idea.
42
Washington's professed progressivist policy's cred is damaged by this inefficient, post-prohibition alcohol distribution scheme. If the ends are protecting children, then issue licenses to private retail outlets and aggressively enforce their requirements. The government should not be in the retail biz; it should be in the regulation & enforcement biz.
43
First of all, I think it's wrong to tax wine. Wine is part of a meal, a healthy agricultural product just like broccoli or raisins. I think beer fits in this category as well. What are you supposed to have with dinner? Coca-cola? Fuck that. If it's about paying for the cost of drunk drivers, then it's also appropriate to tax Coke, Pepsi, fast food, etc. to pay the health care costs of diabetes and other obesity-related problems.
It's absurd for the state to tax healthy drinks. We should be *encouraging* wine and beer consumption.
But it's not about diet or health, is it? It's about the unionized liquor store workers, their health care, and most of all - most of all - the millions in taxes the state gets to spend however it wants. Do you think they spend all of that repairing the damage that drunk driving causes? I don't. In fact I'm sure the cost is nowhere close to what they take in.
This is a tax that we pay because we don't want to have an income tax. So we use clever ways to nickel-and-dime ourselves into some kind of revenue-generating portfolio of annoyances and inconveniences which also has the benefit (for them) of being impossible to figure out, let alone reform. This is like the 20-page contract you sign to get a credit card.
I agree: it's a dire emergency to conceive of this revenue stream going away without some tangible plan for a replacement, but that's the hole we've dug ourselves into. I'd rather just get one bill: an income tax or, even fairer, a value-added tax. Get rid of all of the fees and tariffs we impose to make up for the lack of a universal tax. That way, I could tell when taxes were going up or down and measure that against how what was being spent was being spent.
It's absurd for the state to tax healthy drinks. We should be *encouraging* wine and beer consumption.
But it's not about diet or health, is it? It's about the unionized liquor store workers, their health care, and most of all - most of all - the millions in taxes the state gets to spend however it wants. Do you think they spend all of that repairing the damage that drunk driving causes? I don't. In fact I'm sure the cost is nowhere close to what they take in.
This is a tax that we pay because we don't want to have an income tax. So we use clever ways to nickel-and-dime ourselves into some kind of revenue-generating portfolio of annoyances and inconveniences which also has the benefit (for them) of being impossible to figure out, let alone reform. This is like the 20-page contract you sign to get a credit card.
I agree: it's a dire emergency to conceive of this revenue stream going away without some tangible plan for a replacement, but that's the hole we've dug ourselves into. I'd rather just get one bill: an income tax or, even fairer, a value-added tax. Get rid of all of the fees and tariffs we impose to make up for the lack of a universal tax. That way, I could tell when taxes were going up or down and measure that against how what was being spent was being spent.
45
I buy my electronics online from NYC (J&R) so I won't pay sales tax, pay all the contractors who I hire to work on my house cash and I buy my liquor from duty free shops when I fly out of the country 3-4 times a year.
“Liquor will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no liquor.”
-Bob Dylan
“Liquor will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no liquor.”
-Bob Dylan
47
I lived in Seattle for 12 years, am now an Arizonan. Seattle beats Phoenix in so many uncountable ways, but Arizona kicks Washington's ass when it comes to the price and availability of liquor. The WA State monoply on liquor is a throwback to the puritan/ prohibitionist era, pure and simple. I'm surprised that left leaning Washingtonians don't see that. Liquor is remarkably cheaper here (a handle of Jim Beam burboun can be had for $17 at Costco in AZ, it's about $26 at the WSLCB stores when I last visited, probably more expensive now). The protecting kids argument is laughable. Teenagers will find a way to drink, no matter where they're from - that's what older siblings and cousins are for! BTW, privatization here doesn't mean there are liquor stores on every corner. It's just in normal places like grocery stores, Costco, and some (although not most) convenience and drug stores. It's normal. Like in Europe. Not weird, like in those stupid little WSLCB stores in Washington!
49
Holy crap, Stuckie @48, that tax info is really eye opening! Yep. Arizona kicks Washington's ass when it comes to liquor.
50
Privatize liquor sales BEFORE legalizing cannabis or else we'll see the state to do pot what they've done to liquor.
51
@39 and @40 (double post? really?)
I don't believe that allowing the private sector to sell alcohol will guarantee lower prices. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I just hate going into those depressing, drab stores staffed by cigarette-stenchy odd-balls with neck tattoos and facial piercings. I want to buy my Kahluah from a clean store - on a Sunday - from happy, nice smelling sales clerks.
I don't believe that allowing the private sector to sell alcohol will guarantee lower prices. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I just hate going into those depressing, drab stores staffed by cigarette-stenchy odd-balls with neck tattoos and facial piercings. I want to buy my Kahluah from a clean store - on a Sunday - from happy, nice smelling sales clerks.
52
For me, it is more an issue of "government efficiency" and lack of selection. Sure, in a privatized world there would be cheap liquor being sold at the corner stores right along side the crack paraphernalia. And the local street life (young and old) will be getting drink on cheap vodka instead of cheap malt liquor. So what?
I want the opportunity for a small boutique that has excellent liquors from around the world, like a nice wine shop. Run by people who have a passion for fine spirits. Do I care that it is 38 percent instead of 18? Or that I can buy vermouth at a grocery? The laws have become more and more convoluted and the state run stores cost us (tax payers!) more to run than simply taxing alcohol sales.
Privatizing liquor sales and putting in place a reasonable tax structure will go a long way to reducing government expenses and offer finer grain control over revenue. I'm all for a "sin tax", especially when a certain percentage goes to education and abuse treatment. I don't support auctioning licenses (should be handled like a special class of liquor license for resale), and I don't want formal distributors in the laws (more middle-man inefficiencies and limitations), but the existing stores should be sold (as real estate) for additional income.
I want the opportunity for a small boutique that has excellent liquors from around the world, like a nice wine shop. Run by people who have a passion for fine spirits. Do I care that it is 38 percent instead of 18? Or that I can buy vermouth at a grocery? The laws have become more and more convoluted and the state run stores cost us (tax payers!) more to run than simply taxing alcohol sales.
Privatizing liquor sales and putting in place a reasonable tax structure will go a long way to reducing government expenses and offer finer grain control over revenue. I'm all for a "sin tax", especially when a certain percentage goes to education and abuse treatment. I don't support auctioning licenses (should be handled like a special class of liquor license for resale), and I don't want formal distributors in the laws (more middle-man inefficiencies and limitations), but the existing stores should be sold (as real estate) for additional income.
53
What I think is actually a better system is that used by North Dakota. All beer, wine and hard liquor is sold only in privately run liquor stores. no one under 21 is allowed in any space that sells alcohol retail. those stores are open until midnight/1am, and most towns allow sales on sunday. In small towns you go to the local bar to buy alcohol.
works fine.
works fine.
54
Can you have a follow up when this bill is introduced with info on how we can contact our elected officials to support this?
55
The Bill has currently been passed out of Senate Labor, Commerce and Consumer Protection (LCCP), and has been in the Rules committee since 2-10, is on second reading, I believe.
The companion HB 2845 is in Labor and Commerce, I can see no action since 1-15.
The public can track legislation by going to: www.leg.wa.gov and click on 'Bill Information' on the left side. That will bring up a screen that will allow you to enter the bill number. It is SB 6204, but you can leave off the Senate Bill (SB) part. There is a companion HB 2845.
You can then contact your legislators using the Find Your District tab at the top. Just enter your address and it will bring up your reps and senator, with links to send them messages. It allows you to list the Bill #, and a pro/con, and has a box to check if you would like a reply. They are pretty busy these last couple weeks of session, so use this with care. It may also be good to let Senator Sheldon know that you have done so, and report to him if you hear something positive from your legislators. If he knows that he has support, it makes his job much easier, as bill sponsor.
The companion HB 2845 is in Labor and Commerce, I can see no action since 1-15.
The public can track legislation by going to: www.leg.wa.gov and click on 'Bill Information' on the left side. That will bring up a screen that will allow you to enter the bill number. It is SB 6204, but you can leave off the Senate Bill (SB) part. There is a companion HB 2845.
You can then contact your legislators using the Find Your District tab at the top. Just enter your address and it will bring up your reps and senator, with links to send them messages. It allows you to list the Bill #, and a pro/con, and has a box to check if you would like a reply. They are pretty busy these last couple weeks of session, so use this with care. It may also be good to let Senator Sheldon know that you have done so, and report to him if you hear something positive from your legislators. If he knows that he has support, it makes his job much easier, as bill sponsor.
56
First off, I don't drink alcohol and I was raised in a state (PA) where it's also state run. This same argument has been going on in PA for years and the basic issue is the union that represents the liquor store clerks has quite a bit of pull to keep this from happening.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.
57
First off, I don't drink alcohol and I was raised in a state (PA) where it's also state run. This same argument has been going on in PA for 50 years and the basic issue is the union that represents the liquor store clerks has quite a bit of pull to keep this from happening.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.
58
Will the state-run liquor stores have a monopoly on selling re-legalized ganja AFTER ELECTION DAY?
Also by Cienna Madrid
RSS
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS