Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: liquor


LIQUOR: Do you want cheese with that whine?

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.


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: Legislative fix needed to protect consumers

Re: “New liquor sellers fear fees threaten viability” (TNT, 5-4).

The article highlighting alcohol retailers’ concerns about steep tax hikes under the state’s new liquor system referenced a particularly insightful comment by Liquor Control Board Chairwoman Sharon Foster: “A legislative fix is your only fix.”

No one can know for certain what alcohol prices will be until Initiative 1183 goes into effect June 1. One thing, however, is for certain. Washington state had the highest alcohol taxes in the nation prior to privatization, and now even more taxes and fees are being added with the new system. It will

Read more »


I-1183: Opponents’ ads confuse the issue

Re: “TV ads for private booze initiative confuse more than inform” (Peter Callaghan column, 10-18).

The Initiative 1183 ads show how one could blend vagueness and exaggeration in 30 seconds. I would even go as far as the ads making fun of the voter by bringing out a great point and overshadowing it with cheesy music and flashy cop lights.

Case in point, one “No on 1183” ad points out in big bold letters that “1 in 4 mini-marts sell to minors” and I-1183 will allow “almost 1,000 mini-marts” to sell hard alcohol. Other than completely exaggerating the numbers,

Read more »


I-1183: Should Costco run state liquor business?

The voters of this state have made it clear we want the state out of the liquor business, but my understanding was that private business people would work with the state to take over the existing stores.

We do not want increased access, and we do not want to dismantle the distribution system that allows stable costs. We also don’t want to put more than 1,000 people out of work.

Just because other states do it differently, doesn’t mean this system does not work in Washington state. Costco and others have no business telling us how to provide alcohol, be

Read more »


I-1183: Passage will nullify bad legislation

Liquor in Washington is already privatized. Most citizens don’t follow state politics very closely and probably didn’t realize that the 2011 Legislature voted to sanction a private sector monopoly of the liquor distribution center (SB 5942). It was passed with an emergency clause and signed by the governor. As such, no referendum is allowed by law.

While expected to raise tens of millions of dollars initially, this strategy locks in a fixed profit for the state for 10 to 20 years. It has been tried in other states, such as Maine, with disastrous results.

Maine legislators didn’t anticipate the upward

Read more »


I-1183: Don’t be fooled by supporters

So you’ll know where I’m coming from, I buy my annual box of Guinness from Costco, make a few purchases of peach schnapps at the local liquor store, and occasionally buy a scratch ticket or play the Lotto. I pass on anything I have to inhale, thank you.

The News Tribune’s analysis (10-9) of the liquor initiative makes it clear it’s not necessarily going to be cheaper to buy from the private stores, as the state is going to assess the same rate of taxes. So then the only way the state comes out ahead from the deal is

Read more »


LIQUOR: State will lose money under 1100

The editorial board got it wrong on I-1100.

The board, divided over whether privatization is a good idea and aware a dramatic increase in access to hard liquor is “a sure effect” of the initiative, endorsed I-1100 but failed to offer a plausible reason.

Whether or not liquor sales are an essential function of government, they are without doubt a profitable one, returning $330 million per year to state and local governments. The Office of Financial Management says, and the proponents of I-1100 do not dispute, that passage of I-1100 will deprive local governments of $50 million per year, money

Read more »