Comments
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.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Sorry, but capitolism doesn't work that way. I'm from Cali, where there IS a liquor store on every corner. Kids find the right one that will sell to them, no questions asked. That's how it works. When you're paid by the state, you have a reason to cut people off and not sell to kids, but private stores...THEY WILL SELL IT TO ANYONE!
And if kids don't have the money to buy it at the liquor store, they just steal it from the grocery store. How many kids do you hear of stealing booze from the state-owned liquor stores? Come on..someone post on that!
Just because you never lived it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is easy as hell to steal booze from liquor stores in Cali!
...and all them streeties gettin layed out on fortified wines all over the city, get ready for a whole new low you'll be watching them sink to. Why do you think the panhandlers in Cali are so violent...it's the hard alcohol stupid!
You queefing little Seattlies don't realize how good you have it. Convenience, convenience, conveniece...that's all you white-bread mother-fuckers care about...it's fucking disgusting.
You don't care about money for the state, or the health of your community. YOU WANT PROFITS AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!
"I wanna buy my tequila where I buy my chips and salsa" WAAAAAAAAA!!!!
OH! YOU won't be seeing a liquor store on every corner in whitey land, but take a trip down South...it'll be a much different story. More families ripped apart, more folks thrown into jails.
But what do any of you people care, you just want conveniece...because (horrible whitey voice)"adults should be able to make their own decisions"...you ever hear of jail? It's there for adults who make their own decisions?
With all the educated people in this area, where is the common sense?
Obviously there are drawbacks to every scenario.
The thing to keep in mind is that if there is a will there is a way, so if children want to get "crunk" no amount of legislation will prevent them from doing so.
The key with those children and in any situation is to educate. Not the effective abstinence only stuff that Sarah Palin's daughter proved to be successful but real conversations about the affects of alcohol, the kids motivations for consuming, and simply speaking to them in an intelligent way that doesn't cause them to tune-out.
Based upon his lovely and racially unbiased remarks I'm going to take a guess that Jay7 sound to be someone who wouldn't have supported Ref 71 either...
Until weed is legalized I'm all for state regulation and taxing of alcohol. We just need a few more locations and better hours and I'd be happy as a clam.
I'm originally from Alberta, where we took the full-privatization step about 15 years ago. It resulted in much higher prices (because the purchasing power of the government liquor authority was split up between many smaller, private companies) and the government lost a reliable source of revenue, as well as an easy way to regulate the liquor industry. Nobody was happy except the owners of the private liquor chains.
Liquor is cheap in Washington. Since I've already given myself away as a Canadian, I might as well say this: I love visiting Seattle because I can get drunk FOR CHEAP. You guys don't know how good you have it. Leave well enough alone.
This won't result in corner Mom and Pop stores, it will result in Pharmacies with shoebox liquor stores attached to them that you see in other states. When the bidding process for licenses comes up, major corporations will be the ones able to pony up $1 million dollars per license, not local businesspeople.
Prices won't magically drop for consumers, if anything they'll stay the same because these are the prices we're used to paying and the companies know that. And in the next few years, when the state is still strapped for cash and missing out on its former liquor store money? Increased taxes on alcohol (and other "sin" taxes: cigarettes, etc.) almost always pass without objection in state legislatures. Welcome to more expensive hooch.
Bottom line is that certainly the LCB could use a rethinking of some of its more 'quaint' prohibition-era laws, but privatization deprives the state an important resource that we will never get back again.
Also, all you dear Stranger Readers out there wondering where all the Teddy Grahams disappeared to last night, think about this: the current setup was designed to regulate and control a substance that was seen as an unfortunate but inescapable evil after the troubles of Prohibition. Through state control, alcohol became available to those who wanted it, and the state made a lot of money during the Depression, even though it was considered wrong back then by a majority of the population of the state.
Sound familiar? Want to legalize marijuana anyone?
Use the state liquor stores! Ooops, we privatized them.
I think you guys are being a little harsh on Jay7. I'm sure Jay7 does not believe there IS a liquor literally on every corner however, i've been to california and i've been to neighborhoods where liquor is in fact, literally sold on every corner. Granted, not all neighborhoods have a store on every corner but most of them do. This i a fact.
For example, in Belltown where I live, there are 3 stores currently selling beer and wine on the same block. If privatization of liquor becomes legal, these same stores will be selling booze. That's fine with some people but not with me. There is alcohol theft from these 3 stores almost daily - this just makes it easier for some 14 year old kid to steal a bottle of booze but thats not what bothers me the most.
i have my own personal reason for not wanting this to happen. i happen to work in a bar and after liquor stores are closed they've got to go to the bar if they want liquor. the bar is easy access to liquor for anyone over 21 and the only place to get it after 10pm or so. i quite like things the way they are.
Next I'll mention that though I grew up near 'Jack Daniels Distillary' and it's beautiful country (in a dry county, by the way) and though my father brought the first 'liquor by the drink' club or Western Bar in to the district (though now he's a Baptist sunday school teacher), and though I love a good shot a Tequila (real mezcal), that rather I usually drink only beer (micro-brew IPA) or Red-Wine when in California, and that I really don't mind the state taxing the booze to make money (over the wishes of private enterprise). Peace.
Also, how does the allowance of licenses THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE to be issued to private entities get twisted into 'every place that sells beer and wine will now sell alcohol'. That is idiotic. YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS. If you read that, it was meant for you.
Everybody from Mass. comes up here to buy their liquor. Just ask ANYONE from Mass where they go to buy booze for a party, the universal answer is "New Hampshire!"
There used to be a liquor store next door to the Boys and Girls Club at the corner of 45th and Stone (where Archee McPhee's currently sites).
I received lots of letters back thanking me for my interest in state government, etc. and the entire thing fell through the cracks, not unsurprisingly. For one thing, the government employs a ton of people who would lose their jobs and revenue from liquor sales would plummet. Sure, there would be an initial influx of cash from the sale of the stores, but after that... nothing but taxes dollars would be generated.
Although it sounds like a good idea to privatize liquor, Washington State isn't about to let go of their niche revenue stream from the sale of liquor. Period.
For the record, there is not a liquor store on every street corner. In my college town, there are 6 liquor stores serving 60000 people, although I don't know why they exist since you can buy alcohol from the grocery store.
Washington should definitely privatize liquor sale, if only so that liquor stores won't be closed on government holidays.
Since most alcohol that teens drink is obtained legally, privatizing liquor sales is going to have very little effect on teen drinking rates.
Privatization means price-competition, not a stagnant monopoly. Why are we so careful about not letting big businesses have monopolies, when we let our government get away with it? Plus, I want to be able to buy alcohol on Sundays and when I'm out grocery shopping at 10 p.m. Privatization for a boozier future!
Anyone who thinks that a combination of:
* Having to buy a highest-bidder license to sell
* Having the state slap on excise taxes
* Having private companies who's purpose for selling is to make a profit
* Having private companies purchase wholesale in smaller bulk than the state
is going to lower the price of alcohol is fooling themselves.
Privatization might be good for the state; it's very good for massive retailers; it's really really bad for consumers.
This says it all...
"a private liquor-distribution center located in Renton that serves all of Alaska, which has roughly the same population as Seattle, handles more than three times that quantity"
So you're saying they drink 3x the hard liquor in Alaska?
In the 70s you could drive across the bridge to East St Louis when you were 19, but that's changed now, after Reagan withheld highway funding for states with drinking ages under 21.
Most of my childhood friends didn't drink, we preferred pot and acid :-)
Privatization has destroyed just about everything it has touched. The government is run for the companies and by the companies. The rest of us need to get drunk.
Government run liquor stores do nothing to prevent teens from drinking liquor anymore than it prevents them from drinking beer.
And really, it's quite idiotic to have a government monopoly on a harder form of alcohol, yet allow all other forms of alcohol to be sold everywhere else. Anyone can get completely drunk form beer and wine coolers--I fail to see how keeping liquor sales in the hands of a few prevents drunk driving when anyone can drive drunk off the readily available beer, wine, hell even, Nyquil, that's out there.
Privatize liquor already, geez, its not going to hurt anyone any more than privatizing any other form of alcohol does. If a society already permits any other kind of drink to be sold, it's ridiculous to prohibit the private sales of another.
I don't mind if the tax on booze, any booze, is sky-high, but its absurd to let a drink of higher alcohol proof be government run out of some silly notion that they are protecting the children or preventing alcoholism.
The state does need to take a lesson from the private industry and diversify its selection and hours of operation, but other then that I think the model is fine.
And as others have said - if kids want booze, they will find a way to get it. Just ask the kids that hang out with the vagrants at your neighborhood parks.
Also note that if we legalize pot this fall (I hope we do), the stores are the best way to control.
You state this argument as: "In 2009, the state made $332.7 million in revenue from liquor sales; some estimates show privatization could increase that by $100 million annually. More conservatively, the state auditor reported in November the state could net $277 million more profit over five years by privatizing liquor sales."
How do "some estimates" arrive at the $100 million number?
How does the state auditor arrive at $277 million over 5 years?
At the very least provide a link to a pdf of these studies.
All you've got to support the argument is a sidebar graphic with a single noteworthy future estimate - a roughly 10 fold increase in the number of liquor retail locations. The other information is either contained in the above argument, or not explored in your 1,100 word piece at all.
Cienna, how are we supposed to analyze an issue backed by data so weak that it needs a "depending on whom you ask" disclaimer? Moreover, a ten fold increase in retail outlets is one hell of a claim, and you don't do a great job supporting it with quotes from nameless bar owners. Doesn't it raise your eyebrows to see the estimate for the number future liquor outlets (3,357) ends with a 7? That's a very specific number in the context of an over 1000% increase.
I live in Atlanta and was shocked by the tiny little state-run liquor stores the first time I visited. South Carolina also has state run liquor stores, but they're not the tiny little shops like Seattle has.
You should see the liquor warehouse stores here in Atlanta. Dozens of vodkas, whiskeys, rums, etc; aisle upon aisle of wine from around the world; and hundreds of beers to choose from. And the prices are way lower ($6-8/six-pack micro brew, $9/twelve-pack Bud, $16/1.75L Smirnoff).
Maybe state run liquor stores in Washington wouldn't be such a problem if they would just expand and have more offerings. This would also likely drop prices. Privatizing things would just make profits go to individuals instead of the state.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
Does anyone here seriously believe that liquor prices are going to go down once it is taken over by the private sector? Seriously?
The state will rake in a ton of money after the sale of their stores but what's the state going to get after that other than just tax money? What is the state going to do once they miss receiving those provits from liquor? Raise taxes maybe??
What it all comes down to is convienence. You dont want to drive an extra mile to the liquor store and thats the ONLY reason you want this to happen.
You're naive if you think handing the sale of liquor to the private sector is good for anything other than convenience.
Okay, let's do the math on this. According to the bill's sponsors (Senator Tim Sheldon, D-35) and Senator Curtis King, R-14) privatizing the WSLCB means taxpayers will save $120 million (the WSLCB operating budget), and lose $330 million (the revenue from liquor sales).
Wow, that's negative $210 million. Some savings!
All of this for convenience...and there is not a single person here that can put up a good arguement other than "it will be more convenient". You're idiots if you think this is a good idea.
It's absurd for the state to tax healthy drinks. We should be *encouraging* wine and beer consumption.
But it's not about diet or health, is it? It's about the unionized liquor store workers, their health care, and most of all - most of all - the millions in taxes the state gets to spend however it wants. Do you think they spend all of that repairing the damage that drunk driving causes? I don't. In fact I'm sure the cost is nowhere close to what they take in.
This is a tax that we pay because we don't want to have an income tax. So we use clever ways to nickel-and-dime ourselves into some kind of revenue-generating portfolio of annoyances and inconveniences which also has the benefit (for them) of being impossible to figure out, let alone reform. This is like the 20-page contract you sign to get a credit card.
I agree: it's a dire emergency to conceive of this revenue stream going away without some tangible plan for a replacement, but that's the hole we've dug ourselves into. I'd rather just get one bill: an income tax or, even fairer, a value-added tax. Get rid of all of the fees and tariffs we impose to make up for the lack of a universal tax. That way, I could tell when taxes were going up or down and measure that against how what was being spent was being spent.
“Liquor will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no liquor.”
-Bob Dylan
The reason AZ booze is cheaper than WA booze:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/sho…
I don't believe that allowing the private sector to sell alcohol will guarantee lower prices. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I just hate going into those depressing, drab stores staffed by cigarette-stenchy odd-balls with neck tattoos and facial piercings. I want to buy my Kahluah from a clean store - on a Sunday - from happy, nice smelling sales clerks.
I want the opportunity for a small boutique that has excellent liquors from around the world, like a nice wine shop. Run by people who have a passion for fine spirits. Do I care that it is 38 percent instead of 18? Or that I can buy vermouth at a grocery? The laws have become more and more convoluted and the state run stores cost us (tax payers!) more to run than simply taxing alcohol sales.
Privatizing liquor sales and putting in place a reasonable tax structure will go a long way to reducing government expenses and offer finer grain control over revenue. I'm all for a "sin tax", especially when a certain percentage goes to education and abuse treatment. I don't support auctioning licenses (should be handled like a special class of liquor license for resale), and I don't want formal distributors in the laws (more middle-man inefficiencies and limitations), but the existing stores should be sold (as real estate) for additional income.
works fine.
The companion HB 2845 is in Labor and Commerce, I can see no action since 1-15.
The public can track legislation by going to: www.leg.wa.gov and click on 'Bill Information' on the left side. That will bring up a screen that will allow you to enter the bill number. It is SB 6204, but you can leave off the Senate Bill (SB) part. There is a companion HB 2845.
You can then contact your legislators using the Find Your District tab at the top. Just enter your address and it will bring up your reps and senator, with links to send them messages. It allows you to list the Bill #, and a pro/con, and has a box to check if you would like a reply. They are pretty busy these last couple weeks of session, so use this with care. It may also be good to let Senator Sheldon know that you have done so, and report to him if you hear something positive from your legislators. If he knows that he has support, it makes his job much easier, as bill sponsor.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.
Much like PA, WA (at least in Olympia/Lacey) has very few liquor stores. I only knew of one and it's way back in the corner of a shopping mall. I'd not been in it so I cannot comment on the selection.
In PA, most people who had the choice of going to an adjacent state with privatized sales(such as NJ) would do so for picking up quantities. It got so bad at times that the NJ liquor stores near the bridges were staked out to look for PA license plates.
The issue was that you had a better selection,
price and convenience by shopping in NJ than in the state run PA stores.
The taxes in WA on a gallon of booze is the real issue here. 26 dollars? That's a bloody cash cow, isn't it? No wonder they don't want privatization, the liquor lobby would get that cut down if the large corporations started running liquor stores. Of course they'd keep the prices relatively high and suck off the reduction as profits.