Re: “Get state out of liquor sales” (editorial, 10-18).

As a college student just entering my 21st year on earth, there is a general assumption that I fall directly into the voter demographic that would be in favor of initiatives like 1100 and/or 1105. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

I believe that products such as hard liquor should be sold and taxed by our state government. In addition to the valid concerns of possible increases in alcohol-related driving accidents and underage consumption, I think it’s important to remember that alcohol is a drug, and should be treated as a recreational luxury, not a necessity.

We aren’t talking about a government monopoly on bread and butter here; consumers don’t need liquor, they want it. And, just like other products hazardous to our health, restricted distribution and steeper prices for alcohol could serve as mechanisms to help prevent both personal and societal damages caused by frequent and long-term use.

High taxes and slight inconvenience is a fair price to pay if it provides income for our state and a safer environment for our citizens.