Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Get Washington out of liquor business

Letter by Dan Carnrite, University Place on Oct. 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm with 19 Comments »
October 19, 2010 2:27 pm

Local control is the primary reason Washington citizens should support I-1100 and get the state out of the liquor business and out of my community. Currently, Washington puts a store where it wants, typically in areas with less community clout than more affluent neighborhoods.

If liquor is sold in local stores, your local city council will have the final annual approval authority to say yes or no to approve a license. Further, if citizens find certain stores offensive due to theft, underage sales, or just can’t manage the sale of alcoholic beverages, it’s your local city council that will feel the citizen heat and the authority to say no to renewing that license in that store. If enough citizens tell the city council they don’t want a license renewed, the community now has local control over when and where liquor sales take place, not the state.

I-1100 should be considered a tool to finally allow local control, not state control, over the liquor business. Our Governor has actually spread, not controlled the sale of liquor outlets, so the state can no longer justify the State Liquor Board hiding under the guise of controlling the spread of alcohol.
It’s time to vote yes on I-1100 for local control of liquor sales and get the state out of our communities on this matter.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 19
  1. Dan you obviously haven’t read the initiative.

    Section 1 states the following: ” The state will license the sale of distilled spirits to strictly regulated vendors who are already proven to be responsible sellers of beer and wine.”

    The city or county council doesn’t have any control over licensing.

    I’m voting no on both initiatives. Selling more booze is going to cost me the taxpayer more in social services.

  2. UnbiasedReporter says:

    “I’m voting no on both initiatives. Selling more booze is going to cost me the taxpayer more in social services.”

    The fact that most alcohol related offenses, especially among under-age drinkers, can be contributed to beer and wine (which can be bought in almost any store). I say that beer and wine both only be allowed to be sold in the same state run liquor stores that provide distilled spirits to cut down on spending on social services.

  3. TheOutlawJoseyWhales says:

    All the kickbacks, all the graft, all the corruption will come to an end on November 2nd. The liquor monopoly is nothing but a gigantic racket, and a whole lot of WLCB personnel need to be investigated, and if found guilty, imprisoned for a long, long time. I’m sick and tired of being told when and where I can drink a beer, and who I can or cannot buy one from. It must end.

  4. TheOutlawJoseyWhales says:

    Fatuous and Unbiased Reporter:
    You two are on the take, aren’t you? I’ll bet you both work for the liquor control board.

  5. OldLefty says:

    I used to worry about when and where I could drink.

    Then I quit.

  6. The only problem I see by the state getting out of the liquor business is that this will remove the state’s Democrats their only excuse for spending like drunken sailors.

    Now they will be overspending like Democrats.

    Time will tell which is worse.

  7. On a serious note – I seem to remember that is was the plan of the legislature to start opening state run liquor stores on Sundays in order to increase sales.

    It is a little inconsistent to want to keep retailers from selling liquor while at the same time expanding the days state run liquor stores open.

  8. Nice one Lefty!

  9. Yes BSR, if it was “for the children” the state stores would not have opened up on Sundays. It is all about the union jobs for the state store employees. I don’t wish anyone to lose their job over an initiative, but it is time to move on from the 30’s.

  10. JoseyWhales — nobody is telling you when or where you can buy a beer. You can buy a beer between 6 am and 2 am 7 days a week on practically every street corner. This initiative is about hard liquor, not beer.

    Unbiased — the fact that most kids get drunk on beer and wine (because it’s easier to get) is the biggest reason I’m voting no on both initiatives. Kids don’t know when to say when. I’m sure you’ll all nail me with exceptions, but I’ll maintain that it’s a lot harder to drink a lethal amount of beer than hard alcohol. If it becomes easier for kids to get their hands on liquor we’re going to see a lot more dead or brain-damaged kids.

  11. the3rdpigshouse says:

    The State has no business in the retail market for any reason – let the marketplace control liquor just like any other legal product!!

  12. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Remember – do not vote Yes on both initiatives or the issue will end up in the courts and State control will not end!! Vote Yes on I-1100 only!!

  13. 3rdpig — but this isn’t like any other legal product. Hard liquor is HIGHLY toxic. One bottle can actually kill someone. I realize paint thinner and household cleaners will do the same thing, but they aren’t marketed to be ingested so they rarely are, except by accident or suicide.

  14. commoncents says:

    To me it’s pretty simple: everything over and above the actual cost of the liquor to the state is a user tax. All of the liquor store employees are simply taxing agents of the state. Now, do I have a problem paying this tax? No, because I can avoid it. I can avoid it through abstaining or purchasing from other states when I travel. When I am in immediate need of a new bottle of something then I simply run down to the liquor store and buy it and chalk the added expense up to paying extra based upon time requirements. Not much different than when I charge my clients extra when they request immediate attention to something that doesn’t really need immediate attention. I let them know that there will be an extra charge and let them decide if they want to pay it or if they are willing to wait and pay my normal fee. Pretty much what the liquor stores do….

  15. RightWinger says:

    OldLefty says:
    October 19, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    I used to worry about when and where I could drink.

    Then I quit.

    I take it your mom found out or did she get tired of holding your hand?

  16. Um, it is not like this is the first state to ever propose this. It is already being done elsewhere. I am pretty sure the kids in the other states are not all brain dead, or drunk on the street every day.

  17. RollOn — good point. I may be overreacting.

  18. I wasn’t trying to dismiss your concerns. I just wanted to point out that this isn’t new territory. I don’t want kid’s to have an easier access to alcohol either. We just have to rely on the business to follow the law.

  19. But they won’t. And that’s just one of the things that makes this a complicated issue, not just a simple black or white, yes or no decision.

    In general, I’m against government control over personal choices. Leave me alone and let me ride my bike without a helmet if I choose to do so. Semaj Booker breaks every law ever written with no penalty whatsoever, but I can’t even walk my dog without a leash.

    So I pretty much think if some idiot wants to drink himself to death it’s his right to do so. Thinning of the herd, if you will. HOWEVER, when people do that type of thing it hits the rest of us in the wallet. Can anybody even figure out how much money we spend (waste) putting lives back together after people make stupid choices? Dumb girl ignores all warnings and gets together with jerk guy and we have to pay through the nose for her stay at the domestic violence shelter. DARE graduate gets busted manufacturing meth and we have to pay for his trip through drug court. State-funded programs to help gambling addicts. There was a homeless guy downtown that they figure consumed nearly $1 million in TPD and TFD resources over however many years.

    I’m sick of paying for others’ crappy choices. As far as I’m concerned, making it cheaper and easier to buy hard liquor is just going to cost us a bunch of money.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0