Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Democrats endorse marijuana legalization, oppose liquor privatization

Post by Jordan Schrader / The News Tribune on June 26, 2010 at 2:26 pm with 22 Comments »
June 26, 2010 2:27 pm

Delegates at the state Democratic convention voted to endorse Initiative 1068, which would legalize the sale and use of marijuana in Washington.

The vote was 314-185, a defeat for delegates who said the initiative is too broad and would make it more difficult for candidates to run in more conservative areas.

Supporters are mounting a last minute push to get the initiative on the ballot.

On a voice vote, Democrats overwhelmingly opposed Initiative 1100, which has turned in enough signatures to likely earn a place on the ballot, and Initiative 1105. Both would privatize the state-run system of liquor sales, allowing grocery stores and other businesses to sell hard liquor.

A few people at the convention supported the initiatives as helpful to private enterprise, but most cheered arguments that it would lead to more underage drinking while enriching businesses at the expense of well-paying government jobs. “They’re not going to hire more people when Costco puts up another rack with booze in it,” one delegate said.

Leave a comment Comments → 22
  1. Leave it to the democrats….legalize drugs and leave a legal commodity under state control….

  2. janis, you are aware that the commodity you seem to refer to, is a drug, do you not?

  3. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Only the worst politicians in our country (the socialist democrats) would support dumbing down our populace by legalizing marijuana and then add insult to that by retaining control of a product that can only go down in price with competition within the retail market – both issues supported by the socialist democrats are detrimental to all taxpayers!!!

  4. Whatever1214 says:

    State run liquor stores are staffed by union employees. Unions own the democrat party.

  5. Kcav1438 says:

    “They’re not going to hire more people when Costco puts up another rack with booze in it”
    —Exactly a state subsidized job is not really a job. Tax payers footing the bill for someone to restock liquor on a shelf? Not really a job if you ask me. Liquor sales should of been privatized years ago.

  6. doubledgedsword says:

    How many other states other than the obvious california have privatized liquor? Cali doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with it.

  7. Reaganomics says:

    The dems need as many people as possible to use the 1 trillion dollar medical “reform”. What betteer way than getting more and more people addicted to weed.

  8. I wonder, who were the Damocrats that voted against the initiative?We all need to know so we speak softly and carry a big vote! But the dims don,t want any one to against their tax & spend policy and if they can keep their hands in the liquor business cash drawer,you can bet they will do just that!!!

  9. It’s kinda interesting to see the evolution of Republican attitudes towards the state liquor system. Used to be social conservatives who favored state control. Now it seems fiscal concerns are more prevalent. Seems more consistent with other policies.

    I think privatization is overdue but there seems to be a common misconception out there that this is somehow going to help the budget. In fact the liquor system pays for itself.

  10. lovethemountains says:

    First of all, I am a conservative through and through.

    That said, I am supportive of legalization of marijuana but the devil is always in the details. I am not sure the present initiative is the proper crafting of the issue.

    Face it, prohibition of alcohol never worked and prohibition of private use of the weed will never work. Every jurisdition in this country expends vast amounts of money and resources to enforce the present marijuana laws. To what end? In my lifetime (which is getting along pretty far) and my experiences I have NEVER seen the problems with MJ that we have all seen with alcohol.

    My opinion of this issue comes from an objective viewpoint. I am not supportive of legalization because I am a pot head……..I don’t smoke weed.

  11. Fibonacci says:

    You have to be a real nimrod to think that privitization will lower prices. The tax is still there. As for legalizing pot, there is probably a good chance that crime associated with it will drop. Holland doesn’t seem to have drug wars like we do by the Mexican border.

  12. “Holland doesn’t seem to have drug wars like we do by the Mexican border.”

    Holland isn’t next door to Mexico. If it were next door to Mexico it would have drug wars just like ours. It’s problems are with Germany and France.

  13. notSpicoli says:

    The honest, non-polemic interpretation is that, despite the “democrats are pro-drug” rhetoric that will follow, this vote in support of I-1068 for most of the delegates was about ending marijuana prohibition which is dangerous, ineffective, expensive, and unnecessary, a terrible public policy.

  14. Amen notSpicoli. This is not about getting high or not getting high. People have demonstrated they are going to smoke marijuana whether it’s legal or not. This is about saving the tax payer millions of dollars a year by leaving people alone who chose to smoke marijuana for relaxation rather than drink a glass of wine. This should be a personal choice. The person who chooses to smoke should not have to risk prosecution to do so.

  15. The reason Holland has no drug war problems is that they are not waging war on drugs. There’s no reason to depend on drug traffickers because it’s totally legal… just the same as we have no more alcohol wars like the US saw with prohibition.

  16. “The reason Holland has no drug war problems is that they are not waging war on drugs. There’s no reason to depend on drug traffickers because it’s totally legal… just the same as we have no more alcohol wars like the US saw with prohibition.”

    You can always tell when someone is smoking to much. They mutter.

    http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/149411-ne-holland-cafes-under-different-drug-selling-rules.html

    It doesn’t get much more current then this.

  17. It’s all about control with these people. Control liquor, legalize marijuana meaning more Democrat voters and control it just like the seatbelt law. It is nothing more than another means to pull people over and get into your life to see what you are doing and control you.

  18. johnearl says:

    I got it – If we legalize marijuana and eliminate state owned liquor stores at the same time, then the state can sell the marijuana in state controlled marijuana stores and no one loses their job!

    Then the Washington State Liqu – er Marijuana Control Board could sit around and debate what exactly was the right amount of marijuana to sell to state residents. I’ll bet you could sell tickets to that meeting.

  19. Well played Mr. Earl.

  20. What is the matter with our Elected Representatives?
    Legalize Marijuana?
    Politicians all seem to be smoking a whole bunch of this stuff lately with kind of idea’s and thoughts they are arriving at !

  21. EatonvilleTaxPayer says:

    I don’t do drugs and do not abuse alcohol.

    I don’t agree with legalizing marijuana because it sends the wrong message to our children. By legalizing it, we are basically saying it isn’t harmful. Go ahead. That just doesn’t seem right.

    I don’t believe putting alcohol in stores will change its availability to underage drinkers. They can get all they want now from the STUPID IDIOTS who are of legal age and buy it for them. So, which store it is purchased from won’t make a difference.

    I am all for privatizing the sale of alcohol if it means we pay less in taxes to pay workers to stock liquor shelves.

    I would vote NO on the marijuana and YES on private businesses selling liquor.

  22. notSpicoli says:

    EatonvilleTaxPayer says: “I don’t agree with legalizing marijuana because it sends the wrong message to our children. By legalizing it, we are basically saying it isn’t harmful…I would vote NO on the marijuana and YES on private businesses selling liquor.”

    Logic meltdown. Alcohol is the most dangerous abused substance in our society. And legal thus sending the message (per your logic) to children that it is not harmful. It’s even openly advertised!

    Marijuana is relatively benign (compared with alcohol). We presently pay a fortune in lost tax revenue and taxes fighting the losing war against marijuana, which, in an unregulated market, is even more available to teens than alcohol.

    Legalize marijuana or ban alcohol or face inevitable hypocrisy. But, as a local physician said recently, the most sense would come from banning alcohol and legalizing marijuana!

*
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.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0