Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

I-1183: Privatization = piratization

Letter by William M Gleason, Tacoma on Oct. 31, 2011 at 2:52 pm with 8 Comments »
October 31, 2011 2:52 pm

Anyone who thinks corporate interests aren’t about money and not making something cheaper for the consumer doesn’t get it.

Costco looks like another example of piratization by spending $22 million on this election. Consumers will pay these costs and more in lost jobs.

Of higher concern is accessibility, theft by minors and adult ease of getting more liquor when they shouldn’t. That ease – causing one life being lost or one person maimed – is why I’m voting no on Initiative 1183.

More than 50 years ago when I was a minor, I got hard liquor any time I wanted it under the present system. So anyone who thinks more access is not going to elevate offenses, family destruction, death and maiming has another thought coming.

Privatization is only an excuse for greed. When it can take a life, the greed is at its worse. Inconvenience doesn’t kill. Washington voters need to stop the pirates (corporation) and protect lives and jobs by voting no on I-1183.

Leave a comment Comments → 8
  1. fatecreatr says:

    “More than 50 years ago when I was a minor, I got hard liquor any time I wanted it under the present system.”

    So you’re suggesting that we should keep the same system, which you have proven to be ineffective, in order to increase safety? At worst you’re looking a net nothing change in accessibility.

    Since that is obviously not a real issue, lets look at your other point, greed.

    Will Costco and Safeway gain if this passes? Yes, of course. Why else would they care? They want to carry a lucrative product line. Wouldn’t you?

    When we invalidate the safety component to your greed argument, you’re basically arguing that companies should not seek profit. How will they stay open, pay employees, collect taxes, and contribute to the economy if they are not profitable?

  2. More than 50 years ago when I was a minor, I got hard liquor any time I wanted it under the present system. So anyone who thinks more access is not going to elevate offenses, family destruction, death and maiming has another thought coming.

    Sorry….can’t follow your logic….perhaps I didn’t drink enough hard liquor as a minor to understand what you are thinking.

  3. alindasue says:

    “More than 50 years ago when I was a minor, I got hard liquor any time I wanted it under the present system.”

    When I was 17, I walked into a state liquor store and bought whiskey for the elderly lady I worked for. I had been in there with her before, but they didn’t even question it when I walked in alone to buy the whiskey for her.

    What does it prove? All it proves to me is that the state liquor stores are no better at not selling alcohol to minors than the local grocery store.

    So, like beerBoy, I find myself not able to follow your twists of logic. Obviously, if you could buy liquor at a state liquor store as a minor and I could buy liquor at a state liquor store as a minor, then concern about ease of buying liquor is not a real reason to vote against I-1183.

  4. blakeshouse says:

    Too much underage booze!!!!!! See what you turn out like kids if you drink before your legally able to.. That and the indoctrination camps passing themselves off as schools has ruined this state and to an extent the country. It is time to tell these idiots in no uncertain terms that this is not the Soviet Union, Cuba or Vensuella. We are not willing to let the greatest nation on earth become a socialist mecca like Europe.

  5. alindasue says:

    blakeshouse said, “We are not willing to let the greatest nation on earth become a socialist mecca like Europe.”

    If you dislike socialism so much, then why insist that liquor (or any product) be sold only in state run stores?

    By the way, I’m not a product of underage drinking. I don’t drink alcohol and never have. I said that I bought the whiskey for the elderly lady that I was working for at the time. I still to this day find it odd that they sold it too me without question. Selling alcohol to 17 year olds was just as illegal in 1981 as it is today.

  6. SounderSince74 says:

    State sanctioned private sales monopoly by a private distributor or true free market privatization is really the choice. If 1183 does not pass the state plans to sell rights to liquor sales to private distributor. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2014755660_bruce13.html

  7. “Piratization”….are you saying that Costco wants to bootleg alcohol or to hijack semis full of taxed/taxable product?

  8. daggercat says:

    I’m hoping William is referring to the piratization of our jobs. Basically trading our jobs for their profit. A lot of that profit won’t remain in this state, but the lost jobs will. Please don’t tell me I can move to another state…

*
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