Liquor Control Board Clarifies Its Funding With Booze Initiatives


So the state's going to go broke because they won't have the money to pay for the thing that's going away? Sorry, Smith.

Look: I don't care about the cost (within reason). I just want to get rid of the WSLCB. I don't mind paying the tax. I don't mind paying the markup. I just want them out of the liquor business, which they have no business being in.

Jack up the tax. Add another wholesale tax on. Charge an arm and a leg for a sales license. I don't care. I just don't want people like Smith deciding what kind of booze I can buy, and where and when I can buy it.
Like said above me, fiscal countermeasures exist. I hate to be a dick, but this sounds like a game of pure budget preservation. Like for-profit prisons, the privately ran sort, being against reductions in say marijuana convictions, the WSLCB would obviously be against anything that reduced their reason to have x budget. That's fine. But it's also important to note that as long as the state OVERALL ends up revenue neutral, or turns a profit on getting rid of the WSLCB handling booze sales, that's fine.

The end goal is revenue/tax neutrality PLUS the ability to buy alcohol on our terms, not the WSLCB's. Speaking as someone that hails originally from a far less controlled state as far as the liquor goes, the way we do it here is laughably Puritan. And I'm FROM a Puritan state, where it's far more liberalized. Puritans GTFO.
Sororities and Frats, drunk on the streets, and all so Costco can save a couple of bucks.


It is teh fail.
@3, you're completely shitfaced every night of the week, so who are you to point fingers?
Last summer the LCB ran out of Campari for 3 months due to an inventory glitch. I had to drive to Vancouver to get a bottle. Pathetic.The state liquor stores are run soviet style. No accountability, unmotivated employees for life, basically on the dole just waiting to expire. I hear SEADRUNAR is hiring.
@1 Fnarf, Do either of these proposals eliminate the WSLCB entirely? Even if stores not owned by the state are allowed to sell liquor, I assume that the state's regulatory authority wouldn't simply evaporate.
@6 - no, neither does that, but both certainly make the first inroads into their ability to do business as usual. We can't simply eliminate a state agency by citizen initiative, but we can certainly make it clear to legislators that we are fed up with pointless overcontrol of a legal substance.

Baby steps.
@4 lol. u r so funny.
It will make WSLCB's redundancy all the more obvious. Once you establish that 1.) you don't need them to tax alcohol, and 2.) you don't need them to prevent abuse, given that other states don't have worse rates of underage drinking or alcohol addiction or drunk driving.

What function does this agency serve? None.
Gee it would be really unfortunate to see the WSLCB disappear.
It's just a thought, but do you think maybe we don't need a state agency for "enforcement, licensing, and alcohol-awareness programs"? Don't you think maybe enforcement and licensing can be done by local agencies, and "alcohol-awareness programs" are just government busywork?
Good job letting the PI do your research for you, Cienna. Better job working it back in to be a followup to our original article.