So... the basic premise of this article is:

"The current system is "crappy" purely because it inconveniences my ability to get hard liquor after 5pm on the weekends (beer and wine sure... but that's just not quite good enough). So it's a wonderful thing that there are two initiatives on the ballot that I can provide absolutely no arguements in support of since basically they will both pretty much decimate state and municiple bugets, and will most likely also pose a signifigant public safety risk, according to anyone who doesn't stand to make a fortune if they pass"

???

Nice... that's just the kind of rational thinking we need going into this election season. Thanks!

I-1100 certainly sounds like the best initiative to me. It keeps the liquor tax in place, which would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for state and local budgets. And it gets rid of the distributors' monopoly.

A couple things to clarify:

--The liquor control board would have all the funding it needs if 1100 or 1105 passes. The wine tax in this state is specifically set aside for liquor board operations and would provide $20 million a year. Combine that with the licensing fees and the board has more than enough, according to its own projections. The liquor board isn't using the wine tax money for operations right now because it's overflowing in money from the 51.9 percent markup it charges on liquor.

--32 other states (32!) have privatized their liquor sales, and they are doing the same if not better than the 18 "control" states in all the major alcohol statistics, including alcohol consumption, underage drinking and DUI arrests.

--There wouldn't be any negative impact to public safety if either initiative passes. This public safety argument is a smokescreen created by the No campaign, which is funded almost entirely by the beer companies and beer distributors. Do you think these guys care about public safety? No, they care about their profits.

I've lived in California and spent time with relatives in Arizona. I appreciated the option of being able to buy liquor at mulitiple locations,limited restrictions on when it could be purchased and the opportunity to stock up during some great sales.
However, unless there is a significant turnout of voters under the age of say 40, in this upcoming midterm election, I think that polling numbers indicating that the electorate is ready to end a state monopoly are simply statistics that won't carry over into the initiatives on that mail in ballot. I have older friends and they don't have much enthusiasm for any of these two initiatives. Approval of either of these measures is doubtful. Because....older voters take the time to vote in midterm elections and younger voters, even with the convenience of mail in ballots, frequently don't.

@6

I think you might find an interesting coalition of redneck (anti-nanny state)/yuppie voters (pro-cheap booze). Also, Washingtonians are very fond of initiatives.

I-1100 makes the most sense. It ends the state's outrageous markup that, combined with our liquor taxes, gives Washington the highest state government markup on liquor of any state in the country -- 20 percent higher than the next state, and 150 percent higher than all but 7 other states. And what do we get for this outrageous markup? A 3-member Liquor Board appointed by the governor that decides what spirits we can and cannot buy, and that utilizes less than 10 percent of its employees on enforcement and about 75 percent on selling and marketing liquor. If you want public safety, vote for I-1100 and force the Liquor Board to focus on enforcement and education, where it should be focused, rather than selling and marketing liquor.

The liquor store employees are represented by the UFCW Union which is not the main state employees union. That would be the Washington Federation Zof State Employees. Just wanted to clarify that as a WFSE MEMBER.

With all the words that are available in the English language I was impressed by the fact that the writer of this article seemed to think that "crappy" and "shit out of luck" did the best job of making two of her points At least one of those points was simply untrue. When she says "And if a liquor store runs out of something a restaurant needs to make its customers happy? Maker's Mark, for example? Until that assigned store gets a new shipment of Maker's, that restaurant is shit out of luck." This is simply not true. State liquor store manager regularly transfer stock from another store in order to fulfill a restaurant order. The Stranger does not have to pretend to be "objective" but a well researched story and some logic, and a vocabulary, would be nice.
A few other points to note. If these initiatives pass there will be many more outlets for buying liquor but very few, if any, will have the kind of selection that is carried by the average state liquor store. Oh, and by the way, where was it that you planned on getting boxes the next time that you're going to be moving.

nope, they both suck. neither will pass. not a chance. nice try strangler.

@10 Which WSLCB store do you "work" at? Ever seen a real business operate?

I'll take someone like Pete Hanning's word about how bars get their liquor than some paid government shill's talking points.

1100 yes, 1105 no. Don't protect distributors. They've been coddled too long. Frankly, boutique shops will be more likely to pop up if Costco and other big box stores dominate the volume business. We'll be able to get the good stuff at long last. Right now, distributors have little incentive to try hard at getting anything "exotic." And they get to define what "exotic" means. Our selection sucks - and small batch producers are shut out because they simply aren't worth enough money to the distributor to bother. Let people buy right from wholesalers. Take the distributors out of the loop.

I'm not scared of privatization. In Michigan you could get hard liquor at most convenience stores (we called them "party stores" there) and it didn't create any problems I could see. If you wanted something special there were specialty liquor stores to cater to you.

Either initiative's impact will mainly be felt in the restaurant industry. I'm sure many have noticed how many bars and restaurants have closed down in the last few years, certainly due to a bad economy. But finally being able to have access to wholesale prices will allow them to sell liquor for less $ with a better profit margin. And that is a wonderful thing!

If a business if forced to mark up on retail prices (the current system) there's so little room for profit, as people are only willing to pay so much for a drink. If you're a bar, that drink price has to be set to pay overhead, taxes and profit, on a very very slim margin.

A typical business like a shoe store or grocery store gets it's wares from a wholesaler, and marks them up %100. Bars typically mark up closer to 50%, and are expected to pay larger licensing fees and taxes, than a regular business.

I think as consumers we would all enjoy cheaper prices, both for home consumption and when out on the town.

*one last rant: teenagers will always figure out ways to drink if they want to. doesn't matter what state they're in, that's what big brothers and sisters are for. No need to legislate on that fear, the horse has already left the barn!

@12, I don't know who Pete Hanning is, but, his claims are extremely inaccurate, as are yours!

@12, I don't know who Pete Hanning is, but, his statement is completely inaccurate, as are yours!!!

Clearly the intro is a bit of a satire "simplynotclever"... But most importantly, if revenue is the states biggest argument, remember a certain NBA basketball team we used to have? Wonder if they would have contributed some sort of an income, some how. How right they are now a playoff contending team with a huge upside bringing millions of dollars to Oklahoma City... Fucking OKC, seriously?

Keep in mind, even if the state-run monopoly of distribution and retail operations is effectively dismantled, the state's claim to those tax proceeds will not necessarily follow suit. The state government is collectively unwilling to adapt to a market-based retail environment. It could well mean that the final cost per 750 Litre of booze, wine, or beer, could stay the same or increase substantially.

There is nothing in the law that prevents a huge liquor tax increase in the name of school funding, the general good of the public, or some other bullshit rationale. If you don't believe it, just ask any smoker.
Some (many) people would be thrilled shitless if all alcohol could be taxed out economic reach for all except the very wealthiest.
Just ask a smoker.

...sorry, should be 750 mL

i have not browsed the whole article as of yet but in the opening it is mentioned that you cannot get liquor on Sundays in the state... yes you can and i have done so many times. its called tribal land. i have this option save me many times. of course you will not find any open location on the WA liquor website when they say they are closed and have locations open on holidays...ha. anyway these are options and if you are close to tribal land i would suggest getting your Sunday holiday buzz on.

Will I finally be allowed to bring wine to a picnic without getting arrested if these pass?

@19, @24, & @26: ..Ugh, I don't even want to bother.

@17 & @18 I actually read the article, so I know who Pete Hanning is. Also, I've been to his well-run bar a few times. Good guy, whose livelihood is not dependent on a government sponsored monopoly.

22 stores for 27,000 people. About 70% of the population doesn't drink, so make that 9,000 people. 23% of the population drinks 75% of the alcohol. Any restaurant can go to any liquor store to purchase alcohol with proper license documentation for an emergency purchase. 51% mark-up is a common wholesale/retail business practice. Most everything you buy anywhere has been marked up 51% or more. That's how stores have sales "with giant markdowns" without losing money. Liquor stores have a hugh base of special orders for items not part of normal stock. These items can be transfered between stores.

There couldn't possibly be a connection between WSLCB's tight restriction of liqour sales and their high compliance rate w/r/t underage sales. I mean obviously they are just naturally good at preventing underage sales, regardless of the rules in place. I bet private-side liqour retailers would be JUST AS GOOD.

That being said, a trip into a Cali convenience store is like heaven for a UW student on a road trip.

There are many stores open on Sundays. 12th and Pine, Lower Queen Anne and 4th ave South to name a few.
*If your a homeowner, you may be interested in your already lowering property values. They will surely plummet even more when liquor is available at the corner market. They'll plummet even further if you live downtown when all the street drunks the city has worked so hard to eliminate return en-mass.
*Any restaurant or bar may purchase up to TWENTY FOUR CASES OF DIFFERENT LIQUORS at any liquor store on walk-in basis.
*I personally have served many a Stranger staff member while employed at the 12th and Pine store, and I take exception to your portrayal of store staff as 'sad little employees in their colorless uniforms'(previous feature in which you also incorrectly said the WSLCB was incompetent.

best article around on initiatives-

http://www.eatthestate.org/the-best-gove…

SO who didn't think of an initiative that has all liqueur stores open 7days a week till 8, and anyone acting as a distributor, selling liqueur be taxed equally per each item, so regardless of consumer purchase price, item be taxed equally. The govt. would still get its money, and everybody can get what they want when they need it, DUH?

SO who didn't think of an initiative that has all liqueur stores open 7days a week till 8, and the wholesaler would pay taxes up front, TBA by govt., so anyone down the line (stores, bars, etc,)will not have to deal with liqueur taxes.
The govt. would still get its money, and everybody can get what they want when they need it, DUH?