Great.

More underage drunk fucks pissing in the streets of downtown Fremont and on Capitol Hill - just what we need!

I've tried taking a thoughtful approach to voter initiatives, but now my policy is to vote No on all initiatives. We elect a legislature to make policy based on the common good. They are shackled when they have to shoehorn some whimsical, ill-conceived initiative into the state budget.

I'm also generally anti-initiative for the exact reasons #2 says. That said, you have to keep in mind that the numbers mentioned in that story were arrived at by a state agency, and the state has a clear and vested interest in having these initiatives defeated.

And seriously, we have perhaps the most outdated liquor laws in the country. Its ridiculous.

Also, 1100 retains the current state tax rates on liquor. It does, however, necessarily eliminate the 51% mark-up the state slaps on every bottle (that's 51% BEFORE the taxes!). So, the tax revenue remains, and while the mark-up (which simply functions as a tax by another name) goes away, so do the massive infrastructure costs associated with maintaining distribution centers and hundreds of retail outlets.

All of the "we'll be fucked if this and the Eyman initiative passes" scaremongering makes me uneasy, mainly because I'm appalled at the thought of letting that weasel have so much influence over anything.

While we're engaging in speculation, I'll go ahead and speculate that maybe, if the state loses all that liquor revenue, the legislature will finally have to nut up and pursue an alternative to propping up state government with an endless series of regressive taxes.

These initiatives are going to pass. I'm voting no (general rule of thumb), but telling people if they really have to vote for one, vote for 1105. The way I read it, it is the least detrimental to the state budget (contrary to what the State says), and even the Republicans are going to be fine with reinstating heavy taxes on booze.

Will, the street pissers in Fremont are not underage, and they didn't get their booze in a liquor store. They got it in a bar. Bars are still going to be there if either or both of these pass.

@2 if the legislature actually tackled some of these issue then these initiatives wouldn't be cropping up.
The clear issues with the liquor system in this state were very public and very visible when Costco was battling the distributor system.
That was a perfect chance the legislature had handed to them and they chose to not act.

State revenue should come from taxes and fees pertinent to the business of government, not profits from the retailing of liquor, or the purposeful injection of inefficiency into the distribution therein. If the state wants to maintain the same revenue from liquor stores, they can up the tax on the liquor sales.

If the Eyman initiative passes, we're fucked anyway. Can we not figure out how to vote against that and for liquor privatization simultaneously? They're separate checkboxes, right? And if Eyman's initiative does pass, we're going to want that cheap booze in which to drown our sorrows anyway.

You are all right. This pleases me. I wish to close this thread before something stupid happens.

Cienna or other commenters,

Any idea what will happen if both these pass? I tried asking one of the signature gathers earlier this summer and he gave me some bullshit about how the legislature would work out any contradictions, but I have not been able to find anything in either the initiatives or in any WAC that address this. (admittedly I haven’t done a particularly exhaustive search)

@6 Why bother? Will still thinks that our lousy 2010 weather resulted in increased agri-production in this region, despite every indication to the contrary. The guy apparently thinks that crops can grow without a growing season, that rain is actually sunshine. How can you combat that logic?

@10, my understanding is that if both passes, then the legislature will be tasked with drafting a set of laws that implements a compromise of both plans. No doubt much litigation will ensue, and neither initiative sponsor will be happy with the result.

@6 how do you know? Did you card them?

@11 2010 has been very very good to our exports. Try buying futures some time on the CBOT.

and besides, I said increased profit. If I have 5 apples, and Karl Marx has 12 apples and the price is 10 cents an apple, I get 50 cents. But if Karl Marx has his orchards attacked by Red Chinese apple maggots and fires and I have 4 apples, and Karl Marx has 1 apple then the price is $1.30 and I make a lot more money.

Sucks to be the apple though.

Great. Every gas station and mini-market pushing cheap vodka and gin on the city's drunks, visiting frat boys, and transients.... That's sure to make the city even more livable and sweet smelling.

I'm a little surprised to see so much opposition from the youth, who are so supposedly booze happy. I tend to disagree with the initiative system as well, but in this case it'll be fixing a system which the pol's seem to be fine with. Let's get all of our revenue from vices (tobacco, liquor, soda, lottery) and then when people begin acting (more) virtuous then, uh, there will be no problems except for gigantic budget deficits! Or maybe not virtuous but simply responding to market forces, but whats the difference, right?

When right-wingers complain about the nanny state, this is what they are talking about. If you vote for the income tax and for the liquor initiatives, you can have no ill conscious, and when your friends come into town, and they want to share a nice bottle of scotch with you, you won't have to sheepishly tell them even though the liquor stores may still be open for another half an hour, it is over a half hour away from where you are and you won't get there in time.

Seriously, the state can be so progressive and so ass backwads at the same time, and the republicans are going to fix this part? So be it.

@14: Or an apple-lover.

@15 - Those stores already carry more-bang-for-your-buck products, getting-shit-faced-wise, than a cheap bottle of vodka. State-to-state, rates of alcohol abuse don't correspond with availability.

I might be naive here, but why close the state stores when this passes? There's steps they could take to make them competitive.

@15-- Ah, the good ol' unsubstantiated extrapolation red herring! My favorite!

It's just like how everybody will be going down on dogs and horses the minute we allow the gays to marry!

Drunks are drunk and will get drunk with whatever's available: cheap gin and vodka, 40s of malt liquor, fortified wine, regular wine, regular beer, cough syrup...

The majority of states across the country have privatized systems for alcohol sales and they haven't devolved into 24-hour liquor-soaked cesspools.

Also, @8 has it just about right in that first sentence.

I thought you meant the last sentence, lopes.

@20-- That too.

If your worried about the revenue hit just vote yes of 1098 as well.

Apologies to Ogden Nash, but hard liquor is quicker and more potent per dollar.

My corner mini-mart owner just admitted she would replace local wine and craft brews with cheap hard liquor because she has limited shelf space and would move more hard liquor with the street drinkers.

To those who are convinced there will be more drunks wandering the streets after this passes: you ARE aware that this state's iron-fisted control over liquor is decidedly in the minority? That most states now allow sales in private stores without a resulting flood of drunken children or any increase in drunken douchebag fratboys (if there's anything that can stop fratboys from being drunken douches, it certainly isn't state-run liquor stores)? Why is Washington state so special (ed) that we ALONE would suffer horrible consequences from getting rid of the Liquor Gulag?

To all the concern trolls that piss and moan about more drunk people in threads like this - I spent the first 40 years of my life in Louisiana, where you can buy booze almost anywhere at any time. There are no more drunk people or alcoholics there than there are anywhere else. Seriously. Go look. I was just there for a week. Sober people were all over the place.

Does this mean I'll be able to buy Flor de Caña without having to special order a whole case of it?

@26 - I've seen it in stores here in SF, which is hopefully the booze model WA state will follow (which is why I'm sharing this, and not to rub it in since I don't really buy rum very often), but... I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Latin people, too, so folks might be a little more wise to it.

Either way, if no one stocks it there, it'll be a hell of a lot easier to get your local store to order you just a bottle than a state store.

I wouldn't mind a case of Wodka Gorbatschow & Lemon. It's like lemon seltzer in a can, but with 10% vodka -- and the most refreshing drink (with or without alcohol) I've ever had.

@26 - Wouldn't that be nice? Maybe you could even buy some Canadian ryes.

Who ever is doing our state buget might want to reveue thier position, they are having a hell of a hard time doing thier job, adding more problems instead of resolving the issues at hand. Then we pay for all the sessons to fix this crap.
We don't have enough inforcement or local officers to address the underaged drinkers, and now the budget cuts will also be closing community services - so what will all this comeabout other than unemployment rate in Washington will increase, Welfare worksource programs and daycare assistance programs gone then how are we really going to able to survive.