Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: I-1183


LIQUOR: Convenience worth the higher price

Now that private retail stores are selling liquor, people are squawking about the prices. There are those who say that if they had known that the price of booze (at least, their particular brand) was going to increase they would have voted against privatization.

Come on, folks; it was really never about the pricing for me (although oddly enough, my favorite brand decreased), it has always been about the ability to buy liquor without having to drive several miles and play “beat the clock” with the state-controlled stores.

So you have to pay a few bucks more. At least now

Read more »


LETTERS: Writers get it right and wrong

The writer who complained about “the tyranny of a tax-happy government” (letter, 6-6) should remember that those taxes that the rich don’t pay and the corporations don’t pay are ones the rest of us have to pay.

If you want police, firefighters and good roads, taxes have to be paid. If the rich get richer and don’t pay their fair share of taxes and the corporations get tax breaks or take their profits off-shore, that means the rest of us have to make up the difference.

The letter writer (TNT, 6-6) who complained that “those who write initiatives

Read more »


LIQUOR: Passage of I-1183 a good thing

Contrary to the view expressed by a News Tribune editorial (6-5), voters did not make a mistake when they voted for Initiative 1183.

It is the purpose of government to accomplish things for the public welfare that cannot be done well by the private sector. Retailing of alcoholic beverages (or any other commodity) can, and normally is, done effectively by the private sector. Generally, in fact, the private sector tends to be highly competitive in performing the retailing function, leading to consumer convenience; a myriad of purchase options; and moderate, competitive pricing.

With the passage of I-1183, purchasing of

Read more »


LIQUOR: Confusion all too understandable

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the consequences of Initiative 1183 thus far – a high price on liquor at chain stores, especially.

Many ask: Well, what did you expect? Reflecting on this point, though, how could people know? I’m 19, a very recent voter, and I spend hours pouring over arguments from both sides on almost every proposal and trying to decipher the grossly complicated language. It’s like studying for finals.

Seriously, who has the time to do this? Who has the resources?

I do believe this was a major failing on the voters’ part, but it’s indicative

Read more »


LIQUOR: Electorate swallowed corporate swill

We in Tacoma are lucky. Why? Two reasons: 1. Our liquor system was recently privatized, and 2. The News Tribune printed a letter to the editor from a disgruntled voter.

Rarely do such events combine to make such a timely point, and that point is this: Those who swallow the swill of corporate advertising are bound to end up choking on it.

The letter writer showed his obvious lack of research by bemoaning the taxes that were so clearly stated in the initiative he supported – the initiative written and financed by corporate interests.

Let this be a warning

Read more »


LIQUOR: Blame Costco, not the state

The recent letters complaining about the new liquor prices once again demonstrate the level of ignorance among the citizens of this state. Anyone pointing a finger at the  state of Washington for being “greedy” or “deceptive” obviously has no clue as how an initiative works.

The state does not and cannot write an initiative. That process is exclusively reserved for “the people.” Unfortunately big corporations such as Costco can take advantage of the process by deceiving the public through distorting the truth and outright lies. Anyone who visited Costco and questioned the signature gatherers knows they were told the prices

Read more »


LIQUOR: Voters deceived themselves

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!

Read more »


LIQUOR: State voters were hoodwinked

Re: “Liquor prices stir confusion” (TNT, 5-31).

I, for one, feel hoodwinked by Washington state regarding the vote to take the state out of liquor sales. I wish I had saved my voters information packet so I could review it again.

At the time, I felt that any time we could get the state out of involvement we would see a price/cost improvement. Boy, was I wrong.

I don’t remember seeing any mention of the ridiculous taxes and increases that they are going to impose on sales. I tried to get more information regarding possible prices that we could

Read more »