Earl's! My liver just coughed. If you only have enough money for one drink and you want to get maximum benefit, you can do no better than to spend it at Earl's.

So I guess if you spontaneously groped either one of them under the table, so that it wasn't for show, it would have been okay.

We're cutting 60,000 people off from their health insurance and paying for this?

The College Inn and Frontier Room are great.

At least they weren't doing jello shots.

Technicolor yawn ...

What an incredible waste of money. How do we start the defunding process?

What a complete and total waste of taxpayer funds and budget.

@ Joe M -- But...but...but...they prevent underage drinking!! Heh.

@ Sudden Nut -- There are some interested legislators. We just have to pressure the rest of them.

3, 5, 6: exactly. This should be 100% defunded, and any monies diverted to education and health care. What an utter and complete waste when we are cutting important services to the bone.

@7

That's a start, I guess. We don't need to be spending money on Washington's own watered down version of Saudi Arabia's mutaween.

Is Frank any relation of Tito Gallegos, the Pig Latin Lover?

and this is to protect, who?

The enforcement agents are only a small part of the problem. The larger part is the laws themselves, the Liquor Board, the governor's dufus appointments to it, and the completely spineless lack of action by our legislatures.

The Stranger should look into each LCB member, their qualifications, and why they were appointed. These appointments have absolutely no relationship to any qualifications. It is Gregoire appointing her friends, who then make new liquor rules and direct which ones get enforced.

The current Chair of the LCB - Sharon Foster is a retired self employed contract lobbyist who lives in Olympia. She retired in 2004 and was a lobbyist for 20 years. Among her clients were the YMCA, the Council of Youth Agencies, the California Wine Institute, NARAL, Community Mental Health, the Washington Restaurant Association, Oracle and Traffic Safety Education.

Sharon has no experience in law, law enforcement, the bar or restaurant business, retail, etc. She makes almost $60,000 a year, part time work, full benefits. Total political appointment. She has made awesome new rules like the new signage rule saying bars cannot have any more than 4 neons facing outside, no blow up beer advertisements at festivals, etc. Complete bullshit stuff. Under her the LCB has become even more biased against gays. What was her political connection that got her this job??

12 FTW. Research them, expose them - it will be a great piece.

@ Sudden Nut -- Even if money was no issue, I would still want the WSLCB gone. We don't need people running our lives like this.

@ Soupy -- Now that would have been a follow-up question to ask!

@ whoknows -- I like this guy. You have done your homework. I have looked into all of the board members backgrounds fairly extensively, too. I wouldn't call any of them especially qualified. They all seem to be the sort of unelected people who get appointed to unelected boards just because they are already on other unelected boards. And EVEN IF THEY WERE QUALIFIED, there is still no purpose.

Death to the WSLCB.

How on earth is the bar dancing at Cowgirls spontaneous? Not a show?

Death to the WSLCB.

@14 - please write about the Board members. And not just the current ones. These people are appointed to the board as a political favor. Usually because they are friends with the governor or someone close to the governor. They are usually close to retirement, need a couple of more years to get a better pension or some such thing. It's a corrupt process that leads to bad rule making and law enforcement.

Other states manage without an equivalent bluenose organization penalizing adults for using a legal substance in a lawful manner. Some of the ordinances are so unbelievably vague and arbitrary, I cannot believe that the food-service industry has not risen up en masse to demand its removal. The WSLCB has decreed that if there are naked women dancing, there must be no alcohol served. Why? Other states have not crumbled beneath the weight of this debauchery. The WSLCB decrees that private clubs, where consenting adults enjoy intimate encounters with one another, must leap through absurd, unenforceable hoops in order to serve so much as a glass of wine. You are in violation at any private party at a public venue where alcohol is served if you have not acquired a banquet license. They use the liquor license as a club to penalize establishments that do not kowtow to them, or whose patrons make the Puritans running the board uncomfortable.

This is a ludicrous situation. We are talking about adults and a LEGAL substance. Why are we regulating alcohol in this manner? It prevents not one single death nor one single illness. It does not decrease the consumption of alcohol in any way; it merely makes it more onerous and unpleasant.

I'm with Fnarf on this. Death to the WSLCB.

Dear god, what a ridiculous and deeply stupid public "service" this WSLCB is.

So the bar dancing at Cowgirls is "spontaneous"? What a load of shit! The whole thing is a load of shit. Thanks for posting this, Matt. I knew that LCB "enforcement" was ridiculous, I didn't know it was this bad.

The College Inn is a dive? I guess I've got some pretty high (or maybe low) standards on what constitutes a dive, but I consider the College Inn a mid-level bar experience.

@ Geni -- And they don't care is the thing. I brought up the Oregon example, which is pretty damn laissez faire and still hasn't led to the end of the world. They acted like they didn't know about Oregon's situation and more importantly, didn't really care.

The reason the food service industry hasn't risen up en masse is because most of them are going along to get along. They live in fear of these people. I have talked to people who have been penalized by the WSLCB before, most of them far too scared to go on the record. Or how about the servers who have to pay $30-45 to get a license that says they can officially identify drunk people? It's a horrible system that only exists an employment agency for the under-qualified.

@ laterite -- It is well and truly a relic that did not merit existence even at its inception.

@ Hernandez -- Haha, yeah--having employees told to do something is apparently spontaneous. I did not know what the enforcement thing would be like, either. I recommend that anyone who is interested ask to do a ride-along, too. The more people that know, the better the chance it disappears.

Too bad 1100/1105 were such awful initiatives. I would love to get the state out of the liquor business, but I couldn't vote for either initiative in good conscience.

Frank closed the anecdote by saying, “The bottom line was, welcome to Washington state.”

Welcome to Washington State, where we make it a top priority to pay prudish assholes to roam the city enforcing bullshit morality statutes. We're basically the Taliban, only we wear plastic 'fleece' and cargo pants.

I'm sorry, you consenting adults are just too risque for our provincial tastes.

This is a great piece.

Also, really, what's more of a threat to my good time -- a harmless j/o vid, or a full-on titty grab? Come on, WSLCB.

@ NaFun -- In defense of Frank, I don't think he is necessarily a prude. We talked about anti-discrimination stuff and I really do think he would come down on one of his officers if he heard them spouting discriminatory bullshit. I just think that Frank is a law follower--one of the quotes I left out was, "I think all our laws are fair." Nope!

@ sarahlloyd -- Aww, thanks! How about neither, though? Let bar owners decide what consenting adults may do on their premises, and let the offended find another bar.

The WSLCB came to one of my parties at the Rendezvous. We were using the private room in the basement and we had the lights off in the dance floor area, except for the red stage light and the LCD projector with our live visuals. The WSLCB said we could not dance 'with the lights off', gave us a warning, and subsequently turned up the lights. His reasoning was that we could not dance in the dark, because people could be having sex in the dark. What the hell??

@12 -I actually worked very hard to get those regulations passed. The main concern for the agency I work for is that the convenience stores in poor neighborhoods are covered w/ alcohol signage and those in nice neighborhood are not. Local municipalities were not interested in signage restriction where we wanted it (close to schools) so we went w/ the nuclear option.

-Next time listen when the community comes to you w/ common sense solutions.

@ Govella -- Oh JC, that is fucking ridiculous. I guess they had better eliminate the phenomenon of nightfall, too. People could be humping in the bushes!!

@ Lose Lose -- To me, this shouldn't even be a money issue. This should be a "People are intruding on the lives and choices of consenting adults and that is BULLSHIT"-issue. But yeah, I'd be willing to crunch the numbers.

@ Chris Jury -- Do you want a pat on the back for shitting on private business owners? I think you came to the wrong place.

I wouldn't advocate shutting down the LCB, but they should have been hit by the budget cuts as well.

Also, there should be more lenient inebriation standards for bars in neighborhoods where the clientele is least likely to drive away from the place.
Stick to making sure the bars just check ID, and quit wasting your time and OUR money on the rest of the BS.

@28, you're part of the problem. What the hell is the matter with you? Why is it any business of yours how many signs a store has? People like you are ruining Seattle, and I'm embarrassed to share my city with you.

Maybe the next initiative should be to gut the WSLCB. Think we could get Eyman motivated enough?

Gutting the cash cow wouldn't stand much chance of success in the legislature, but reforming it in the name of increasing revenue certainly would.

@ Fnarf -- Fnarf just won my heart. Awesome comment!

@ Gus -- The sad thing is that I think you are right. These are the same sort of people who wanted to pass Prop 19 in California not so that adults could responsibly use a substance, but so that they could tax and regulate it.

The next initiative needs to simply gut the enforcement arm of the WSLCB, reduce the number of board members, and reduce the number of enforcement employees. Leave the state stores in place for now (despite the fact that I hate them and their pissant selection with a burning passion).

What we need to eliminate, NOW, is the fucking morality police. What we have in this state are quasi-cops going into private businesses to tell consenting adults what LEGAL activities they can and cannot participate in in the presence of a LEGAL substance.

I mean, for chrissake, at least in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the activities (and substances) the morality police are going after are illegal. Here, we're penalizing legal activities and the use of a legal substance. We are using the WSLCB, ostensibly in place to prevent excessive consumption of alcohol (pardon me while I piss myself laughing), as the Puritan patrol. That needs to end. NOW.

The Stranger sends their Anti Government Libertariantard out to cover a government agency? Gee, really surprised by the result of that. Let's defund the unpaid intern.
BFD that the WSLCB does spot inspections. BFD that they're not okay with porn being played in a bar. BFD that they're ok with some groping when people still have their clothes on in public.
These guys are supposed to keep bars on their toes about over serving frat boys and turning bars into porn theaters. That's what they're supposed to do, and just because you like drinking and porn, doesn't mean that having them in the same place is going to be fine with the rest of the population. (BTW, I'm okay with drinking and porn, and yet I see why there is a difference between having a place like a strip club and a bar and keeping a distinction.) If you want to have the porn, that's cool, but it should be designated as such and not just be called a bar.
I'm glad that these guys are out there and citing bars for over serving people. Look what happened to Matt Luby after overdrinking his way through whatever college he claims to have attended.

@37: How did we determine the population wasn't ok with drinking and porn? You're fine with it and I'd venture that most people who read Slog are fine with it. Why not just let people know what kind of bar they're entering and let them make their own choices? Why is a cash-strapped state spending money to enforce some moral minority's squeamishness? Stopping underage drinking is reasonable: Turning the lights up at parties or turning off a video at the Eagle are a huge waste of time.

The only purpose of the WSLCB is to justify their own funding.

De-Funded?
Just take their money away instead!

@37 That designation would be: a bar that plays porn. I think that most sane adults are going to know which bars do what...and not patronize the ones that offend them. As opposed to making every bar fit the standards of the most prudish.

For instance, I don't care for crappy smooth jazz. I'm offended by it. It's so crappy, that it throws me in a fit of rage. Yet, the Triple Door frequently has smooth jazz playing...and serving liquor! I choose to patronize bars that don't play that music, and go to other ones instead. Same goes for shitty techno-pop. If I had my druthers, I'd ban that music at all bars. But, really, that would be bad. So, either I endure or I leave and never return. That choice should be valid for porn, and even many sex acts (such as hanging out flashing your cock). If you're offended by it, you never return.

@ Geni -- Pragmatically speaking you might be right. But I really do not want to compromise on this issue. 1100 was damn close to passing. The legislators want to keep their grubby-grubbies on power just as bad as the WSLCB does, so take it away from them and go to the voters.

@ SPG -- Hello UFCW 21 member!

@ judgmentalist -- Whee for adults making free choices!!

@ dirge -- (nodding)

@ Lose-Lose -- Agreeing that I don't know why anyone would go there. Though I do have to admit to paying covers to enter the similar, franchise-y Lodge Bar back home in Ohio.

The Washington Liquor Control Board only consists of THREE people! And it appears on their website that they may be currently functioning with only TWO people. http://liq.wa.gov/board/member.aspx

It's a very anachronistic entity.

Read this consultants report from 5 years ago that reviews the operation of the WSLCB: http://liq.wa.gov/publications/WSLCBOrga…

I'm reliably informed that most libertarians look like pigs in girdles even without a bulletproof vest on

What a waste of our taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile Seattle Public Libraries has such cutbacks that they had to fire 8 youth librarians from at risk neighborhoods. I'd love to see a privatization of state liquor stores and a massive defunding of the WSLCB. In this tough economy we need to prioritize schools, hospitals, public transportation, libraries and emergency services over agencies that just seem to harass small businesses for pretty trivial stuff.