Protect Our Communities—the campaign to reject Initiatives 1100 and 1105, both of which would end the state’s monopoly on liquor sales—is running a TV commercial in nearly constant rotation these days. It depicts a bunch of kids—young teenagers—attempting to buy liquor and getting away with it because, hey, private convenience stores would be less diligent about checking IDs than the state-run stores we have now.
So we glean that Protect Our Communities is against underage drinking. If we reject the measures, kids couldn’t buy alcohol at grocery stores or gas stations—and they just want to protect the children, right?
No.
The Protect Our Communities campaign isn’t opposed to the availability of alcohol at private stores. The latest records from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission reveal that the campaign is bankrolled overwhelmingly by the national beer lobby, which already sells its product at those private stores. Since October 1, the Beer Institute and the National Beer Wholesalers Association have kicked in $2.4 million each to defeat privatization of hard-alcohol sales. More than a dozen beer distributors also pitched in to the $8.8 million campaign.
These guys are trying to reduce the sale of alcohol? Please. These are the leading alcohol pushers in the country. The Beer Institute’s officers are the presidents and CEOs of Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, Crown Imports, and Heineken USA. The National Beer Wholesalers Association, the other big donor, is made up of the distributors for the same big beer companies. For example, the group’s chair is Larry Del Papa, president and CEO of Del Papa Distributing, the national distributor for Budweiser. And Budweiser itself chipped in $10,000.
Not surprisingly, the campaign is silent on private stores selling the accidental bottle of alcohol to minors—as long as it’s their product (beer) and not someone else’s product (liquor). The claim that allowing stores to sell liquor will create a crisis is partly true—but only a crisis for them.
In more candid moments, the campaign concedes this is about controlling the market. Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for Protect Our Communities, says that brewers are “threatened by these initiatives. The craft brewers oppose I-1100, especially. They see themselves pushed off the shelves.”
But look at the stacks of money involved. This isn’t about craft brewers, and this isn’t about protecting communities. This is about protecting the profits of massive corporations. Anheuser-Busch controls a 48.9 percent share of U.S. beer sales to retailers, according to its own website, and reports show the company made $4.6 billion in profits last year.
“We are a coalition of Washington individuals and organizations that choose to stand up to big business,” says the Protect Our Communities website, referring to Costco and Safeway, which want to sell liquor. Bullshit. The beer lobby represents a massive national business. But in their stead, they send out Heather McClung of the Washington Brewers Guild to claim liquor privatization is a “power grab by some very large corporations.”
So back to the disingenuous commercial about the teens buying booze. I’m not here to defend underage drinking (even though almost everyone’s had a drink underage, including the folks working on the campaign, which they admitted at a forum on October 19). But here’s what needs to be said about the noncompliance of private stores: The actual minors getting away with buying alcohol—beer, wine, hard liquor—aren’t toddlers drinking Jack Daniel’s. They’re not the children in the ad. They’re passing for 21 or over. They are overwhelmingly adults in their late teens and 20 years old. Not kids. Besides, California (which sells liquor in the way that Initiative I-1100 proposes) has an underage drinking rate of 26.3 percent of teenagers, far below Washington’s 31.3 percent rate, according to a federal survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. California’s binge-drinking rates are also much lower.
So this isn’t about protecting kids. It’s about protecting profits. And there’s no reason to vote to keep Budweiser in charge of what’s in your grocery store.
Why should you vote for I-1100? It gets the state out of a business it does poorly and shouldn’t have been in to begin with. The state frequently runs out of products, the stores are scarce and austere, they’re closed more often than they’re open, the selection is terrible, the state charges a 51 percent markup for a bloated system, and it’s been this way since Prohibition. The state legislature has considered reform for the past 13 years—each time capitulating to an employees union that told them to keep the same broken system (a union that makes money from that broken system). Granted, I-1100 isn’t perfect; state and local governments could lose some money in the short term (tiny fractions of their overall budgets). But if you ever want liquor laws to change, don’t wait for the beer lobby or a spineless legislature—because that will never happen. Vote yes on I-1100. 
Washington Bus are a bunch of half-witted embeciles.
a Yes to 1100 means that all new license fees can only be used for “the administration and enforcement of liquor licenses and reducing underage or abusive consumption.”
so what does this actually mean in terms of who pockets the money created by 1100? what is the selection process by which the State will choose to create new administration and enforcement?
…but I’m sure we all love more bureaucracy and enforcement on ancient liquor laws (god forbid someone under 21 would ever drink!! look at how that’s ruined other countries who allow it!!)
While the current monopolistic liquor distribution may not be the best situation, does 1100 really head Washington in the right direction? why isn’t our press focusing on the where the add’l licensing money would be going if it gets passed?
This is about the only issue I voted differently than the Stranger voter guide.
I am all for ending the state monopoly on liquor sales, but this bill reduces state revenue at a very critical time, so I have to vote against it.
I think I understand the arguments for Yes on 1100 (more places to buy booze, gets the State out of controlling liquor which shouldn’t be their job)… which I agree with. what I don’t agree with is how the State intends to re-direct the money away from the State’s General Fund (which is badly needed for existing programs), and into building a huge, new liquor enforcement brigade, which hasn’t been talked about in the media at all.
I agree with some of the tenants around 1100, but don’t think it’s taking us where most of us really want to be. I see 1100 as a simple battle between beer-makers and liquor-makers…glossed over by the media as liquor “reform”, and alleviated to most via the dedication of new funding to liquor enforcement (again, out of the General Fund).
Anyone manipulated to see this otherwise is fooling themselves.
I plan to vote NO on BOTH 1100 and 1105
@walkman So let me get this straight: you’re against 1100 because it will lead to MORE enforcement and make our state safer? That’s a new one. Please spread that argument around as much as possible.
The Stranger’s story hits the nail right on the head: I-1100 takes our state’s liquor system out of the dark ages and brings it in line with the 32 other states that have privatized. There are certainly corporate interests on both sides, but I-1100 is going to be great for consumers, who are ultimately the smallest, least powerful party in this whole issue.
YES on 1100, and NO on 1105.
The backers of I 1100 are BIG BUSINESS ie Costco, Safeway and Kroger (Fred Meyer/QFC) This is a bad piece of legistlation that hurts small businesses. If the State looses this revenue they will make it up in TAXES. Closing the state liquor stores will probably happen but please not this way.
Every argument except 23wen is all about how the state will lose money with I-1100. I-1100 keeps the liquor tax. There will be sales tax. There will be gobs of money made from companies selling liquor, such as Costco and Safeway…..Plus, not a one of you against even addressed the involvement of Anheuser Busch and company. They’re only concern is that underage drinking is done with beer.
Keeping a completely ridiculous, inempt, inefficient system in place in the name of protecting tax revenue and the status quo is amazing. Those against say “no, no, we can’t do this, the sky will fall. Let the legislature fix it.” Newsflash: They are never, never going to fix it. The liquor board, beer companies, distributors, and their unions will see to that.
Let’s be done with this idiotic system. Vote yes on I-1100.
what 1100 does is take money from the State’s General Fund (which supports ridiculous things like child welfare, adoption support, support for our elderly + people with developmental disabilities, schools, transportation, natural resources)…and moves that money into a dedicated fund for alcohol enforcement, particularly underage drinking. money doesn’t magically disappear or get created, it MOVES from IMPORTANT things our State needs, to stupid things it does not.
so yes, 23wen, I am against it because it will make “our state safer” at the expense of so many crucial funding needs. is anyone talking about HOW our state will magically become safer? …so someone in Olympia shells out $$ to their friends who will “enforce” underage drinking and we magically fix everything we could ever desire?
NO i do not think putting more enforcement on underage drinking will necessarily make our state safer. look at many european countries that don’t strictly observe/enforce underage drinking… many of those countries actually have much less alcohol abuse problems, domestic abuse problems, and have enjoy a much higher level of public safety.
why are we creating a fund to fine 20-year-olds drinking a beer? by taking the money previously devoted to supporting our State’s people in most need??
yes I don’t like big corporate sponsorships on ANY campaigns, but that’s not a good enough reason in and of itself to vote a certain way- apparently it is for The Stranger, esp since everyone on The Stranger’s staff remains so quiet here….
1100 is not a good direction for Washington.
This is about protecting funds K-12 schools, all day kindergarten, health care for low-income children, health care for seniors and people with disabilities, hospice care for people with cancer and AIDS, cops and firefighters and the people who answer the phone when you call 911.
Whoever votes for 1100 is taking money directly from those city and state services and handing it over to massive corporations. We the people, the owners of those state liquor stores, get nothing out of the deal – no profits from the sale, no money for essential services – all we get is the right to pay big corporations more often for the same liquor that we already have no problem getting.
VOTE NO ON 1100. It’s a bad deal.
You guys are ridiculous!!
What do you think the state is doing with the money NOW?
But getting Alcohol away from the State will increase the profits at least 3 fold
quit whining and bitching, you act like you know what you are talking about…
VOTE YES ON I-1100 and NO on I-1105
@11
the state is paying for education
the state is paying for child welfare / adoption
the state is paying for support for the elderly
the state is paying for programs for people with disabilities
the state is paying for transportation
and a ton of other things that you don’t see or necessarily gain a personal benefit from…
I completely agree that Washington may not do many of these things “well” but that’s not a good reason to divest from important investments and create another bureaucratic enforcement agency that will likely end up fining 20 year olds who want to drink a beer.
this is more of a “trickle-down effect” that in the long-term will impact our State’s ability to provide basic needs -vs- enforcing archaic liquor laws + creating even more bureaucracy.
the state’s idea of selling booze is as retarded as it can get. I recently moved to another state that had another idea instead. the moved all the booze out of the stores all together , then they made it so you go to the bar/liquor store (which has drive up windows!) and buy yer booze there. if your an alchy you can get a half gallon and and a case of beer at the drive up window at 2 am. woot!no need to worry about kid’s getting booze of any kind that way by accident , everyone shows i.d no matter what age. so maybe that idea would work , texas took it a little further they have drive up booths were you can buy mixed drinks or expresso’s ! I don’t really favor that idea too much. A drunken red neck in a 4 ton truck drinking frozen margaritas doin 95 down the interstate just seem’s a little much. point being if they are all removed from the store shelves to the bar they playing field really is level and both lobby’s have nothing to complain about.
someone commented nicely under the stranger’s endorsement article:
If it’s so inconvenient for you to get a bottle of vodka at a state run store, stop drinking in your basement and go to your neighborhood bar. 😉
I agree that there will likely be a negative impact to our local bar businesses’ receipts with the passage of 1100. bar owners who support this are only thinking about reducing their costs, not considering the long-term vibrancy of our nightlife.
The French student was 100% right- while he was the Stranger’s guest ‘ombudsman’ commentator, he wrote that anyone in France would be shocked and insulted at demands to “show ID” in a bar, that no one in France makes such demands because they would scare customers away…the Washington liquor control system looks ridiculous, anachronistic and antidemocratic to most of the rest of the world.
Get rid of this “Liquor Nazi” regime that makes this supposed ‘Progressive’ state look like a backwards Puritan backwater. Dump the “Show Us Your Papers” system that treats 30 yr olds like idiot children, and nannies everyone’s alcohol purchasing to an autocratic degree.
It only takes a cursory examination of comparative stats from California to show that this WA Prohibition system is utterly pointless and should be scrapped.
Moreover, the state Liquor board has continually abused its excessive powers in a discriminatory way, to suppress simple social gatherings at places like music venues that the government nannies consider ‘undesirable’.
This has historically gone way beyond pulling liquor licences from clubs and bars with a pattern of criminal activity. Case in point- Seattle’s former wannabe ‘Tsar Sidran’ and the “Teen dance Ordinance” that nearly destroyed the music scene in the middle of its grunge-era renaissance of the ’90s. Only years of sustained resistance through efforts by groups like JAMPAC finally blunted the repression.
The Liquor Board and its agents have been used as a ‘Revenuer’ force for political intimidation that J. Edgar Hoover would have approved of- domestic spying, blacklisting, dirty tricks and all…