I-1183 Liquor Initiative

[Special T]

What business is it of the state to choose winners and loosers? When the state makes it harder or much more expensive to do ANYTHING people will seek out other options. More people are brewing thier own beer. Some are distilling thier own Liqure. I know more people that buy chew and smokes from the Rez becasuse they can save $2.5 or more a tin... Contrary to what the state would like you to think, people change thier actions according to the barriers that they put up. I know make it my mission avoid business with the state whenever possible. 

[Wenatcheejay]

I am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this.  Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to  buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. 

As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.

Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes  sign.

Business who don't hire additional help for additional business will lose customers to those who do. People will always shop where they get the best service as long as pricing is similar. Costco knows that, Fred Meyer knows that, and every other liquor-qualified store knows that. The only people who don't know that are state employees who currently don't have to care how long I wait in line. Because competition will drive prices down and create more WA liquor sales, more people will work. It's simple economics - more business = more employees. The net change in labor will be positive. There's no way in any mathematic equation that approving this bill will result in a net loss of jobs.

As far as the state liquor employees are concerned and the loss of their jobs; it's lamentable that anyone should lose their job. But, it should not be the responsibility of our government to create jobs through monopoly, stifling private enterprise and profits in a capitalist society. As well, as soon as we can put every single IRS employee out of work, we should do it without hesitation. This goes for about 1/2 of our existing state and federal governments. When you shrink government, people living off tax dollars will suffer. But in almost every case (1183 included) the net result will be a stifled government pig and a more robust private sector economy which will create more net employment.

Spot on 

[pianoman9701]

I am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this.  Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to  buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. 

As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.

Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes  sign.

Business who don't hire additional help for additional business will lose customers to those who do. People will always shop where they get the best service as long as pricing is similar. Costco knows that, Fred Meyer knows that, and every other liquor-qualified store knows that. The only people who don't know that are state employees who currently don't have to care how long I wait in line. Because competition will drive prices down and create more WA liquor sales, more people will work. It's simple economics - more business = more employees. The net change in labor will be positive. There's no way in any mathematic equation that approving this bill will result in a net loss of jobs.

As far as the state liquor employees are concerned and the loss of their jobs; it's lamentable that anyone should lose their job. But, it should not be the responsibility of our government to create jobs through monopoly, stifling private enterprise and profits in a capitalist society. As well, as soon as we can put every single IRS employee out of work, we should do it without hesitation. This goes for about 1/2 of our existing state and federal governments. When you shrink government, people living off tax dollars will suffer. But in almost every case (1183 included) the net result will be a stifled government pig and a more robust private sector economy which will create more net employment.

Spot on 

 I know, right? 

[magnanimous_j]

I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.

[MikeWalking]

I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.

 

In case anyone  didn't see it the last two times I posted  or didn't get one too.  The Antis have even sent out big cards claiming Teenagers will be allowed to buy liquor at mini marts.

[Atroxus]

I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.

That x100. I used to party pretty hard before I was 21, I drank a LOT. When I was a minor though, I NEVER ONCE bought alcohol of any kind directly from a retailer. It was always purchased for me by someone who was over 21. In most cases someone I knew, but rarely i was able to talk strangers into buying for me if I "tipped" them well enough. Trying to say that our current system, or any system of laws for that matter prevents teens from buying liquor makes about as much sense as saying that gun registration would make criminals less likely to buy guns.

[Wenatcheejay]

I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.

That x100. I used to party pretty hard before I was 21, I drank a LOT. When I was a minor though, I NEVER ONCE bought alcohol of any kind directly from a retailer. It was always purchased for me by someone who was over 21. In most cases someone I knew, but rarely i was able to talk strangers into buying for me if I "tipped" them well enough. Trying to say that our current system, or any system of laws for that matter prevents teens from buying liquor makes about as much sense as saying that gun registration would make criminals less likely to buy guns.

What I get frustrated is how much this is the "gun argument." They say, "one in four teens can buy alcohol at stores." (I'd doubt it is exactly like that.) And because of this fallicy the law abiding citizens have to be denied access to legal merchandise sold at reasonable prices? The problem is illegal activity. If it is such a problem then it should be addressed by law enforcement. Punish law breakers not those that obey the law. For whatever reason our Government will not allocate resources to do that. So, we have the argument that the law abiding citizen is the victim of a ridiculous monopoly. Washington just does not get it. I get so frustrated over these issues. I obey the law, don't harass or punish me for what other do when the "KING" refuses to punish those who do not obey. Olympia is simply stupid.

[bigtex]

I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.

That x100. I used to party pretty hard before I was 21, I drank a LOT. When I was a minor though, I NEVER ONCE bought alcohol of any kind directly from a retailer. It was always purchased for me by someone who was over 21. In most cases someone I knew, but rarely i was able to talk strangers into buying for me if I "tipped" them well enough. Trying to say that our current system, or any system of laws for that matter prevents teens from buying liquor makes about as much sense as saying that gun registration would make criminals less likely to buy guns.

What I get frustrated is how much this is the "gun argument." They say, "one in four teens can buy alcohol at stores." (I'd doubt it is exactly like that.) And because of this fallicy the law abiding citizens have to be denied access to legal merchandise sold at reasonable prices? The problem is illegal activity. If it is such a problem then it should be addressed by law enforcement. Punish law breakers not those that obey the law. For whatever reason our Government will not allocate resources to do that.

That number, 1/4 comes from state alcohol compliance checks (stings) ran by the LCB and often in conjuction with a SO/PD. I have seen the stats in the paper from recent operations and I have seen some as high as 70% (couples times in the Lewis County paper). The LCB use to publish the stats monthly on their website but I don't see them anymore.

[bigtex]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.

My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.

They DO think stores will sign up for the program and the program is designed to decrease under age access to booze. The one time lower fine acknowledges that even a very prudent business can let one slip by, but that for most, the program will be a positive, preventative step to avoiding the sale to minors. This isn't a tactic. It's a good program that will have businesses be more alert regarding under age buying.

One former underage operative for the state was able to purchase alcohol while underage nearly 400 times. This info comes from a former LCB Officer/friend. Many stores already (especially your bigger mini-mart chains and grocery stores) have programs that require the clerk to enter a DOB on the register before selling any alcohol, but the program also allows the clerk to bypass the system. How many times in those 400 violations do you think the clerk bypassed the system? What will stop these clerks from getting a little lax when they start selling liquor?

[pianoman9701]

Increased fines. And if it gets worse, which I'm not sure it will, increase them even more. But, to force me to buy from the over-priced state monopoly because of a few bad apples is ridiculous. I'm not responsible for other people's children and I shouldn't be penalized because the state is ineffective in curbing sale to under-age drinkers.

[boneaddict]

Old enough to go to Iraq and kill people or be killed themselves but not old enough to drink a beer.   Never could quite wrap my head around that one. 

[pianoman9701]

Old enough to go to Iraq and kill people or be killed themselves but not old enough to drink a beer.   Never could quite wrap my head around that one.

Yep

[GoldTip]

Old enough to go to Iraq and kill people or be killed themselves but not old enough to drink a beer.   Never could quite wrap my head around that one.

I'm with you on that one Bone.

I find it hard to believe that there will be any more under age drinking once the grocery stores get hard liquor in them than there was when the liquor stores were state run.  Thats coming from a guy who 25 years ago planned and executed a kegger virtually every weekend of my junior and senior year.  Kids will drink and they will get Booze whether it's available at QFC, Safeway or Costco.  PERIOD.  There is no question about that.  Those that drink now will continue to drink then, those that don't drink are not suddenly going to have an epiphany and say, "Oh wait, but you mean I can get a bottle of Goldschlager at the QFC?  Oh, OK, lets get hammered."  Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.  So get off the children drinking bandwagon please, because it's a joke to make that argument.  That dog won't hunt, as they say.

If you truly believe there will be more highly impaired drunks on the road then there is now, OK, I'll maybe buy into that argument.  I am sorry and apologize to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver, that is a horrible thing I am sure.  But saying that there will be fewer drunk driving accidents because "hard liquor" sales continue to be controlled by the state is like saying there will be fewer gun deaths if we stop all private sales of firearms.  Another dog that won't hunt.

I just do not see any good, reasonable, thought out reason of why not to vote for I-1183.

[NRA4LIFE]

I've always been a firm believer that the government should only be providing essential services.  Selling liquor is not an essential service.  The fact that our state, or any other, is in the liquor business is draconian at best.  I will be voting yes.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I saw the liquor store in Chewelah had a big sign to vote "no" for 1183 in their window...how does that work with a state leased building?  I know state vehicles can't have political stickers on them...?