I-1183 Liquor Initiative

[MikeWalking]

Thanks for the Post.  Our Voters pamphlet hasn't shown up.

[xd2005]

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop

[bigtex]

"(iii) The licensee has not committed more than one public safety violation within the three years preceding application."

Now this really ticks me off. One of last year's initiatives said that the store could not have ANY sales to minor (which is a LCB public safety violation) within a 2/3 year period! But this new initiative says it is ok to have one sale to a minor violation on my record within the past three years!

So essentially if I am a large convenience store and I sold to a minor yesterday and this initiative was to pass I could apply for a license and be approved to sell liquor.

This only applies to new applications. Once a store gets their license it takes 4 sales to a minor within a 2-year period for the LCB to pull the license!

[bullcanyon]

YES!!!!!!!!!!! State has no business selling liquor. They need to get back to the basics. Nothing more.

[Wenatcheejay]

 Costco is funding the Pro side as far as I know. But if you look at who is fighting a Private Business it might make a few people open their eyes. (Maybe)

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition

[Curly]

Costco is funding the Pro side as far as I know. But if you look at who is fighting a Private Business it might make a few people open their eyes. (Maybe)

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition

Interesting.  With those groups against it, I'm sure that YES is going to be the correct vote.

[MikeWalking]

Costco is funding the Pro side as far as I know. But if you look at who is fighting a Private Business it might make a few people open their eyes. (Maybe)

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition

Interesting.  With those groups against it, I'm sure that YES is going to be the correct vote.

Hood River Distillers?   Why is a business in Oregon funding the Anti side???

[twinners]

No for me mainly because I don't want to deal with it at the store where I work.  We get enough theft already imagine that many bottles of liquor.  It's like having a bullseye on it for thieves.

[Atroxus]

Costco is funding the Pro side as far as I know. But if you look at who is fighting a Private Business it might make a few people open their eyes. (Maybe)

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition

Interesting.  With those groups against it, I'm sure that YES is going to be the correct vote.

Hood River Distillers?   Why is a business in Oregon funding the Anti side???

Maybe they don't want us to stop going to Oregon for cheap liquor? 

[runamuk]

Costco is funding the Pro side as far as I know. But if you look at who is fighting a Private Business it might make a few people open their eyes. (Maybe)

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition

Interesting.  With those groups against it, I'm sure that YES is going to be the correct vote.

Hood River Distillers?   Why is a business in Oregon funding the Anti side???

Maybe they don't want us to stop going to Oregon for cheap liquor? 

that and now they will have to compete and not have a in place set price to bank on....free market enterprise sucks if you are already in with a government agency making bank...

[steen]

The problem with changing anything is you don't really know how it is going to change until after the fact and then  it is done. 

[Atroxus]

The problem with changing anything is you don't really know how it is going to change until after the fact and then  it is done.

Not like it can't be changed again down the road if it doesn't work as well as planned.

[bigtex]

The problem with changing anything is you don't really know how it is going to change until after the fact and then  it is done.

Not like it can't be changed again down the road if it doesn't work as well as planned.

100% disagree.
The initiative requires the state to basically end their leases on all stores, or sell if they own. And to sell the the Distribution Center in downtown Seattle. Several hundred (if not a thousant) people who work for the LCB will lose their jobs. The largest portion of the LCB, the Business/products/selling is eliminated, only leaving the enforcement and licensing programs. What I am trying to say is, lets say it doesn't work and the people want the state to run the booze business again. There is no money left in the state budget to essentially start up an entire new agency from scratch (yes I know there have been agencies created in the past couple years but that is due to mergers) especially since the state will have to purchase a new distribution center and several hundred stores.

In the "modern era" no state that went from a "control state" (18 states and 2 counties, including WA are control states) to a non-control state has ever reverted back to a control state. Examples of control states are WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, UT

[pianoman9701]

Bigtex, you're assuming that the only change possible is one from state control to individual control. Other changes could be possible down the road. For example, whether or not to allow distributorships, or even require purchasing from them. Other regulations and licensing requirements could be changed. But, the fact that no state has ever reverted back to state control is evidence to me that privatization is a better solution with alcohol.

As far as the employees of the liquor commission are concerned, the loss of their jobs would be lamentable at the least, but that doesn't change the fact that the state shouldn't have been in the liquor business to begin with. As well, many of those employees would be able to get jobs doing the same thing in the private sector, as increased business will require more employees. One of the big issues is the cost of goods sold. Having liquor run by the state without the benefit of competition means that the costs are not near as low as they could be. The government pig is always hungrier than a private counterpart. In addition, for the state to be running anything but true governmental services (revenue department, education, law enforcement, disaster response, resource management) means that it's being run less efficiently than private business could run it.

[bigtex]

Well this is going to piss off all you guys who think booze are going to be cheaper.

Currently there is a 51.9% markup on liquor in WA. This includes taxes, markup for profit, etc. Under this initiative there will be a 27% tax applied to stores and distributers which will obviously be passed on to the consumer. So looking at it it would appear booze will be 25% cheaper, WRONG.

Stores will then assess their own markup. The state financial manager which produces reports on initiatives says stores will probably assess between a 25-45% markup. Under this analysis liquor will be the SAME or MORE EXPENSIVE.

If you watch the clip you will see the Costco CEO last year saying Costco markup would only be 8-10%. However would you believe the CEO of the company who is spending the most money to pass the initiative?

So could prices be cheaper? According to state financial people, NO, Costco says YES
Could they be the same? Yes
Could they be more expensive? Yes

http://www.king5.com/news/up-front/Ad-Watch-Iniiative-1183-131951113.html