MORE REASON TO VOTE YES on 1183 even though it shafts small businesses.

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/10/1832439/2-bidders-want-to-control-state.html

Robert Mack did an article on this, and the lies that have been aired concerning privatization of liquor sales. I don't drink, but I'm voting to remove the State from the equation. There will be no competition if the State retains control. The idea that every 7-11 and Mom and Pop store will have liquor is just flat wrong. Only a few will, and that is only if they are far enough away from other liquor sources.
Either way it's no skin off my nose, but I would think that anyone who thinks booze costs too much would vote for competive sales.

I was wondering who was really behind all of the ads we're being bombarded with that are against 1183. This article confirms what I already suspected.

Here is a column by Bruce Ramsey (I almost wrote Ray Ramsey) that talks about who is funding the for and against, and sheds some light on the facts.

Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times

Agreed, I think the State should be out of the liquor business; and the ads against 1183 are just plain annoying.

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN????

1 Beer equals 1 glass of wine or 1 shot of hard alcohol, so if these people were so concerned about kids gaining access to beer or wine, why are they not trying to ban the sale of beer in gas stations or other convenience stores?

Because it isn't about that...there only concern is price controls for distributors, not the consumer.

My

I am not troubled by the state liquor monopoly. Unlike the wingnut teabaggers and their Republican allies, I do not hate the state or federal government. But I am also not against private sales. For me the issue lies strickly with the laying off liquor store workers in this economy, thus adding to the unemploment roles, should this bill pass. If we had a booming economy I might actually be pursuaded to vote for this measue. But since that is not the case, I will once again be voting against.

Why would it? Costco is not going to hire more people simply because they're putting liquor on their shelves. They're not expanding the square footage of the store, they're merely substituting one product for another. They'll add liquor and reduce some other product's presence. Same with every other store.

The distribution centers will likely absorb the laid off government workers. The delivery drivers will simply make more stops each day on their routes.

Additional hires will be negligible.

Fixed it for ya.......

Sounds like Fred's got a problem with prior planning.

Shoulda picked it up after church on his way to work.

Gee...thanks.

Can't say I'd put it quite that way...especially since it doesn't happen to be true. But I'm used to the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh perception (ie, distortion) of liberal views and have learned to accept them as badge of honor.

The real plus will be being to buy that bottle on the way to fishing instead of on the way home. YEE HA!

A dozen Herring and a bottle of Makers Mark please.

Personally, I'd pick it up on the way to church to help me through the sermon.

I bet some of the cheaper stuff will put you closer to god.

I usually see Him before I finish the bottle.

One of the local beverage distributors has "No on 1183" stickers on all of their rigs.......things that make ya go "hmmmmmm"

Don't suppose that $5.00 increase in the cost of an annual Costco membership has anything to do with the fact Costco has spent multiple millions trying to pass two liquor initiatives...another thing that makes ya go "hmmmmmm". Kinda like when WA tribes spent millions to defeat the initiative that would have expanded non tribal gambling in this state. Every tribal casino I'm familiar with raised their food prices and cut back on their "reward" programs after that successful effort.

In December 2005 when the smoking ban went into effect it signalled the beginning of the end for a number of businesses, primarily non indian casinos. Two of my clients had these types of businesses, and over the next year things tanked for them regardless of what they tried. One closed early, and ended up sorta okay. The other, well, I will likely foreclose on his properties by the end of the year. Sad situation, and I can't fault the client for what happened.

Regulatory change can have a major impact on existing businesses. I am not a fan of the WLSCB stores, but I have worries about my beer and wine distributor clients and the effect this would have on them. Obviously they have some concerns as well. I'm not certain how the proposed initiative would change the distribution chain for beer & wine, but it will likely change, and profit margins will likely fall.

I bet I'm the only person in WA state that has never been in a Liquor store. I'm voting No.

Yeah but that's because they confiscated your ID long ago.

I've been opposed to the state liquor monopoly since before I was 21. I will always vote for any initiative to over-turn it. Then again, I would also legalize every and all drugs. I'm an uber-conservative, not the liberal so many of you think I am.

Sg

Does anyone remember the Liquor Cards? I remember seeing my Dad's when i was a kid, it was pink and had his name on it. What were those for?

That's funny...Pink Liquor cards. I remember that day well..A friend and I turned 21 within 3 days of each other so we went together to get the card that gave us State permission to drink I guess. We , of course , had a few years of practice before that day. I guess they must have thought a pink card was harder to forge for ID to buy booze. We used to drink at the LockSpot where the deadliest catch guys go now...we got in all the time at age 18. Without the pink card. I still have mine. I used to give it as ID when it should be obvious I was over 21.

This issue makes me all PO'd.

My ONE sticking point on 1183 is that small business gets completely fuct and huge corporations only get to sell booze.

On the other hand-- small businesses cant sell booze as it is, so what's the diff?

WSLCB needs to pay for it's lies and deception.

We need to finally end prohibition in WA.

Yeah but supposedly the last initiative failed because the mini marts would have been able to sell. Now the "no" ads falsly claim the same argument.

No Deal say Governor....


http://mynorthwest.com/11/571741/Liquor-distribution-remains-in-state-hands

Well now OFM says the plan does not work. Dumpster time for this little scheme.

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/#

All the more reason to vote for the initiative.

Lordy it's nice to see common sense filter thru the miasms of [censored]
surrounding 1183. OOOrah for private enterprise.

"buying elections" those whom are for the status quo are angry that their attempts to buy the election were out spent. It's one set of businesses versus another set.

KK,

I would agree with you that a majority of both legislation and initiatives are started by someone (corp/lobbyist) with an ulterior motive. Look at proposals to electrical code.

Do we really need to have WR/TR/GFCI exterior recepticals? Somebody in the electrical industry created a widget, then used a change in legislation to sell it. Marketing through regulation change.

I know that we are only switching one master for another on liquor sales, but I really detest the State controlling or orchestrating a monoploy when there is no need to do so. Gregoire has enabled or fostered unfair monopolies a number of times throughout her two terms. Time for it to stop.

I'd venture a guess that a lot of the people for the intiative could really care less where they get their booze from, and they are voting on it in the hopes that it will be cheaper. I'm pretty sure Costco will be able to deliver on that. Me, I'm voting on it because of the monopoly issue.

Costco is one company that stands to benefit, but a lot of other grocery retailers will as well. Remember who is backing the "no" campaign, the big liquor distributors. There are heavy hitters on both sides of the issue.

If you are talking about small stores that sector was already locked out. Supposedly opening up that sector was a reason the first initiative failed. My wife works for a liquor distributor, a state sponsored monopoly, so you'd think I'd look out for my own interests and vote against it. The vote absolutely changes the nature of things and will absolutely reduce the grossly over inflated price we pay. It's always been BS that there is a required markup that goes to the monopoly for simply warehousing and delivering. The state will still get it's cut. In fact the state will see more $. Distributors will still get a cut, although not nearly as much, because Costco et al are not allowed to sell to retailers. In other words Costco is not allowed to be a distributor like they are for cigarettes. So the smaller fry will still need to have a distributor. And there's always the non-alcohol distributor business that will remain. Maybe you shouldn't vote on this one?

If such an initiative was up for a vote, and if it looked like it was going to be a close vote, then you'd have the NO proponents spending like drunken sailors to make sure it didn't pass. Either way you have one side or the other buying an election. Pretty pathetic that this is where we are in politics, but it is the reality these days. It doesn't matter if it's a presidential race, governor, mayor, etc. Whoever spends the most wins.

"buying elections" wow I didn't know that there were any elections
thruout history that weren't bougnt. Lots of different kinds of coin
used in some of them.

I recognize what you are saying. The problem is that businesses will always lobby for legislation and initiatives. Unfortunately, seldom has a perfect piece of legislation been drafted that hasn't been done so in a way to benefit some business or industry. I would also like to see a more open market approach, but this is as good as it gets for now.

I would like to see an end to all corporate lobbying and see campaign finance limits imposed at all levels, but as a wise man once said, "Sh!t in one hand and wish in another, then tell me which one fills up first."

A perfect solution will allude us.

The legislature likes the liquor monopoly. When they can't pass a new tax increase they simply raise the price of liquor which doesn't have to comply with the rule on new taxes in the legislature.

When Marijauna becomes legal, where will we sell it? If the liquor stores are gone, will you be able to get your Buds and bud at the Safeway? If this passes it might hender those trying to decriminalize/legalize MJ. I suppose there are those who would prefer to see the black market remain in place. They should definently vote yes on 1183.

I intend to vote yes, but not for the above reason. I often drink all my bourbon on Saturday night. It would be great to be able to stagger over to the Safeway Sunday afternoon for another bottle.

Or when in Forks, only make one stop at the Ace/Thriftway. It always seems that the Forks PD could just sit in front/near the Liquor Store and pick off drunks like brats returning the Hatchery.

"When Marijauna becomes legal, where will we sell it?"
The pharmacy? I bet grocery stores would love that action. All in one stop. MJ, Liquor and munchies.