Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

LIQUOR: Voters deceived themselves

Letter by James E. Ewalt, Gig Harbor on June 1, 2012 at 9:47 am with 11 Comments »
June 1, 2012 10:17 am

Re: “State voters were hoodwinked” (letter, 6-1).

I am amused that some feel they were taken advantage of by Washington state. They now have buyer’s remorse because all they heard was “take the state out of the liquor business” and looked, read or heard nothing further.

They took no notice of or dismissed entirely all the articles stating that taxes would remain the same or increase to compensate for the loss of revenue, ignored the additional percentage for “increased enforcement” of liquor laws and assumed that an initiative written by and for large retailers would somehow benefit the consumer!

Well, it’s June, and the state is indeed out of the liquor business. Its new job is “increased enforcement” which, despite the added money, it cannot afford to do given that liquor is sold everywhere all the time. How long before small outlets sue for equal access to sales?

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back. Maybe next time we will look a little further than the simple-minded claims we hear in the ads. But I doubt it.

Leave a comment Comments → 11
  1. Good letter, thank you. I don’t drink anymore but have been told that the price of liquor has gone way up. Leave it to our dead beat politicians to screw us over yet again.

  2. The politicians has nothing to do with the Initiative.

    Why are voters so ignorant?

  3. Theefrinker says:

    There is no need for increased enforcement. But it will surely be hyped up so as to create more unnecessary jobs; and to justify adding more taxes to liquor.

  4. itwasntmethistime says:

    The politicians were AGAINST this initiative. They have other problems to worry about than modifying a system that was working just fine as-is.

  5. Fibonacci says:

    Just how did the politicians “screw us over again”? It was the VOTERS that passed this initiative, not the politicians. It was the voters that wanted the state out of the liquor business that screwed us over.

    Well, since hard liquor will now be sold all over the place, it WILL be easier to get and WILL need more enforcement.

  6. Fibonacci – don’t expect a conservative to accept responsibility.

  7. Theefrinker says:

    Enforcement for what? That’s my point. People can buy beer everywhere as it is, so what’s the difference?

  8. itwasntmethistime says:

    The difference is that hard alcohol is a lot more toxic than beer. Idiot kids (glad I lived through this) chug beer and throw up. They chug liquor and die from alcohol poisoning.

  9. it — so u wanna reinstate prohibition then?

  10. Theefrinker says:

    if they die from alcohol poisoning, then the gene pool gets a little cleaner; sounds like win-win to me.

  11. Odd, but i don’t remember any of the pro-private literature saying the costs would go up.

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