Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Stocking up on the hard stuff at Costco

Post by Cheryl Tucker on May 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm with 5 Comments »
May 26, 2010 5:09 pm

Costco isn’t just supporting Initiative 1100 to get the state out of the liquor store business, reports the Associated Press. It will be actively gathering signatures at tables set up outside its 26 stores in the state. Costco employees who are registered voters will staff the tables, inviting customers to sign initiative petitions.

With the kind of foot traffic the average Costco gets, I suspect the required number of signatures (242,000) will be gathered in about 27 minutes.

If voters approve the initiative, Costco would be able to sell hard liquor along with the wine and beer it now sells. My question: Would you have to buy booze in the barrel size?

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. Well, if it passed we could probably look forward to a new employer near the Tacoma Mall: Beverages Etc. Would this make hard liquor more affordable for restaurants? Will it effect the amount of money the state collects on liquor sales? (Thus effecting the state’s budget?) Inquiring minds want to know.

  2. Oops, make that Beverages and More.

    In CA, there’s one of these near just about every mall.

  3. I’ve always thought our state liquor system was kinda weird so I’ve got nothing against this initiative. But doesn’t it seem like this kind of corporate sponsorship of initiatives is unhealthy? We saw the first wave of money come into the system through Tim Eyman, but I can’t recall a fully corporate backed measure.

    Is this really a smart way to make law?

  4. johnearl says:

    I’ll be making a special trip to Costco just to sign this initiative.

    In some cases, government has a legitimate role in regulating commerce, but it is nonsensical to think that government regulation should extend to a monopolistic retail sales right.

    What’s more, every argument in favor of monopolistic state control of liquor sales eventually collapses of it’s own weight. The government cannot credibly claim both that it needs the money and that it limits alcohol use through constricted sales. It is not believable when the State insists it is the guardian of temperance as it profits from drunkenness.

    State government does have a role in regulating alcohol sales, but that role is not as the sole source provider. Monopolistic State control of liquor sales is an antiquated concept whose time has long past.

  5. reformedliberal says:

    There is no “if it passes”. It WILL pass. And it should. State liquor stores will be little more than a memory, starting in 2011.

    The people have wanted the state out of the liquor store business for as long as I can remember, but the state has stubbornly held on to it’s monopoly, even though it makes absolutely zero sense – economically, or socially. This should be instructive for those who espouse the formation of new government agencies and powers. These things don’t go away once they are no longer needed. They have to be hunted down and killed by angry voters.

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