Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

LIQUOR: Do you want cheese with that whine?

Letter by Evelyn Irene Walker, Olalla on June 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm with 32 Comments »
June 13, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: higher liquor prices.

I have a solution to the problem. Don’t drink! Think of how much more money you will now be able to save, not to mention work on your problem as to why you drink.

I suggest the cheese of choice would be AA.

Leave a comment Comments → 32
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Another childish tweet published by TNT.

    Evelyn, I drink to tolerate people like you.

  2. surething says:

    Not everyone that enjoys an occasional drink has a problem. get over it.

  3. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    Alcohol is a luxury item. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t have to have it. And if you have to have it, then you have a problem.

  4. the need to anesthetize oneself to tolerate anyone or anything is a sign of problems

  5. Ortingmom says:

    Evelyn, go have a drink and relax :)

  6. Frankenchrist says:

    Evelyn, you couldn’t handle your booze; don’t assume others can’t.

  7. Theefrinker says:

    Mmmmm…. drinks. Mmmmmm… cheese.

  8. Possibly Evelyn was relaxing with an iced tea when composing her letter.

    I’ve heard that “misery loves company” and that a “fool and his money are soon parted”.

    Both can be applied to those who protest the price of liquor and still find it necessary to purchase.

  9. charliebucket says:

    well said pimp and nice guy.

    sidenote: I often wonder if some ‘neoconservatives’ recognize how much their thinking resembles that of alcoholics and those involved with alcoholics. I mean this sincerely. There are classic traits present in all alcoholic ‘systems’ and I see those same traits in many conservatives. (perhaps when I have more time I will list them, complete with comparisons)

  10. Tuffgal74 says:

    Please, enlighten me!

  11. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Hitler was a teetotaler. Look how well that worked out for the world.

    FC, nice to see a common bond.

    Apimp- so anything deemed luxury should be taxed heavily? Why? Ok, any beverage besides water is a luxury. Any form of transportation above walking is a luxury.

    What a perverted, jealous stance. By the way, this tax hammers the poor who want to celebrate every now and then. Nice call, tax the poor! Typical lib backfire.

  12. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    First of all, I’m not a liberal.

    Second, the Hitler comment is a non-starter.

    I never said that anything deemed luxury should be taxed heavily. I just said that alcohol is a luxury item — that means that you are not entitled to it, or even a low price for it. If people are willing to pay a high price for any item, it should be priced high.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think the exorbitant taxes that are applied to liquor in Washington are ridiculous. But if the market can bear a high price for liquor, liquor prices will (and should) remain high.

    My point in stating that alcohol is a luxury item was that no one needs it to survive. No one needs it to fuel their vehicles, warm their homes, power their appliances, or clothe themselves. It is — as you point out — something people use when they want to celebrate every now and then… or something they use to get through the day, forget their troubles, find courage, lower inhibitions, etc.

    Whatever… I don’t care why people drink. But if you’re “celebrating” every single day, you either have the most enviable life, or you have a problem. Doesn’t matter to me. As long as I don’t have to deal with you, feel free to live your life as a booze-besotten drunk. But don’t tell me that just because you have an addiction, or because you like a particular product that you don’t need to survive (much less live an otherwise totally fulfilling life), that that product should be priced so that you have easier access to it. Your demand for the product justifies it’s high price.

    I like Kobe beef. Problem is, it’s too expensive for me to eat every day. I don’t need it to survive, and the beef I buy at Costco works just fine for most meals. But when I’m feeling celebratory, I might spend the money on some Kobe beef. I’m not complaining about the price — it’s good stuff, and well worth the price. I just can’t justify spending that much for my regular menu. That’s the definition of a luxury item. If my love of Kobe beef overruled my sensibility of buying groceries within my budget, I would say that I have a problem. The same goes for alcohol.

    That’s not jealousy; that’s honesty.

  13. Can’t celebrate without alcohol?

  14. bobcat1a says:

    Celebrating “every now and then” or having an “occasional drink” do not lead one to whining about the price. Just like those who whined about cigarette prices when they went from $2.00 to $2.50 and are still smoking at $8.00, the booze whiners couldn’t go 3 months without their fix. Problem detected.

  15. took14theteam says:

    Good for you ‘NiceGuy’ for taking it “one step” at a time.

  16. dbreneman says:

    Price isn’t the point of the law. The point of the law is to get the state out of the business of providing a service that the people are perfectly capable of providing for themselves.

  17. LeePHill says:

    I’ve noticed how the people are providing for themselves. Some are providing quite nicely with more profit than the state was making.

  18. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Apimp- the price of your Kobe is set by the seller, unlike the tax on booze.

    Niceguy- yes.

  19. alindasue says:

    The taxes on the booze may not be set by the seller, but as another letter writer pointed out, the post tax of the alcohol he was buying in California was less than the pretax price here. Those prices are set by the distributors and/or sellers.

    In regards to “…this tax hammers the poor who want to celebrate every now and then,” anybody who can afford to spend $30 for a bottle of whiskey to celebrate can probably afford the tax that accompanies it. Also, such celebrations occur rarely enough that the purchase is not going to bankrupt them. Besides, most celebrations I’ve seen have been with more expensive drinks like wine or champagne.

    In our house, we celebrate with a $3 bottle of Martinelli’s sparkling cider. I never could understand the need or desire to cloud one’s mind with alcohol just to “celebrate” or “have fun”.

  20. alindasue says:

    I meant to type “more INEXPENSIVE drinks like wine or champagne”.

  21. spotted1 says:

    If the cost of smokes is such an issue, why do people continue to buy them when they are so heavily taxed?

    We truly are hypocrites. Crying about taxes on one hand, and buying the stuff on the other and paying the taxes. Can’t hurt that bad.

  22. Do your vacationing in Tahoe – and drive down. Skiing in the winter, boating in the summer, and a case of half’s per trip – plus a couple for family and friends – problem solved.

  23. My, my….there are more than a few self-righteous tea-totalers out there.

    The whole concept of sin taxes (calling taxation of tobacco and alcohol a luxury tax is rather disingenuous) puts government in a rather conflicted position – they rationalize absurdly high taxes on these items as a disincentive to purchase them and yet, if people stopped purchasing them the state’s budget would go into crisis. The State doesn’t really want the high costs to prevent purchasing. Just like the State-run Lotto – this is a rather bizarre way for the State to behave when you look at it.

  24. commoncents says:

    ok, let’s get real here…the law was not about getting the state out of the liquor business or getting lower prices. The law is 100% about Costco getting a higher profit. Now the reasons that people voted for it might be the former reasons but if we were truly honest then we would agree that the initiative had zero chance of winning (heck, even getting to the ballot) without Costco. Costco knew that in order to get their piece of the pie that they had to toss a bone to those who did not want the state to lose their share via the tax. Who won here? Costco…everyone else just got manipulated. Some willingly and some unknowingly but still manipulated.

  25. planning a family vacation on the basis of purchasing and transporting alcohol illegally?

  26. Some poor congregation, somewhere, is missing a whole lot of their rummage sale staff…

  27. alindasue says:

    beerBoy said, “The State doesn’t really want the high costs to prevent purchasing. Just like the State-run Lotto – this is a rather bizarre way for the State to behave when you look at it.”

    On this you and I both agree.

  28. BlaineCGarver says:

    I bought a nice, new truck 17 years ago with the money I had when I gave up smoking and hard drinking….

  29. planning a family vacation on the basis of purchasing and transporting alcohol illegally?

    Try brushing up on the law before you make a fool of yourself again. It is perfectly legal for and adult to purchase liquor in Reno or Tahoe, and to transport it back to Washington state, so long as it’s not for sale at a profit.

    But go ahead, prove me wrong.

    And maybe you missed the part where I stated that we go there to ski and boat. Stocking up on alcohol while on is in a state where purchasing same is 50% cheaper would be a fortunate benefit of good vacation planning. It certainly is not our objective.


  30. You mean you don’t have to declare your purchases when you go through WA customs at the border?

  31. Ever seen Washington laws?


    I’ll be watching for the wiggles

  32. “When bringing alcoholic beverages into Washington State from inside the U.S., there is no markup and taxes on the first 2 liters of spirits, wine or the first 288 ounces of beer. Markup and taxes must be paid for amounts in excess of 2 liters of spirits, wine, or 288 ounces of beer.”

    Two liters doesn’t equate to “a case of half’s”

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