how about "no to both - because I'm a fucking socialist and I don't want power transferred to CEOs" ?
The notion that the legislature should do it, so I'm going to vote "no", which will send the signal to the legislature to DO NOTHING, is pathetically stupid.

A crappy law is better than no law at all. Vote yes on both. The goal here above all is to crush the heart of the WSLCB.
I'm waiting for The Stranger's voter guide, because I'm confused. And I really want to buy my vodka from the grocery store like you would in any normal state.
As much as it bugs me to agree with Stefan Sharkansky on anything, I agree on 1100 for a variety of reasons, which are probably reasons that have nothing to do with his reasons. Mainly unlike Fnarf because I support any attempt to crush the remaining dying heart of Puritanism.
@3: Fewer than 20 states allow vodka to be sold in grocery stores and of those 20, practically all of them prohibit sales within a certain timeframe.
Vote no... do you really want to be able to have anybody buy liqour at all hours. Drunk driving and underage drinking will sky rocket... Beside do you realize how much it's going to cost us for the state to get out of the business. The price of liqour won't go down, the state will still get their money...
Just give me a second to fire up this multi-rack blade server with five IP 3node segments and you'll see how I'll be voting ...

Now, don't get me wrong, I may be voting No on both of these, but I want the legislature to convert all the WSLCB stores into MJ dispensaries and get out of the liquor business.

Now, excuse me, I've got a FREE Blues and Brews thing to go to at Hale's Ales tonight from 6:30 to 8:30 pm, where half the proceeds from one of the brews will go to support Folklife - got to carboload ahead of that so I don't have to follow the Stranger guide for what to do when you have a hangover ...
@4, what is it about my comment that makes you think I support Puritanism or don't want to drive a stake into its heart?
At this point I would just be happy to buy beer at 711. I didn't know Seattle had it so good until i left.
@2 - Exactly. These initiatives wouldn't even be on the ballot if the legislature had actually taken any action on this. Hell, the legislature could have allowed privatized sales and increased the state's net tax revenue in the process if their heads weren't in their asses.

@5 - I like what California does. Vodka in grocery stores. No sales from 2-7AM. Pretty simple really.
I have a hundred things to say on this subject, but for me, this question is 100% about keeping state government services alive. Everyone involved says that either of these initiatives are going to cost us money. We have no more money to give. Archaic and annoying as our current system is, replacing it will mean further cuts to critical programs. I can't in good conscience put cheap booze over schools/fire/police/welfare, especially if Eyman's plan to make it impossible to increase taxes passes. If we could couple one of these initiatives with enough protection that upped the liquor taxes to the point where we could be assured of not losing money, I'd be DELIGHTED to get the state out of the *selling* business. But any initiative should be able to guarantee a net benefit to the state, or be delayed until our budget is running a surplus.
@11, the sale of licenses to retailers alone could bring in a massive windfall to the state, if the state had a ghost of a glimmer of a clue. And the tax on booze wouldn't go away. What would go away is the ridiculous amount of overhead the state pays to maintain their inefficient distribution system and stupid, wasteful, mostly-closed stores.
For me, it's about what Government should and shouldn't be doing.

I'm no Tea-Party nutjob. I don't think Government is some big, evil entity out to get me and take all my money. I do like having men in red helmets come to stop my house from burning down, and I don't think every social program is a socialist plot.

That being said, I don't see why the state is in the business of selling liquor in the first place. Why can grocery stores sell Cigarettes, which are just as bad for you, but not booze? It doesn't make sense.

I'm not against the state raising taxes on liquor to try and make up for the shortfall. To be honest, I don't drink that much anyway.

And if you look at the states that have no state run liquor store system, they have no higher percentages of drunk driving or alcohol related accidents.
plus, as a bonus, we'd have way more street drunks getting more booze as a result of selling hard liquor to kids for a split of the cost.
@12: Yeah, but its a one time boom, not a reliable source of income.

Also, why hasn't more been said about the combo effect of I-1053 and 1100/1105? 1100 says the legislature can raise the liquor tax to make up the difference, but 1053 requires a 2/3 majority to pass any new taxes... If they both/all three pass, will the Legislature be able to come up with enough votes to reinstate it?

I love cheap booze, and I love convenience, but not for such a high cost to our government.
It's absolutely ridiculous that the state monopolizes liquor sales. Other states allow liquor to be sold at Safeway, Costco, etc and there isn't anarchy on the streets. Minors won't suddenly be glugging Everclear in broad daylight in parking lots. And whatever state jobs are lost by WSL store employees can be transferred over to enforcement if folks are so scared that there's going to be an outbreak of public and underage drinking. Grow up. And vote for 1100.
This poll is useless. It's obvious that The Stranger set up the poll to be biased from the get go. Why would you guys set up the text as "They'll cost the state money" when a state auditor's report has shown that Washington would actually see increased tax revenue from privatizing liquor, to the tune of $86.8 million a year?… (page 26)

Part of this is from less state work to be done for distribution (also means job loss), part of it comes from more alcohol being bought because it's more accessible, and most of it is just a one-time gain from selling off all the current state assets associated with liquor distribution and sale.

Not to mention it's a total false choice because those voting no are forced to agree with "the legislature should privatize booze sales." What about those voting no that don't want liquor sales privatized at all?
@13 -
"And if you look at the states that have no state run liquor store system, they have no higher percentages of drunk driving or alcohol related accidents. "

It seems to me that drunk driving would be worse in states like Washington, where you have to go out to bars to drink rather than staying at home. According to the NHTSA, 43% of traffic fatalities in WA are alcohol-related vs 37% nationally.
So the WSLCB costs the state money (@17), and makes drunk driving worse (@18), and greatly inconveniences the consumers of a perfectly legal product. What's the benefit again?

Joe, you want Puritans? This state is absolutely full of them. The "liberals" are frequently even worse than the Jesus People.
@15, none of those things are one-time. You can charge a license fee every year if you want. The savings on distribution and overhead accrue every year.
@14 There is nothing stopping this from happening now yet it isn't the case. You dumb fuck.
The amount of people losing their jobs in the distribution industry alone is going to put a lot more people on the unemployment rolls. This is not the way to privatize liquor. I call 1100 the "Costco bill" because they want to be the next Walmart. I won't be able to shop there without a job. People are not looking at the long term consequences of having these ill conceived bills pass. Daggercat
The state knows it's losing money today from a large percentage of the population that buys booze from the free states. That's right, Washington looses everything on these sales because some accountant in Olympia is making decisions about what should and shouldn't be in a liquor store and those decisions have absolutely no bearing on local supply and demand. Ever tried buying a product that's not on the shelf, even if it's available at another store in the state?

And #11 is just an idiot that doesn't understand economics or the state constitution. The state constitution requires the legislature to prioritize education in all budget expenditures. Education cannot be cut.

The liberals are even more avid about saving The Children. The Jesus freaks just don't like seeing people have a good time.


Huh? Cigarettes are far worse than alcohol. Alcohol has health benefits: moderate drinkers live longer than teetotalers. Cigarettes have ZERO benefits.

The health benefits of alcohol apply to wine only, which doesn't relate to the bills on the ballot. There are no real proven health benefits of liquor consumption.
@25, only Puritans give a shit about whether there are "health benefits" or not. Are there health benefits to thinly sliced beef tongue, or Roquefort cheese, or ripe, juicy peaches? Who gives a shit? A glass of green Chartreuse or tangy applejack or Punt e Mes or 100% blue agave tequila blanco feeds something a hell of a lot more important than your clenchbutt "health": WELL-BEING. HAPPINESS. JOY. CULTURE.

The health benefits of alcohol apply to ALL ALCOHOL. Wine has extra benefits such as antioxidants, but all alcohol is good for your heart. The teetotaler vs. moderate drinker statistic had no bearing on the type of alcohol consumed.

And you can shove your lack of proof up your ass.


Sipping two or three glasses of wine, beer or cocktails per day helped older adults live longer than teetotalers in a study that confirmed the health benefits of moderate drinking.
Not really. The supposed health benefits depend on:

a. age

b. social grouping (are you from a group that socializes at meals or with drinks)

c. gender - women have far more negative impacts after one glass of wine, for men it's after about four

d. drinking with meals - drinking on an empty stomach is less good.

Probably the effects are due to a combination of socialization for men, anti-oxidants, and heart risk - moderation is good, extremes are bad.
What about Bob?

Bob works as a liquor store clerk. Bob has a wife and two kids, a dog and a turtle named Pete. Yes to either 1100 or 1105 means Bob loses his job. Bob will be on unemployment, he will need food stamps to feed his children. Bob is depressed and embarrassed because he cannot take care of his family. Bob's wife is worried. Bob hopes to get a job at the gas station for minimum wage, he will have no benefits for his family but he will have a job. Bob's family will still need food stamps. Bob's life sucks but at least he can go to Costco and get a cheap gallon of booze, that will make it all better for Bob.

1100 or 1105 will take the jobs of 930 families just like Bob's.
Here are a couple of points that haven't been added to this string.

1. The greater the state budget shortfall the more likely we will finally get a state income tax. The state will still need that 350 Million a year. Guess who they'll ask for it.

2. Bars are now part of the Monopoly on booze. If you wan't a martini after six pm you have to give them your business. This won't be the case going forward. I am thinking a lot places will close when folks can get liquored up more easily at home.
I'm compelled to mention the thousands of solid middle class state jobs that would be lost through this initiative. American workers are on a race to the bottom- lower pay, higher insurance premiums, no retirement and no union representation/ fired at will. This is what we're all supposed to accept now? I cannot in good conscience vote against stable union jobs and education funding so that I have easier access to booze. And I love booze.
All the states that have already have privitized alcohol sales ALL require the public to pay a mandatory state income tax. So those who think it will be so much more convenient to buy it from the grocery store, convenience store, Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid, Walgreen's, gas station, etc. Get ready to pay hundreds or thousands more a year just like the people in CA do in state income tax. They are writing IOU's for state services, so if you people who are pro 1100 & 1105 think it will improve things here in the state of WA, think again, the next time you need to call 911, to get the police, firefighters, EMT's that provide life saving services because these people don't work for free and are far more important than someone being able to buy a bottle of booze on every street corner.
If the legislature had a real concern about one of these initiatives passing along with Eymann's initiative (which would fuck us for plenty of reasons other than liquor sales), they could do this: pass a new, higher liquor tax now, to go into effect only when these initiatives would if they pass, with a stipulation that they only apply to private retail liquor sales.
@33 Correlation != causation
@33 Oh... and I'm pretty sure that Nevada allows private liquor sales, and have no income tax. Similarly for Texas and Florida. In fact, of states that don't have a state income tax, most seem to allow private liquor sales.
@30 Or, Bob opens his own liquor store instead of being an register-jockey at a state run store. Bob makes a healthy living being an entrepreneur.

Personally, I'd be fine with not allowing hard liquor sales at grocery stores, but requiring specialized liquor retail outlets (like they require in NY).

Jobs is not a justification for maintaining inefficient state-run retail business. If it is, why not have state-run grocery stores? It worked so well in the Soviet Union! What's that you say? You'd lose all the private grocery store jobs? But think of all the state-employed clerks you could sponsor when we close down CostCo!

By allowing entrepreneurship to enter, more jobs will be created in the long run, and government and private business can both go back to doing what they're good at.
Interesting comment from the F*$#ing socialist who doesn't support because they hate CEOs. I can't disagree. But if anyone is persuaded by the idea that liquor shouldn't cost 60% more in Washington than it does in California even with similar levels of taxation, then they should consider the competing CEOs proposing I-1100 verses
I-1105. The CEO of Costco, main proponent of I-1100, routinely takes heat from Wall street because of the generous pay and benefits of Costco employees. Seems he thinks well compensated employees are good for business. The largest contributor to I-1105 is Southern Spirits Corporation, a privately held company who's billionaire owners have been linked to organized crime.
I-1100 will Cost the State a maximum (assuming the additional convenience results in no additional liquor sales) of $50million per year (the $150 million per year in lost markup as an exclusive retailer, less the $100 million they spend on cost of sales).
I-1105 would cost this much PLUS the complete loss of taxes on hard liquor since the proposal cynically requires the Legislature to consider a replacement tax but does not require the Legislature to adopt such a tax (which is simply not going to happen if Eyman's latest anti tax initiative also passes as it is unfortunately expected to). I-1105 would also require the corporate middlemen who are paying for it to come between retailers or restaurants and their suppliers. I-1100 allows but does not require this. Speaking as a self distributing winery owner I can assure you this will flat wipe out our state's new Craft distillery industry.
I hate to agree with the likes of (gag) Wal Mart but Costco has it right. Vote pro consumer. Please vote yes on I-1100. Oppose corportate distributers. Please vote no on I-1105.
@37 Careful with that slippery slope argument. The union jobs in question are already in existence. What you call private entrepreneurship (and I call corporate interests) have not shown to take better care of their workers, with limited exceptions. You say more jobs will be created in the long run... kind of like what we're waiting for private business to do right now? Yep, private business has done a fantastic job of propping up our economy and providing economically sustainable jobs for their few employees. Right. I'm not advocating that we turn private business into government jobs, just that we get to hold onto the government jobs- and living wages with benefits- that we already have.
Voting no on both. We all know how the C-stores sell beer to minors. I dont need to get a call from the police saying that my family was wiped out by some drunk teenagers. I was a teenager once and remember how fast hard A hit me. Lets keep the hard stuff hard to get.
I have been all over the world and have yet to see a retail liquor operation like the state of Washington has. When I stay at a resort I want to be able to buy a bottle at the resort rather driving trying to find a state liquor store. The present system is an embarrassment to the to the state of Washington. People I have talked to from out of town think I am joking with them when I tell them they have to go to a state store in order to purchase liquor.
@36: Yes, but they also made $152 million in 2010 from gambling taxes. Of the 18 states with strong liquor control boards (like Washington), only Washington and two others don't have an income tax.

Right now, the WSLCB brings in $350 million net income. Even in the best case scenario, these initiatives cost the state $87 million. My question to you is why is your convenience worth an $87 million loss to the state?
@42 The "NO" side says if 1100 passes the number of locations selling liquor would increase by 1000%. WA state has 340 liquor stores. How would sales look if we had 3400 locations selling liquor at a better price? Does this mean sales would increase 1000%?? Probably not but, sales would go up & (because taxes are not being touched) more money would go to the state for our beloved police, fire, EMS etc. Logically the argument of the state losing money doesnt make sense to me.

As it is now, we all know the state is NOT good w/money. So, how does it make sense to let the state try to be a business???? Costco, WalMart, Walgreens etc all know how to run a business. Let's let them do what they do best and the state needs focus on the state. This might mean privatising money management and many other areas our state has failed us in. There is PLENTY of money coming in. Managing that money if the big issue here.

This is an absolute no brainer. Regardless of the arguments above the state should not be in the retail biz.

I have heard many great points of view.
@30 & @37 Bob can be another victim or as @37 says he can, because of his freedom, open a business of his own because the opportunities are there. Some of the best businesses and products come out of economical markets like the one we are in. Bob can be embarrassed and hold a sign on the freeway on ramp that says "Lost job because of I-1100" or he can get his head right and make his life better than he ever imagined.

Great comments @37
Get a clue. These measure are all about Costco and other big monopolies taking all the money from the state government. To vote for either measure is to let big corporate pigs make off with the profits instead of sharing them with us.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.