I think Dominic should’ve settled down and tossed back a stiff drink before attempting to fisk the Washington State Liquor Control Board poll released today, because in raging against the will of the people (how many times have voters rejected privatizing liquor sales…? I’m not sure I can count that high), he kinda lost sight of what it is the WSLCB actually does.
Dominic dismisses the poll as “useless,” while simultaneously touting those data points that support his arguments, a deft bit of rhetorical legerdemain I’d ridicule, if I didn’t occasionally use it myself. He also seems disappointed that the WSLCB asked only those questions Gov. Gregoire instructed them to ask. But his most forceful complaint is targeted at the inclusion of non-customers in the survey:
But the state announces that “most non-customers opposed to every change.” For fuck’s sake, liquor board, really? You put stock for your business model in the whims of people who don’t even use your business? Who are those non-customers? Turns out that 67 percent of those non-customers don’t even consume alcoholic beverages. So, uh, THEY’RE NEVER GOING TO BE CUSTOMERS. There’s no reason to poll them.
Yeah… um… except that… the WSLCB isn’t a business. The WSLCB’s mission isn’t to “provide customers with an unparalleled retail experience,” it isn’t to “offer convenient and attractive locations,” and it isn’t to “provide a broad selection of premium spirits.” It’s not Walmart. And it sure as hell ain’t the Apple Store.
No, the WSLCB’s actual mission is summed up neatly and succinctly on its website:
Mission
Contribute to the safety and financial stability of our communities by ensuring the responsible sale, and preventing the misuse of, alcohol and tobacco.
From the gist of the poll, the WSLCB certainly seems interested in improving the customer experience, but yeah, given its mission statement, the opinion of non-customers, even non-drinkers, is also a perfectly valid input for the WSLCB to consider when evaluating whether to expand retail hours and locations. In fact, it’s necessary. Because expansion of access means expansion of consumption, and expansion of consumption means expansion of abuse. And alcohol abuse impacts our entire community.
I’d write more, but I’m off to Drinking Liberally.
You just got hired and you’re already dissin’ your elders?
Brass Balls.
(But I’d sleep with one eye open from now on if I were you, Goldy. And maybe ask 5280 if you can borrow one of his guns.)
I’ll reiterate what someone said in the other thread: You seem weirdly obsessed with supporting the WSLCB. Is there a deeper reason? This paragraph seems especially telling.
Or is this just simply a “this is how we do things in Washington state, bitches” thing?
So, explain to me this, then: if they’re not a business, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE THEY RUNNING TWO HUNDRED STORES?
Why doesn’t the state run a couple of hundred shoe stores, or fruit stands, or hair salons? People need to be protected there, too, from poisoned fruit, unlicensed haircutters, shoddy sneakers. Frankly, it’s a terrific dereliction of duty for the state to allow anyone to sell anything at all — think of the risks! I certainly wish the only restaurants were one chrome-and-formica diner per hundred thousand people. Then we’d all be safe. Can’t trust adults with prepared food now, can we?
Your argument is baloney, period. Death to the WSLCB.
Wow. I didn’t see anything in their mission statement about operating a monopoly to bring in revenue for the state, but that’s pretty much what’s happening. But thanks for the reminder that it’s all about selling stuff responsibly, and NOT making money.
So, Alberta has 100% privatized liquor sales, and I am not Googlicious enough to find a comparative survey of alcohol abuse rates by Province, nor something that would compare Alberta’s alcoholism rates to Washington’s, but, if someone knew how to do that, it would be an interesting comparison, argument-wise…?
Canuck, I think to some degree Goldy’s red-herring-ing in response to the brisk fisking.
I’d jettison in a heartbeat all the revenue tools the WSLCB provides for funding state services if the next time there’s a bill (i.e., Costco Tries Again), proponents make more than a half-assed effort to show how we’d get through the financial disruption, however brief it may be.
(Or if we can find as ready a source of revenue to make up for it. Maybe Alberta would consider channeling us a fraction of the oil royalties that do so much to keep provincial services going…I kid…)
For f’s sake Goldy, if you want to ask questions about whether the WSLCB is succeeding in it’s mission, feel free to ask non-customers. But don’t ask non-customers about store hours, store convenience, or whether they want ice, snacks or glassware in the same retail location.
OK?
Yes, they do a grand job of preventing alcohol abuse. After all, beer & wine are made from the sort of alcohol that doesn’t cause addictions, so they don’t need to worry about the sale of that. And we never, ever see drunk people in this state.
And $31k is probably about half the salary of one of those Barney Fifes that go around and make sure gay bars aren’t showing gay porn. So really, it’s money well spent.
The problem I have with the survey is that Spokane is vastly different than Seattle or Snohomish. And polling people who don’t use the service is like asking elementary children about high school.
And 31k is my years salary, so that seems over the top when they could have done an online survey.
the WSLCB is a vestige of Prohibition. It’s right there in the name. Control. 410 non-drinkers, either teetotolers or recovering alcoholics, fighting against the demon rum that keeps menfolk out of church on Sunday.
this country sure talks a lot of freedom, but puritans and calvinists don’t believe in any freedoms but economic ones.
The idea is to make money, it pretty fucking obvious.
If it were up to me, gus, I would channel my portion of our oil royalties to you, because I know you would use it wisely, and would contribute to the overall attractiveness of the region by buying another pair of Fluevogs. And to be honest, Alberta is like the wild west, run by outlaw politicians with grade 8 educations like Ralph Klein, and–shudder, dear, hold on to your knickers–the soon to be elected, appalling Ted Morton, an *American* who makes those Republican marriage-repealer fuckwits in Iowa look like Mother Teresa. I’d like to believe those guys would never survive if the oil revenues didn’t provide the extreme cushioning that they do.
So, when does Dan’s new book come out? Isn’t there one in the pipeline (not the IGBP)…??
@12 Alberta sounds like it’s run by Neo-Arizonans and the Utards from Utah. Misery loves company?
My gosh, Canuck, that Ted Morton seems like a real shitheel, isolationist for the province’s special financial situation, and conservapanderer deluxe.
I hadn’t heard rumors of a book from Dan – is that why he was studying at the Kinsey Institute last year? I like his biographical stuff, but dream of him doing a work of history.
@13 Don’t forget all the Texas oil barons in their white hats! It isn’t really a party without them. I’ll probably get the percentages wrong, but I’d say almost all of the rural people are conservative, still freaked out by Trudeau’s oil grab, and don’t want “out East” telling them how to run things. Then there are the city conservatives, who don’t want any interference in their oil companies in the way of taxes or green initiatives. Then, in Edmonton and Calgary, and in the towns west of there like Canmore, Bragg Creek, and Jasper there is the Patagonia/Merrell contingent, valiantly running their NGOs, and finally, a reasonable amount of liberals who put out our versions of the Stranger, FFWD and SEE, and vote mayors like Naheed Nenshi in. There you go, more than you ever wanted to know about Alberta…
Yeah, gus, I’m going to have to register as a PC (gaa) just to be able to vote for someone else in the leadership race.
I remember way back in the summer, I think, Dan was in San Francisco, and he said he was interviewing employees at Williams Sonoma for a book he was writing, and then when someone asked him what the book was about, he said “about 300 pages”…har har. (Even funnier [pathetic] that I remember this word for word, eh?) I kind of got the impression part of it had to do with how gay men were spending their money, but I could be wrong. Don’t know how the Kinsey Institute fits in. Dan is not very sporting in the voluntary disclosure department, I don’t know how he expects to cultivate groupies with such a lack of transparency.
Goldy, I can’t believe that as a proponent of the end of marijuana prohibition you are making this argument. This is exactly is what the prohibitionists argue (along with syringe exchange encourages drug use and other such nonsense).
I won’t argue about whether or not expanded access results in higher consumption, because that’s a red herring at best. Is it really the state’s job to define what level of consumption is best?
From a public health perspective we might want to do what we can to limit consumption (and conversely, if we were truly rational, encourage that people transfer their consumption from alcohol to marijuana). But the idea that increased consumption is ipso facto bad is heading into moralizer country and I want the state out of moralizing about substance use. You basically are making the case for decreased access, which is a prohibitionist argument. You are saying that decreased access leads to decreased consumption and thus less abuse.
But to argue that increased consumption inherently leads to increased abuse, is really ceding the argument to the prohibitionists. It is also not reliably supported by the data. Not the alcohol data and certainly not by data on areas that decriminalized other drugs.
I got into a shouting match with a meter maid the other day where she boldly proclaimed “the City of Seattle is a business”. by that logic, I can only assume that an apparatus of the larger state government which deals directly with the procurement and sale of goods must be a business too. bullshit on your argument! the meter maid told me so!
This is utter nonsense.
We have vastly fewer drunk driving deaths (per capita) now than we did 30 years ago. Why? Because of restricted liquor sales? No. Because of MADD, and tougher enforcement, and a change in social attitudes. It was funny to drive drunk in the 1960s. A drunk driver is a pariah in the 2000s.
You’re a fan of statistics and graphs, Goldy. Where’s your supporting data for this claim? Show me where states that don’t have monopolies on liquor sales have higher rates of alcohol abuse than states that do.
Canuck, way to take one for the province by registering PC strategically. And thanks for the reminder about that odd Williams-Sonoma/book connection – I don’t see that adding up to the kind of work I was hoping for, but he’s managed his fabulous career quite well without me this far…
Urgutha @1,
My “elders”…? I’ve had more college reunions than Dominic’s had birthdays. Is he even old enough to legally drink?
As for the rest of you, my position on state store privatization is no secret, but this post doesn’t advocate on that one way or the other. I’m merely arguing that given their mission, it is perfectly legitimate for the WSLCB to poll customers and non-customers alike (and break their responses out separately, as they did).
Problem to me is, their mission doesn’t require that the state be the only one to sell liquor. Given that their mission is to control “alcohol and tobacco” it seems quite strange that beer, wine and tobacco are all available at your neighborhood grocery store (or gas station), while liquor alone is reserved for the state. Doesn’t make a whole lotta sense to me.
@22 sure it makes sense. It’s down to keeping their jobs now.
@15 Both AZ and UT have their share of the Texas oil barons. They bought huge mansions in Phoenix and Scottsdale, and they’re trying to buy up all kinds of land in central and eastern UT to drill for oil, natural gas, and go after the oil shale and tar sands.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51…
They seem to be in competition for who has the most right-wing state legislators. Does it go to the UT one who wants to prosecute women for miscarriages, or to the AZ one responsible for SB 1070, or how about the one in AZ who wants to relax the gun “laws” there even more, or the one in UT who wants to take over what the schools teach and how they are run because OBVIOUSLY the legislature knows a hell of a lot more about schools than say the state Superintendent and the elected State School Board…
At least now I know that this type of lunacy isn’t only relegated to the U.S.
@24 Oh no, honey…there’s plenty of crazy to go around!
Coming from New England, I never did understand WA’s “state liquor store” business. I have fond memories of making packy runs (package stores, they’re called) across the state line — in Conn. liquor stores close at 8pm, in Mass. they stay open till 11. On Sunday, though, not even beer or wine is sold. Except in Mass., where you could buy hard liquor (only) on Sunday at drug stores (only) — it’s medicine.
Everywhere you go liquor laws are quirky and puritanical. And the problem drinkers will find a way to get their drink on.
@ Goldy,
I was using “elders” allegorically. You’ve got the least seniority at The Stranger
Urgutha @27,
And I was using your allegory as a springboard for saying something snarky.
@28,
And I found your snark funny (although it makes me wonder who IS the youngest on the staff there?).
So in the end the only thing either of us was confused about was that neither of us was actually confused.
SLOG makes my brain hurt sometimes.
Damn, really? My entire year’s salary spent on a WSLCB poll? My brain just went kablooey.
Someone needs to ‘splain to Goldy who pays the bills at the Stranger.
Liquor pimps.
I can assure you, anyone who purchases, consumes, produces or distributes Monarch Kirschwasser is misusing alcohol. I challenge all of you to give it a taste and come up with a use that isn’t misuse. The stuff is vile.
Yet in many WSLCB stores, Monarch is the only Kirschwasser you’ll find. The presence of Monarch products in the state’s stores belies their stated mission. QED
Re: Harm reduction @idunnowho
It’s not inconsistent at all to want to legalize marijuana, but strongly limit access, while keeping alcohol distribution at the status quo. You just have to believe that:
Alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, and laissez-faire access to either would be more harmful than state-controlled distribution. The current marijuana prohibition is counter-productive.
Personally, that sounds about right to me.
@32: Eh, most stores I go to seem to have a good supply of Clear Creek products, sometimes including kirschwasser.