On November 8, voters will be asked to change the way liquor is sold in Washington State. If approved, Initiative 1183 would close and sell off state-run liquor stores and allow large grocery stores to sell liquor beginning on June 1, 2012. In the most heavily funded political fight in the state this year—with a total of $9 million in spending expected over the next month—the opposing campaigns have very different messages about what the initiative would actually do.
The yes campaign, backed by Costco, promotes I-1183 as a cash cow for the state budget. The campaign says state revenue from additional taxes would rise while liquor prices would drop. All the while, we’re told, consumption will remain flat.
But the no campaign, Protect Our Communities, says people will drink more, drive drunk more, and witness a decline in spending on public safety. Oddly, this campaign is funded by the liquor industry.
Let’s examine what this convoluted initiative really does, step by step.
HOW LIQUOR WOULD BE TAXED AND SOLD: Currently, the Washington State Liquor Control Board retains all rights to distributing and retailing hard liquor. If this initiative passes, 166 state-run liquor stores would close (163 family-run contract stores could remain open) and grocery stores with at least 10,000 square feet—about 1,400 of them—will begin stocking liquor. There may be more stores: I-1183 says the state “shall not deny” a liquor license to smaller stores if there is no other liquor retailer in a “trade area,” but it doesn’t define the size of a trade area. “It seems that that could mean that’s any place where there’s business activity,” says liquor board spokesman Brian Smith. Protect Our Communities says that could add another 929 convenience stores. Based on this new explosion of availability, the state’s Office of Financial Management estimates that Washington residents will be buying 8 percent more liquor in 2012 (as opposed to the 3 percent growth forecast under the state’s current system).
WOULD LIQUOR REALLY COST LESS? The price for a bottle of liquor would either remain unchanged or increase by up to 20 percent if this measure passes, according to estimates from the state’s Office of Financial Management, which accounts for taxes and markup at several stages between the distiller and drinker. But there is a silver lining: The initiative would generate between $216 to $253 million in new state revenue over a period of six years and between $186 million to $227 million for municipalities. However, the state’s figures are purely speculative—and there’s no better estimate. “The initiative will lead to lower liquor prices,” declared Kathryn Stenger for the Yes on 1183 Coalition when meeting with The Stranger. Asked repeatedly to back up that claim, Stenger never provided information.
PUBLIC OPINION: Public support for Costco’s liquor privatization scheme appears to be dropping. An Elway Poll found that only 50 percent of voters supported the measure in August—considered weak footing for an initiative—and that number dropped to 46 percent when the firm conducted another poll in September. Voters opposing the measure said they supported state control, were concerned about minors purchasing alcohol, and thought liquor would be more available.
WHO’S BUYING THE ADS: Two opposing donors have contributed more than 90 percent of the money to this fight. Costco and its “coalition” stand to profit handsomely from new rules that would allow only big retailers to manage their own distribution (such as grocery and retail giants that already have national distribution networks) and sell generic liquors (as Costco already does in California). Meanwhile, the motivations of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA)—which distributes more than 70 percent of all wine and liquor sold in the nation—are slightly less obvious. WSWA’s members would be required to pay a 10 percent tax on distribution over the first two years the law takes effect. Perhaps more threatening to the group: It would allow wineries to sell directly to retail stores and restaurants, cutting out distributors entirely. 
Did the rest of this article get misplaced?
I think the ‘Yes on 1183’ folks i’ve talked to claim that because they have big purchasing power they can negotiate better base bottle costs than can the state. But no one has given me an example of a deal they have worked out.
I’m not entirely happy with this initiative, but I’m inclined to vote for it just to get the process moving.
Yeah, and I remember when the corporate shills were saying that NAFTA and other trade deals would help the consumer and the economy by lowering prices. What do we have instead? Unemployment, low wages, shitty goods that didn’t go so far down in price, record corporate profits, and a malcontent working class, just as I predicted. How’s NAFTA treating you? Will the price of liquor be lower if this initiative passes? Probably not, as we’ve been told that lie by corrupt corporate bastard sleazeballs before. The liquor store system that we have now works well enough, and voting to throw people (liquor store employees) out of work in this bad economy is unconscionable. If this initiative passes, I hope all who voted for it become unemployed for a very long period of time themselves. And no, I don’t work for the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
I suppose I can understand that perspective. I think for me it’s that I came from Michigan, where liquor sales were privatized long before I was born. Having to do the Walk of Shame into a run-down, Soviet-looking, government-run store to buy liquor rankles me. More than anything the state-run store system feels like an attempt to stigmatize alcohol consumption.
Okay, when I go to Costco, they try to get me to sign, and tell me booze will be cheaper. Can someone explain to me how $18.89 is cheaper than $15.94??? Where did these people learn math?
Hello 5, I feel no stigma and always like going to my local Liquor Store. The employees are friendly and helpful. It’s great that the liquor selections have increased in the last few years ( Absinthe & designer gin, etc.) Also nice that many retail stores stock an extensive selection of beers and wines – adding hard liquor to the shelf space will decrease those smaller distributor offerings.
Hey Orv, just noticed that you posted 3 & 5. So your logic on 3 would be that if some group had initiatives to, say, restrict birth control access, and they were defeated two times and then got a third initiative, you’d say “I’ll vote for it just to get the process moving” ???
#8 is obviously a liquor store employee worried that he’ll be sleeping under a bridge soon. The clerks are morons, the selection is a joke, and the prices are ridiculous.
Costco only carries 22 different liquor items. Quite a difference between the thousands available in state liquor stores. I say leave things as they are.
Who does this measure benefit? Retailers, for sure, because there is much money to be made.
Alcoholics and heavy drinkers will appreciate the increased availability of distilled alcohol. With more location choices, it will be easier to be an anonymous drinker.
Will it benefit the moderate drinker? Not much. The key is how often moderate drinkers go though a bottle of spirits. Many moderate drinkers don’t even drink distilled alcohol. They drink wine, beer and fortified products which are readily available everywhere.
Will the measure benefit you?
Consider this, there will be no liquor stores as in California such as The Liqour Barn. Only Safeway, Costco (with only 30 non Kirkland brands and 30 Kirkland brands), etc. WA state liquors stores typically have over 1600 SKUs. Compare that to Costco’s 60 SKUs.
The selection is not a joke at all. It’s ten times better than the selection at any grocery store in say, California. I’m sure it’s better than the selection we’d have at Safeway and Costco if this passes. They’ll just stock the standard big brands like they do currently, and they’ll add their markup in addition to the already super high state taxes so we’ll have less selection at greater price, but at least Costco will be making more money!
so why can’t the state legislature just write new laws? why do they wait for corporations to do it for them?
Hey Washingtonians, I pay around $35 for 1.75 liters of Maker’s Mark at Costco down here in California. What do you pay up there in your state liquor stores?
Based on the money pouring in to fight this bill, your state liquor stores are paying way to much for their inventory. Why would they do that when they’ve got such a large customer base? Why else would the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America be fighting this so hard?
Sorry to butt in on your business. I was on my way to the Savage Lovecast.
So we go from “only the government can sell liquor” to “only the rich can sell liquor.” Why do we like this?
#14, what bullshit. Every year, I drive to California to buy liquor that’s unavailable in the Soviet stores here. Just try finding Van Winkle’s 15-year-old bourbon here, or George T. Stagg bourbon, or G’vine gin, or 5-year-old Clynelish Scotch, or 25-year-old Talisker.
Why can’t you find this stuff, and much more, in Washington State? Because the state stores have utterly no reason to give a flying fuck about people with specialty tastes. If this happened with coffee, the world would still be drinking Folger’s.
This has nothing to do with Costco. The idea that it’s a Costco law because they want it is a steaming load of horseshit. Not only will at least half a dozen chains be able to carry liquor after this passes, but we’ll have the same sorts of specialty liquor merchants where I buy all of the things I mentioned above, enter our state.
#14 and the other scare mongers are lying. They are worried about their job security and nothing else. It’s not our job to preserve a lazy, expensive monopoly so these people can remain employed.
Consider this, there will be no liquor stores as in California such as The Liqour Barn.
That’s simply false. Nothing will stop the specialty chains from moving here.
Very true #11 I work for Costco and the company only carries the top brands of anything. I never thought about that. The variety won’t be that big shopping at Costco. I’m completely against this initiative. It’s one of the last things the state seems to have control over. And the corporations are only pushing it down our throats to vote it in so they can make more profits. You really want to suck those corporate executives dicks, all for you to get wasted more with a few extra bucks to just waste again on something else? Wake up numb-nuts! Pay a little more for a much better cause!
I think the ‘Yes on 1183’ folks i’ve talked to claim that because they have big purchasing power they can negotiate better base bottle costs than can the state. But no one has given me an example of a deal they have worked out.
———————————————
Wrong. Costco has already said that they would charge nowhere near the 25% markup that’s being bandied about. They would be closer to single digit percentages – roughly equal to the markup they do for everything else they sell. That alone would make it cheaper than today’s state prices.
Soviet style my ass. The 21st Amendment guarantees the exclusive right of the states to regulate liquor within their borders, and we’re supposed to give up that valuable right because some marketing shill tells us we’re a bunch of Marxist-Leninists. This whole Costco scheme smacks of post-Soviet crony capitalism.
Soviet style my ass. The 21st Amendment guarantees the exclusive right of the states to regulate liquor within their borders, and we’re supposed to give up that valuable right because some marketing shill tells us we’re a bunch of Marxist-Leninists. This whole Costco scheme smacks of post-Soviet crony capitalism.
I don’t dispute WA State’s legal right to establish and protect a Soviet liquor monopoly here. I only ask you to tell the truth about all of this.
The idea that, because Costco wants to tear it down, they’ll be the only beneficiary, is bullshit. There are at least half a dozen retail chains that can step right into the market: Costco, Fred Meyer, Safeway, Albertson’s, QFC, Trader Joe’s, Thriftway, Cash & Carry.
And we’ll have new entrants: the liquor-only warehouses that you see in other states. Costco, by definition, doesn’t carry a full line of anything, with the possible exception of meat. What they don’t carry, someone else will.
The only reason we’re seeing so many of these comments opposing 1183 is because the Soviet stores are unionized, and the clerks are scared shitless about losing their overpaid jobs.
Oh, by the way, Wal-Mart carries liquor in other states. There’s no reason to believe they won’t carry it here, once I-1183 passes.
@21- I hadn’t heard Costco offering < 10% markup. But they don’t really represent the places where most of us will likely purchase liquor. Did Safeway, Albertsons, QFC, Whole Foods etc. say they would be producing store brands or making a substandard markup? Will the small convenience stores in less urban areas be able to do the same?
I have worked in large and small private liquor stores in other states and can tell you that the larger specialty stores will only exist in larger cities, maybe 50k+ population. Otherwise, likely you’ll have pretty restricted selection in small outlets and groceries, probably much poorer than the state stores I’ve been in. I do believe currently you can special order through state stores, although there may be a minimum case order.
I have worked in large and small private liquor stores in other states and can tell you that the larger specialty stores will only exist in larger cities, maybe 50k+ population.
Have you noticed that The Stranger is published in Seattle? It’s a city, you dork. Oh, and there’s an exemption to the 10,000 square foot rule for smaller towns. And people in those towns often drive to the cities for all kinds of things anyway.
Oh, and one of the best liquor stores I’ve been to was a small joint just south of the CA-OR border, in the middle of nowhere along U.S. 101.
I do believe currently you can special order through state stores, although there may be a minimum case order.
That’s right, by the case. So if I want one bottle of 5-year-old Clynelish (at about $200 per), you’d require me to buy a dozen? How Soviet of you.
Something else: In most cases, I never even knew the specialty stuff existed until I saw it on the shelf. Everything I mentioned in #18 was bought because I saw it in a store, not because I was aware it existed.
Even if I wanted to buy it by the case, I wouldn’t have known about it. It’s outrageous that we’re somehow supposed to be required to do this in WA State because a bunch of Soviet liquor store clerks are afraid they’ll be out on the street.
Here’s an idea: Instead of closing the state stores, let’s require that bicycles and spandex be available only through the state. We already have a distribution network.
@1, the mistake is being corrected!
Mr G – you sound like a youngster who never made it to high school: your inability to get your points across without swearing or calling liquor store clerks names tells me a lot about you. You have said nothing that matters because you are (obviously) screaming and ranting as you write each word and contribute nothing to your side that I would want to listen to. I think you must be the father of the “ME” world in which you care about nothing or anyone as long as you are happy. Sad… GJ
There’s no good reason for the State to be in this or anyother business. Thats what private enterprise is for. Monoplies charge more because they can. Monopolies offer less choices because they can.
The opposition to I-1183, likes to argue youth drinking. That has to be one of the most disingenuous arguments. Is WA state so dysfunctional that they can police their own laws? Where do minors currently get liquor, OR?
The distributors have it easy and would much rather operate like the rest of businesses in the US and partner with fascist or communist governments, that makes it much easier on their paperwork and they have a captive audience and will not have to negotiate or prices.
I’m not sure of the motives from the distillers but it probably the same as the distributors.
And well labor, we all know it’s about benefits.
There is “NO” beneficial function for this state or any to “operate” any stores of any kind, regulate all you want.
How many transplants have woken late of an Sunday, only to be reminded that the “state” liquor store closes at 5pm! Really!!!
#30, you wouldn’t have wanted to listen anyway. Which Soviet liquor store do you work in, anyway?
I still don’t get why there can’t be a compromise in this matter. I mean … more choice is always good …
Has anyone figured out yet what this would do to bourbon and whiskey variety? Right now we get a pretty good selection of whiskies and bourbons, and I can’t imagine Costco filling its shelves with Talisker or Caol Ila or Blantons or Pappy Winkle. What I expect/worry about is getting rows and rows of Crown Royal or Cutty Sark, or worse. Which is fine if thats what you want, but I dont see a lot of variety in Costco for wine or for beer now, I doubt they’d carry much variety in whiskies or bourbons. Til someone can clear this point up I’m gonna have to say NO.
Souldnt the Comparing Cost graph numbers came from an independants research not the states, there making money so of coarse they’ll say its bad
Shouldnt the comparing cost graph have been done by an independant source not the states, there making money off this so its no doubt they would say passing this would be bad
#35, you’re just propagandizing. You’re probably a state liquor store employee. In case I am wrong, here goes:
Costco has put a lot of money on the “yes” side, but they are only one of a bunch of retailers that will be ready to enter the market. The idea that they’ll be any kind of monopoly is sheer bullshit.
QFC, Albertson’s, Safeway, Cash & Carry, Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, Trader Joe’s, and Thriftway have many stores that meet the requirements of the new law. New chains will be able to enter, too. That’s how things work in most other states.
I’ve never seen Pappy’s in a WA State store. Caol Ila? Not the ones I prefer. I get them either in CA or from friends who ship it in from the Midwest for me. Talisker? Just try finding a bottle of the 25-year-old in a WA State store.
Those of us who like the specialty booze simply cannot find it in Washington’s Soviet-style liquor stores. Those stores have a monopoly, and monopolies are always about raising price and reducing quantity.
It’ll be interesting to see what Costco winds up doing. I know that I’ve bought some great wines there from time to time. Maybe they’ll wind up carrying some more obscure whiskies. If not, then I’ve got no doubt that we’ll soon see a big liquor chain come in here and do it.
@38
I don’t work for the state. I am a fan of whiskey. You didnt answer my question, punk.
What happens to high and medium end whiskey and bourbon selection if you remove the state, who does try to carry a large variety, and turn it over to big box 10,000 distributors, who will be all about the Monarch and Crown. Nothing wrong with those, but I can just imagine one long row in Costco labelled “Whiskey” . I don’t have to imagine it, its what they do in California.
On the other hand, California has laws that don’t ace out small liquor distributors. But ours will.
So unless you want to address my question, you can shut your useless hole.
// not a state employee.
@38 you keep saying “soviet-style.” Did you live in the Soviet Union? Were you able to experience shortages under it? Or are you just practicing internet forum tough guy language without fact or evidence. Hmm.
We don’t have shortages in Wa State, we have variety. I have yet to see anyone explain how letting 10,000 foot stores who cater to big-box volume is going to carry niche brands. Neither side’s addressed that yet.
#35/#39/#40, you must be working for the state. Or maybe you’re a p.r. operative, or a union steward. Why? Because you’re making statements that are absurd on their face.
For example, you say that Costco has one long row labeled “whisky” at its stores in California. If that’s even true, so what? Roughly once a year, I stock up on bourbon and Scotch in California. I get the brands and versions unavailable in our Soviet-style monopoly.
Costco is just one player there, just as they’ll be here. What matters is that, in states where there isn’t a state-run monopoly, you have much better selection and lower prices. You can keep on lying your ass off to the contrary, but anyone who goes anywhere else knows this to be true.
You act like 10,000 square feet is huge. It’s not. A typical Costco is upwards of 50,000 square feet. There are Wal-Marts that run well over 100,000 square feet. A big Bartell’s or Walgreens meets the 10,000 square foot threshhold. It’s just not that big.
In CA, I’ve usually gotten the specialty stuff in smaller, liquor-only stores just over the Oregon border on U.S. 101. They carry whiskies that aren’t available in Oregon’s Soviet-style liquor monopoly.
When I go to the Midwest, one place I’ll go is Binny’s, a chain of big (more than 10,000 square feet) liquor stores in and near Chicago. Lots of specialty stuff at Binny’s. It’s ridiculous to have to do this. And there are some places (I won’t name them, in case of the state is looking in here) that are willing to ship to Seattle.
Oh, and guess what? I’ve been to the Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union. Their retailers didn’t care, because they didn’t have to. Just like WA’s state liquor monopoly, which charges much more than they should, and carries much less than the should. When there’s no competition, there’s not much reason to give a shit.
Incidentally, I don’t support the 10,000 square foot requirement. I hope that will be changed in a future version of the law. After two years, the legislature could do that.
Interestingly enough, though, the same people who have their panties in a twist about the 10,000 foot rule turn right around and attack the small-town exemption to that rule. They are falsely portraying it as opening the floodgates to (horror!) unrestricted alcohol sales.
In fact, in small towns, there are already special provisions that allow for small stores. In Eastern Oregon, where I routinely travel, their Soviet monopoly allows limited (and very low selection, I might add) sales through private sellers in small towns.
These operations have the look and feel of the state stores. Without knowing the details in Oregon, I suspect that they are required to source through the state, hence the bad selection and high prices down there, just like here.
Why the fuck would anybody care about this issue? I can guzzle wine and beer purchased by the truckloads from grocery stores to my hearts content but not buy hard alcohol there? California, the shining beacon of all things liberal and right in the world, allows the sale of spirits in their grocery stores and the earth hasn’t stopped spinning.
Ooooohhhh, the evil corporations want to make MORE money and we are sooooo against that, unless uh, it’s Apple! Then it’s okay! As a kid I had ZERO problem getting any kind of alcohol I wanted – hard or soft, not to mention coke, weed, and plenty of acid. And that was in the red half of this oh so precious state. Why the FUCK should the STATE control the sale of alcohol? Should the state then be the only entity allowed to sell tobacco? Fireworks? Gardening tools? *meh, total horseshit.* On a side note, how come nobody has ever been able to sue WA State on behalf of say, parents of people killed by drunk drivers, or people who have died of Cirrhosis of the Liver?
And last, I’ll support the continued State monopoly of selling this pisswater poison when they legalize the sale of weed in their fucked up, run down, state stores.
Anybody who has traveled widely in the US knows that as Washington residents we have a limited supply and some of the highest prices in the country. State liquor stores are few and far between – many neighborhoods don’t even have a liquor store. Breaking the state liquor monopoly can only be good – and I am quite sure that prices will go down, not up. The liquor superstores will move in quickly and both prices and selection will inevitably improve.
The State has no business in the retail chain.
Yes, the State should tax and regulate liquor sales, and 1183 doesn’t change that … in fact it has a slightly positive effect in that regard.
As a consumer that has to deal with the State employees in the liquor store … I say fire ’em. They clearly aren’t customer friendly and oblivious to any requirement to be efficient.
As a consumer, give me a choice on where I purchase my liquor.
As for the State of WA – go work on infrastructure and helping those who need the help, especially the disabled community. Quit cutting their funding for assistance!!!!!
Wow, Mister G, calm down. You are a one man assault on State liquor and Occupation Seattle. I think that employees worrying about losing their living waged, union job, is a fine reason to not want liquor to be privatized and sold at Costco and Wal-Mart.
I think that employees worrying about losing their living waged, union job, is a fine reason to not want liquor to be privatized and sold at Costco and Wal-Mart.
It would be better if they’d just admit that, rather than tell all the other lies. But I’d point out to you that Albertson’s, QFC, Safeway, and (I think) Fred Meyer are unionized, and that Costco pays union-level wages.
MarieEliza, do you even drink booze?
@9: Wow, that’s quite an odd straw man you’ve constructed. No, I wouldn’t support such an initiative, because restricting birth control is not a cause I support. Ending the state monopoly on liquor sales is. I voted for the other two initiatives, too.
Don’t get me wrong; as a liberal I believe there are things that the government does better than the private market. I just see no reason to believe that selling liquor is one of those things.
Mister G, please lower your reliance on the word Soviet. Using one word that many times in so few posts indicates you need a thesaurus. You can intersperse your diatribes with North Korean, Cuban, Venezuelan or even commie, communist, red army, Marxist, Stalin, Castro, Chaves, etc. For example, next time say something like; “I hate the People’s Republic of Seattle liquor store. Every time I walk into one I’m afraid of people pointing and scream bourgeoisie.” As for your actual point I got my 25 year Talisker, 15 year RedBreast, and Writer’s Tears whiskey online without much difficulty. For the vast majority of my purchases I just go to the south Seattle Liquor store. They are super nice, know me by name, the workers are paid a living wage (which you’ll see as Soviet), kids don’t ever sneak in and grab something like they do at grocery stores, and there is always some new whisky I haven’t tried. Until I’m given actual evidence that the price of booze will be substantially lower I’m not too jazzed about the privatization. Also based on your past responses I can guess you’ll accuse me of being a Liquor store employee. I’m not.
I tink we ned mor lickher plases. I’v been drincin sicen I was twelf and I don see kno prahbloms.