Intelligent people can have a reasonable debate about how restrictive the Washington State Liquor Control Board should be in regulating alcohol, from the hours it’s sold to the locations you can buy it. And watching the deluge of TV ads this fall, you may think that’s exactly the debate you’re witnessing over Initiative 1183, which would break the state’s grip on retail liquor sales and allow private stores to sell liquor. But it’s not.
The pro side argues that state-run liquor stores operate at odd hours and are a prohibition-era throwback that inconvenience consumers. It’s time to modernize, their bonanza of TV ads will almost certainly say. The con campaign contends that allowing private stores to sell liquor would open the floodgates of underage binge drinking and drunk driving.
“Alcohol kills more kids than any other drug,” warns dour-looking Cowlitz County sheriff Mark Nelson in a September 8 television ad. “Problem drinking could increase by as much as 48 percent.”
But the debate this fall isn’t really about convenience or safety or the extent of the government’s hand in regulating agricultural commodities. It appears to be strictly about corporate profits, no matter how much money each side spends trying to convince us otherwise.
The two sides have raised more than $5 million each, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, more than three times the amount of all the other statewide campaigns this year combined. And more than 94 percent of that money comes from just two opposing donors.
The initiative is backed by Seattle-based Costco, which donated $1 million on September 15, bringing its total contributions to $4.9 million. Under the banner of the Yes on 1183 Coalition (a “coalition” that includes additional funding only from Trader Joe’s and Safeway), Costco’s initiative would permit hard liquor sales only in stores over 10,000 square feet. In other words, liquor would be sold only in large grocery chains. These companies could also produce and sell their own generic liquor—as Costco has done in California under the Kirkland brand—which would encroach on the existing liquor market.
Which brings us to the opposing side trying to protect its market share—the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), whose membership includes the world’s top liquor brands. It’s contributed $5.8 million to Protect Our Communities, the campaign opposing I-1183, ironically by arguing that liquor is dangerous.
That’s funny rhetoric for a liquor trade group whose two primary associate members are liquor giants Patrón Spirits and Pernod Ricard, which generated $7 billion in annual revenue last year. Also ironically, their campaign claims to oppose the “corporate profits” of retailers like Costco, according to the campaign’s website, even though WSWA is also driven by “corporate profits.”
Not that either side is more wrong or right—that’s not the point of this article. Despite their arguments, privatizing liquor only for retail giants is of little convenience to consumers, and the concern that alcohol is dangerous is clearly dishonest coming from the liquor industry. But it’s not about us, the voters. It’s about them, the companies with a stake in this. 
This piece of shit will be voted down by a wider margin than the last liquor privatization initiative. Privatize liquor to make it more convenient to buy? Costco is a not a very convenient place to shop.
Problem drinking will go up 48%? why, because 52% of drunks will be able to buy booze easier? That analysis is 74% more idiotic than saying nothing at all. I am 99% sure I am done commenting.
@1 I just hope you’re right, because in these economic times setting ourselves up for another 10 million dollar campaign in the next election cycle is good for all of us.
I love how the free market is telling us the free market won’t do its free market-y thing when they get exclusive control of the free market.
Sorry voting this down again. State run stores are working on upgrading selections,locations and hours. I’m not to lazy to drive/bus myself to a designated location to buy liqour. The far more important thing is I would much rather see my money go to the state government to help slow our growing budget deficit and keep state run projects getting further cuts than a mega corp like Costco, or any other chain store
@4; Baconcat: Ya got that right! The rich and corrupt won’t stop until they own everything.
I’m definitely voting FOR this. The anti group consists mainly of the unionized liquor store clerks who have every reason to defend the monopoly. Time to bring Washington State up to date.
Who cares? We should be arguing about legalizing weed, not making it easier (or harder?) to buy booze. Booze. How quaint.
Booze. How quaint.
I dunno, I don’t really care about either giant corporate coalition. However, I live on Mercer Island, where the state-run liquor store closes at 7pm. Who even knows if they’re having people over at 7pm? Plus, my libertarian streak rebels at letting the government be the only party allowed to sell something as small and common as liquor.
@10
As of last July 1st your liquor store on Mercer Island is open –
Mon 10:00-9:00
Tue 10:00-9:00
Wed 10:00-9:00
Thu 10:00-9:00
Fri 10:00-10:00
Sat 10:00-10:00
Sun Closed
Also the state liquor stores would be perfect for selling the evil weed when we legalize it.
The small (nonunion) franchise store across the street from my house is open 10-7, seven days a week, and some holidays. And I don’t need 53 different kinds of tequila. It all tastes like shit anyway.
Interesting how the backers on both sides of this initiative frame it… the scare tactics of “Oh, the children! Booze will be sold at gas stations! 48% more problem drinking!” What a load of crap! And the big-box side. “Get the state out of the liquor business. New revenue for the state. Better enforcement.” I think that lots of us would like to just be able to buy cut-rate vodka at Safeway on a sunday night! The state store could still have the wide variety… if you want a good cigar you go to a smoke shop, a cheap (relatively) pack of smokes can come from any grocery store. Same for booze. I don’t like the big-box side… or the public safety side either.
WOW! How cool is it that most of the people posting here are doing some critical thinking about I-1183 rather than allowing the mainstream media do their thinking for them.
When the Department of Justice and Center for Disease Control offer up well-reasoned reports overwhelming concluding 18 states got it right and 32 got it wrong, you have to take notice. When you pencil out I-1183, you get a far different picture than what COSTCO is paying to have you believe.
Speaking of ads, the pro-I-1183 one with the guy in a plaid shirt with the glass of orange juice on the table…I could write a book and teach a college-level class on what the producers did to slide their message into your head without you realizing it. Somebody paid a very high-end, exceptionally skilled production house to very carefully craft that one. Unfortunately, the spot is lipstick on a pig.
#14, that’s an awful lot of words to not actually make any point at all.
I think that within a few weeks of this passing, we’ll have Texas-sized large liquor retailers opening up in our state, BevCo or Dan’s Ginormous Liquor Barn or probably some of the Tribes. It is really a shame that liquor sales can’t be handled normally like some/most states, you sell liquor anywhere there’s a license, you tax it and you license the sellers, and you enforce and pull the license of people that serve to underage — just exactly like bars work now. 30 years ago in Seattle they argued up and down that bars or restaurants could never sell hard liquor, it would damage the children. Then that law got passed, and theres bars everywhere now that sell hard liquor. Children appear to have survived somehow. Mommy arguments are always wrong. But what does worry me is once these huge stores open, with rows and rows of cheap vodka, Kirkland whiskey and Crown Royal and no variety, what becomes of the little boutique store that has all the nice varieties of scotch and tequila that we already have now, that happens to be called a State Store? What becomes of those? I’d really be worried that if we pass this initiative, Costco, Safeway, Trader Joes and the as yet unnamed Dan’s Ginormous Liquor Barn will do great. But my selection for scotch and tequila might actually do worse.
If we got a normal law like Illinois or California, I’d be in favor of it. I’m not sure I’m in favor of handing Costco the right to sell crappy low end booze, while simultaneously making it impossible for a private liquor store to open unless its 10,000 ft large … how will specialty booze be sold then? I don’t see thats in the plan anywhere.
#16 Why should Washington State join a couple of the 32 loser states? The hard numbers, not your recollection or the mass media, tell a story of how not not do liquor sales. 18 states took the time to get it right. It’s still right according to the Department of Justice and Center for Disease Control.
Okay, what I don’t get about all this, why can’t there be state regulation AND allow companies to sell what they want to?
To #17: I think the main point of #16 is why limit the stores to 10000 sf and larger? This virutally ensures that only costco, the largest supermarkets and new mega liquor stores will be able to sell hard A.
In some neighborhoods, that’s fine. In others, you might have to go across town. That might have a nice conservative effect, but the effect I don’t like is giving costco so much business at the expense of neighborhood stores.
@17, I think the answer to your question is that small “neighborhood” stores (odd that you use that term for establishments run by your state government) would have to attract customers by good location and great selection the same way that actual small businesses have to in California.
Which won’t mean that bigger stores won’t have good selections. 90% of the time I can’t find something, I find it at BevMo. And BevMo carried products like Prairie Organic Vodka before any of the other liquor that I shop at in SF. Safeway has the worst selection of the large stores and even they occasionally carry things entirely new to me.
Fact is the trendy or successful liquor stores in my SF neighborhood make names for themselves by great selections of beer and wine rather than liquor. The selection of liquor available is rather smaller then beer and wine. There are a lot fewer producers and the large stores in CA do a good job of getting most of them to the shelf.
That said, it’s one big giant shit pile that they’ve set the bar only at 10,000 sq feet or less. Talk about a bald-faced grab at the money with no room for the little guy. You’d be right to vote this down on those grounds. Costco seems determined. Send them a message that they won’t get a booth at the market unless they are willing to make room for everyone.
My experience buying liquor in CA shows me consumers have it better here than in Washington, but Costco isn’t offering you CA they are just offering you Costco. Pass I-1183 and anytime you try to open up to real small businesses Costco will just switch sides and they will be the ones funding “alcohol is dangerous” ads!
I think that within a few weeks of this passing, we’ll have Texas-sized large liquor retailers opening up in our state, BevCo or Dan’s Ginormous Liquor Barn or probably some of the Tribes.
Outstanding! Then, at last, we’ll get the prices and selection missing from the Soviet liquor stores here.
what becomes of the little boutique store that has all the nice varieties of scotch and tequila that we already have now, that happens to be called a State Store?
What?! The Soviet stores have a terrible selection! Once a year, I make a liquor run to California to get the boutique Scotches and bourbons that you simply cannot find here. The Soviet stores have no competition, hence no incentive to give a shit.
I’m not sure I’m in favor of handing Costco the right to sell crappy low end booze, while simultaneously making it impossible for a private liquor store to open unless its 10,000 ft large … how will specialty booze be sold then? I don’t see thats in the plan anywhere.
I do agree that the 10,000 sq ft idea makes no sense. That could be fixed later, either through legislation in two years or through the courts. Still, though, the average grocery store is that big, and so will large specialty stores be that big.
Yup, Costco is behind it, but the idea that they’re the only ones who’ll be selling booze is a lie, plain and simple. Tear down the Soviet system here, and we’ll get plenty of competition, and the choices that people elsewhere take for granted.
p.s.: How much you wanna bet “MommaRaisedNoFool” is a Soviet liquor store clerk who is worried he’ll be living under a bridge in a year?
State run stores are working on upgrading selections,locations and hours.
Working on it, you say? Gee, for how many decades have they been “working on it?” And if they are in fact just now “working on it,” just what do you think made the sluggards decide to begin “working on it?”
And once they’ve buried the competitive threat, how long do you think they’ll keep “working on it?” Come on, how stupid do you think we are? Put the Soviet liquor monopoly outta business.
I would like to see zero regulation/zero taxation (or very low taxation). Let free enterprise/capitalism do its thing. Have a rule that selling to minors is illegal, but allow anyone that wants to sell to sell. It works in many other countries. Why does anyone think that the state has the sole right to sell and make money off of liquor? For every state run store there might be 5 private stores and 25 more workers at work. Let capitalism decide. People might buy more liquor. So what….
The state needs to make money and selling whiskey is one thing they actually do to make money! as for the police and the those under age she-devils? well? if we were to build a world for police and underage she-devils it would look a lot like Arkansas.
like a Bad old pussy all dry and angry and full of trailer parks?
I cant kick the state for trying and I cant kick Abu at the quickie mart for wanting to make JD squishy?
the reality is the State has its sin tax and whiskey huts so what is the problem?
The state provides whiskey and gambling and as well taxes it as well gasoline and has decided to charge you to get into a state park?
Companies and corporations love a free market when they are the only kid in the sandbox. Pro 1183 groups should be yelling out “follow the money”. To counter the obvious response just have to say, It is not hypocritical at all, everyone knows who we are and why we want this changed.
Absolutely LOVE this article. If we ever do privatize liquor sales here in Washington, let’s do it on OUR terms…not corporate america’s.
Yup! as well the lies are deep! kids like wine coolers and beer and really don’t do vodka and whiskey and 2 0r 3 beers equals a shot of whiskey
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
Like Mit Romneys telling us we can compete with china in manufacturing and all the other flat out blatant disgusting lies that they believe are winning points in some freak of nature twisted imagination that believes they can represent “thee” hardest working and least benefited nation on the face of the earth?