Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 22, 2010
Politics Liquor-Law Backers Ready to Turn In Petitions
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Sweet blood of Christ that was fast. The folks behind one of two liquor-deregulation measures, Initiative 1100, is ready to turn in petitions to election workers tomorrow, reports the Washington Secretary of State's office. The group, funded by Costco (which turned its stores into petition drive headquarters and stands to make a shit-ton of cash as a hard liquor outlet), says it has about 347,000 signatures, far more than the 241,153 required to qualify for the ballot. While well-intentioned—the state monopoly on hard-liquor sales is ridiculous—it could have ramifications for the state budget if Tim Eyman's anti-tax measure also passes, which Cienna details here.
The Building Industry Association of Washington is also ready to turn in about 300,000 signatures Initiative 1082, which would let private insurance compete with the state's worker-compensation program.
2
This is amazing.
I wonder if any initiatives will be able to buy out the entire Wednesday print run of The Stranger to get the final signatures they need ...
I wonder if any initiatives will be able to buy out the entire Wednesday print run of The Stranger to get the final signatures they need ...
3
How much will the unemployment rate increase because of this initiative? It's gotta be at the very least 1,000 new unemployed throughout the state. All of their salaries will turn into executive bonuses and profit to Walmart and Costco.
4
Isn't the liquor initiative going to devastate state coffers? As I recall, we can't really afford this.
Also, the state-run liquor store system is one of the best arguments out there for the outright legalization of marijuana. State-run liquor stores provide an infrastructure for heavily regulated & taxed marijuana sales that minors will have trouble accessing.
Also, the state-run liquor store system is one of the best arguments out there for the outright legalization of marijuana. State-run liquor stores provide an infrastructure for heavily regulated & taxed marijuana sales that minors will have trouble accessing.
5
Never forget that today the Governor decided to delay the new construction rules that require buildings to be 15-20 percent more energy efficient for three months.
There's always Jam tomorrow, or Jam yesterday, but never Jam today.
There's always Jam tomorrow, or Jam yesterday, but never Jam today.
6
@3 @4 - Those are good arguments against Initiative 1100. If I were the WALCB right now, I'd be considering expanding store hours to 11pm - midnight from Monday - Saturday and till 9 pm on Sundays. 11pm-midnight on Sundays of 3 day holiday weekends.
The other argument against this Initiative would be that people on welfare could easily purchase alcohol at stores that use EBT/Quest Cards. Basically welfare abuse.
The other argument against this Initiative would be that people on welfare could easily purchase alcohol at stores that use EBT/Quest Cards. Basically welfare abuse.
7
Extremely unlikely any liquor initiative is going to 'devastate state coffers'. The argument that the legislature will not find some way to maintain (or increase) the current revenue stream coming from the liquor stores and taxes is essentially a bogus one. Also extremely unlikely the net loss of jobs will amount to anything, although granted state employees are probably considerably better compensated than private liquor store employees will be. That said state run liquor stores are an idiotic, temperance era, puritanical anachronism. Good riddance.
9
If the state run liquor stores are protecting kids from booze, how come they get drunk just as often as in states with private stores? You can wish as hard a you like that the system does what it is supposed to do, but the data say no.
And then we have the logic of sin taxes, where well-off people paternalistically hammer the poor with regressive taxation and pretend it's for their own good.
If you want to save people from drugs and booze and candy, finance the services people need with income taxes so the safety net doesn't get pulled away every time there's a recession, just when it's needed most. And don't tell me it's too hard to do that. The problem is progressives who are too complacent.
And then we have the logic of sin taxes, where well-off people paternalistically hammer the poor with regressive taxation and pretend it's for their own good.
If you want to save people from drugs and booze and candy, finance the services people need with income taxes so the safety net doesn't get pulled away every time there's a recession, just when it's needed most. And don't tell me it's too hard to do that. The problem is progressives who are too complacent.
12
The Times says that the Income Tax on the Rich has enough signatures too.
They banned me, so I'm going to have to create a fake Global Warming Denier login to post about that.
They banned me, so I'm going to have to create a fake Global Warming Denier login to post about that.
13
All I've gotten from the pro-privatization crowd during this entire series is 1) booze costs too much, 2) you can't buy it after 9pm.
So what? You all sound like a bunch of whiny-ass titty babies.
Less liquor control equals more social health issues. That's a fact. Proven and everything. There will be more domestic violence, there will be more problem drinkers, the state will have less revenue, and there will be a bunch of state employees laid off and looking for work if we privatize. Factor in the additional law enforcement and social service costs associated with the rise in DV and problem drinking and that is a big, big loss for our state.
That's a lot to give up for a $2 savings on a bottle of Potter's Whiskey that you can buy at 11pm on a weeknight.
So what? You all sound like a bunch of whiny-ass titty babies.
Less liquor control equals more social health issues. That's a fact. Proven and everything. There will be more domestic violence, there will be more problem drinkers, the state will have less revenue, and there will be a bunch of state employees laid off and looking for work if we privatize. Factor in the additional law enforcement and social service costs associated with the rise in DV and problem drinking and that is a big, big loss for our state.
That's a lot to give up for a $2 savings on a bottle of Potter's Whiskey that you can buy at 11pm on a weeknight.
16
I'm pro 1068, anti-1100.
Enough reasons have been mentioned. I drink and I have been "inconvenienced" by not being able to buy Whiskey at some weird hour of the day or on federal holiday... boo-hoo. My personal convenience to get shit-faced isn't worth everything else that comes with this and all of the social issues it bears.
Paid petitioners can suck my dick while we're at it.
Enough reasons have been mentioned. I drink and I have been "inconvenienced" by not being able to buy Whiskey at some weird hour of the day or on federal holiday... boo-hoo. My personal convenience to get shit-faced isn't worth everything else that comes with this and all of the social issues it bears.
Paid petitioners can suck my dick while we're at it.
17
It's a telling commentary on Slog's slacker and desk-jockey audience that only one commenter has mentioned the Workers Comp privatization initiative. 1082 is a far more serious and frightening move by the Right than the liquor store privatization initiative.
18
@6, @10, you can't use EBT cards to purchase alcohol, with the exception of cooking sherry and vanilla extract. That infrastructure's already in place. No one's going to be buying liquor with food stamps.
19
@7
Step 1: I-1100
Step 2: Legislature modifies tax codes to keep us from turning into Mad Max's Australia
Step 3: People rejoice! Booze anywhere!
Step 4: Tim Eyman files I-Beer, repealing all booze taxes
Step 5: Washington is fucked until we eliminate the initiative system
Extremely unlikely any liquor initiative is going to 'devastate state coffers'. The argument that the legislature will not find some way to maintain (or increase) the current revenue stream coming from the liquor stores and taxes is essentially a bogus one.
Step 1: I-1100
Step 2: Legislature modifies tax codes to keep us from turning into Mad Max's Australia
Step 3: People rejoice! Booze anywhere!
Step 4: Tim Eyman files I-Beer, repealing all booze taxes
Step 5: Washington is fucked until we eliminate the initiative system
20
@13 well there's that argument that state liquor stores are the absolute worst kind of nanny state, puritanical bullshit as well. Your arguments sound like the classic ones we hear from authoritarians endlessly to justify stomping on civil liberties.
21
@18 - you've never been to a bar and gotten after sales, huh?
Debit cards are ATM cards, but they can be run thru as credit cards.
Debit cards are ATM cards, but they can be run thru as credit cards.
22
@19 Sounds to me like you need to be focusing more on eliminating the initiative system over preventing the elimination of liquor sale restrictions.
23
You can already buy beer, wine and fortified malt liquor on just about every corner at any hour, and the world has not ended. Not sure why allowing hard liquor to also be sold privately will be such a scourge.
24
Yeah, the state liquor monopoly is ridiculous and antiquated and needs to go.
But pay closer attention to the differences between 1100 and the other privatization initiative (1105), especially in regard to state revenue. 1100 preserves the current liquor tax. 1105 repeals the current liquor tax and replaces it with a directive that the liquor board recommend a new tax (higher than today's tax) to the legislature. THAT is what puts the state at risk if Eyman's initiative passes (or even if it doesn't). The legislature doesn't have to accept the recommendation. It can do what it wants. And nobody can predict the tax rate that the legislature will settle on, whether the state loses money and how much it would lose.
Also, 1100 is backed by bars, restaurants and nightclub, including the Seattle Nightlife and Music associaton. i.e. All the establishments where we go to drink strongly support 1100 and are strongly opposed to 1105.
But pay closer attention to the differences between 1100 and the other privatization initiative (1105), especially in regard to state revenue. 1100 preserves the current liquor tax. 1105 repeals the current liquor tax and replaces it with a directive that the liquor board recommend a new tax (higher than today's tax) to the legislature. THAT is what puts the state at risk if Eyman's initiative passes (or even if it doesn't). The legislature doesn't have to accept the recommendation. It can do what it wants. And nobody can predict the tax rate that the legislature will settle on, whether the state loses money and how much it would lose.
Also, 1100 is backed by bars, restaurants and nightclub, including the Seattle Nightlife and Music associaton. i.e. All the establishments where we go to drink strongly support 1100 and are strongly opposed to 1105.
25
@23 - Exactly, and it won't. There's dozens of products already designed for and marketed to people looking to get fucked up fast, most of which are a better bargain when factoring ABV/price.
26
If the only way to prevent privatization of liquor sales from devastating state coffers is to radically increase taxes on liquor, then prices won't go down and there's virtually no benefit for consumers. Vote no.
29
@27 false alarm, they already cleared it up on the I1068 facebook. Some gatherer had brought a table onto the beach for it, which you can't do without permits (but you can on the sidewalk of course, or just walk the beach gathering). All just a misunderstanding.
30
@21 You complete dizzy fuck. EBT cards are not debit cards. They are electronic cards pre-loaded with a value in FOOD STAMPS! Food stamps cannot be used to purchase alcohol.
31
What also makes me sad is how easy it is to accomplish something when you're a massive corporation and how hard it is for the people to put something on the ballot. I don't even think the marijuana question will be on the ballot this year. I'm bitter, and I see no need for change there. I'm with you, I don't necessarily enjoy the state "monopoly" but this legislation is too one sided. It'll probably pass, drugs sell themselves. :D
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS