Either way, there is no good argument for keeping the current system of state-run liquor stores.

It needs a clause that forbids the opening of stores in poor neighborhoods. You dont want to make a bad neighborhood even worse with the surge of alcohol fueled violence that will most certainly happen.

I suppose the only good news would be that the homeless drunks could spread out and not have to focus loitering around in 5 block radius near current liquor stores.

Why aren't there two initiatives filed to decriminalize MJ?

Less addictive and it kills fewer people than alcohol does.

@2 - The neighborhoods you worry about are already replete with corner stores selling beer and wine designed to get people fucked up. Hard alcohol isn't going to exasperate the issue any. That said—assuming this passes and Washington proceeds in a fashion similar to other states that allow private liquor sales—there will still be the liquor license application process, which can bring a business under close scrutiny.

@4 - #1, If done correctly, taxing liquor and distributors could make the state more money. #2 - Those jobs are few and far between. Revenue could increase at privately owned liquor stores, which holds potential for new hires. Also, while not always the case, it will allow for liquor to be sold in stores by people knowledgeable of their product, which is contrary to my experience at WSLSs.

I'm telling you people, I've lived in California for 10 years now, withing blocks of probably a dozen places to purchase liquor. It works, and it's awesome.

And no, my propinquity to booze isn't the cause of my typos.

@2 so poor people don't have the same rights as rich people?

Wow.

What's next, should they keep them out of Black and Asian neighborhoods?

@2 You've never lived outside WA before, have you?

Where Do I Sign???

Srsly, whatever it takes to get i-booze back in business... Oh, how I miss those guys, hot friendly guys (& girls!) delivering delicious wine RIGHT TO MY VERY DOOR! Sigh.

And, #2 - I hope you're kidding. You're kidding, right? Sure you are.....

State liquor stores are a harmless harkening back to a simpler time; they are quaint at a time where very little quaint is left to us.

But if we have to move on, let us move on to a system that doesn't diminish annual revenues to the state, which we obviously can ill afford.

And I say ANNUAL revenues to avoid inclusion of one-time revenues, such as those that would be derived from selling the state liquor warehouse and any other property involved in the liquor business.

Methinks that some of the privatization advocates are mixing the one-time revenues into the stew to falsely show high state revenues. Let's make sure that any and all of these initiatives are fully vetted re revenues.

a per-liter tax?

will this increase my bar tab?

@12 - no. Just keep drinking local microbrews. Anything from Hale's Ales for example.

Am I really the only one who loves being able to go to http://liq.wa.gov/services/brandsearch.a… and immediately ascertain which of the dozen liquor stores located in neighborhoods where I am on a regular basis has some unbelievably obscure beverage in stock?

My recent experiences in privatized liquor distribution states:

New Jersey: Don't bother looking for anything outside of the 6 categories of distilled liquor most familiar to Americans (vodka, gin, whiskey, rum, tequila, and name-brand miscellaneous), and within those categories, don't bother looking for anything not owned by a multi-national conglomerate or blessed with a massive advertising budget.

New York City: The oh-so-convenient smaller stores are even worse -- crap selection at twice the price. There are specialty stores carrying a more interesting selection, but expect to make a dozen phone calls to do what http://liq.wa.gov/services/brandsearch.a… will do in 10 seconds, and expect to travel just as far to the store, and expect it to cost more.

I haven't yet seen one of those famed liquor superstores that make privatization proponents go all atwitter, but they do seem to be the exception. Shitty private liquor stores are the rule.

We should get something out of the "free market" for letting them sell hard alcohol. For starters the state can still be the bulk seller, and could still add tremendous taxes, if the state doesn't sell to consumers anymore the tax should double. If not, quit whining. If you're not able to get to a state run liquor store before they close, or they don't have the super rare vodka you want that's easily found on the internet, it doesn't mean the entire system of state run stores is to blame, and it doesn't mean that shifting that control into the hands of people who only want to maximize profit will fix the problem either. Most of these bills seem to be promoted heavily by the businesses that would consider selling hard alcohol, and aren't concerned about anything else. I'm not convinced these initiatives would enrich the public good, it's designed to give big business a wet dream, anyone can sell drugs, they sell themselves. It takes work to build a business.