Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 06:54:09 PM
Something that is different with this initiative then the previous years is that most convenience stores will not be able to sell liquor. It will mainly be your big stores. The deciding factor is square footage. If your store is over a certain square footage you can sell liquor. So your local 76, unless it is a large store will still not be able to sell it. However there still are some big gas station/convenience stores that do meet that size requirement
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 06:54:51 PM
Post by: Tinner on October 10, 2011, 07:02:57 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 10, 2011, 07:05:14 PM
Post by: CP on October 10, 2011, 07:23:45 PM
How’d that work out for the USSR?
Post by: Mr56Jeep on October 10, 2011, 07:31:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 07:43:16 PM
I didn't read it.... so this is probably a dumb question.... But would the quickie marts still be able to sell beer and wine?
Has nothing to do with beer or wine. Just simply liquor that is currently sold at the liquor stores.
Post by: jbeaumont21 on October 10, 2011, 07:46:44 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 07:54:07 PM
Its my understanding that a majority of the profits from the state run liquor stores goes towards our public schools and if the initiative passes then it would mean less money towards education just so that it is more convenient to buy booze. If that is true then I know how I am voting.
The money goes to several different places. In Fiscal Year 2011 the Liquor Control Board distributed $425.7 million to several different entities:
-$345 M to the General Fund which funds most state agencies HOWEVER the biggest "user" of the General Fund is K-12 education which is federally mandated
-$71 M to cities and counties
-$8.2 M to education and enforcement
-$1.5M research
http://liq.wa.gov/about/fy2011return (http://liq.wa.gov/about/fy2011return)
Post by: B.G.hunter on October 10, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
I personally think the State has no business in the Liquor business.
The state has no business in any business. Unless you believe Carl:
How’d that work out for the USSR?
:yeah:
Post by: Wea300mag on October 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
I believe in personal responsibility. I DON'T believe all the scare tactics I see on the TV commercials for the NO voters. We wouldn't have to worry about enforcement so much if the penalties for breaking the law were more substantial.
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 08:07:27 PM
We wouldn't have to worry about enforcement so much if the penalties for breaking the law were more substantial.
And that's my big issue. The penalties for the violations regarding minors and alcohol are pathetic. If the legislature were to stiffen the penalties I would vote yes.
Post by: Chukar on October 10, 2011, 08:32:27 PM
This initiative is about major retailers making major money. That's what is pushing the buttons. Smaller retailers will get squeezed out. And where is the money gonna come from that the state doesn't see anymore ? Too many holes to go yes.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 10, 2011, 08:42:59 PM
I personally think the State has no business in the Liquor business.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 08:54:32 PM
The penalty for selling/serving alcohol to a minor is a 5000 dollar fine. Up to a year in jail. And a criminal record. How more aggressive should the law be?
You couldn't be more wrong.
My friend is a Enforcement Officer for the Liquor Control Board. The fine for selling/serving/providining alcohol (no difference for a clerk or a 21 yr old giving a beer to a kid at a party) is UP TO $5,000 and/or a year in jail. He has told me that probably 98% of the cases his agencies have end up with less then a $250 fine and many times result in a deferal which basically means no fine and be a good boy for 6-12 months and this all goes away, including no criminal record. This officer says every year they have around 20 people who are cited and they learn they have been cited for this offense before. This is the same penalty for underage drinking. I know many kids that got MIP's nobody got over a $500 fine.
In the state of California if you are found guilty of serving to a minor you face a MINIMUM $1,000 fine (no minimum in WA). Your business also loses liquor license for a minimum of 14 days for the first violation, in WA it is a $500 fine for the store.
Two years ago 4 republican house members wanted to institute a $500 minimum for selling to minors in WA, it never made it out of comittee. If there was a minimum fine of atleast $500 I would have no problem privitizing liquor.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 10, 2011, 08:57:29 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 10, 2011, 09:30:31 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 09:37:52 PM
As far as I know the only businesses that sell liquor that aren't state are on the military bases and some of the indian stores--I don't know the square footage of the buildings, but they were comparable to state ones or larger.
Here's some info about the liquor biz in WA. You can get them at 4 different places:
- Military Base
- Indian Rez
- WA St Run Store
- WA St Contract store
In the state ran stores it is essentially government ran. The employees are state employees. These are the larger liquor stores that are their own building/space.
In WA contract stores people will actually bid to obtain the "license" to run the store. The employees are not state employees. Part of the revenue does go to the manager/owner of the store. These are smaller stores in more rural areas and can either be their own building or in other stores, I have seen these in hardware and drug stores.
Current law has a cap on how many contract and state stores can be in existence at one time, the number was increased a couple years ago.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 07:15:33 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 12, 2011, 07:48:40 AM
Post by: yakimarcher on October 12, 2011, 07:56:11 AM
Post by: canyelk48 on October 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
Its my understanding that a majority of the profits from the state run liquor stores goes towards our public schools and if the initiative passes then it would mean less money towards education just so that it is more convenient to buy booze. If that is true then I know how I am voting.Yeah, and that's the same "fairy tale" that the public was told about the profits from the State Lottery sales; we all know that didn't happen, otherwise we wouldn't be having local school's initiatives shoved down our throats every few years with threats of no more sports and extracurricular activities if the initiative fails!
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 08:24:19 AM
I would be for it but the state is giong to use that money to put more a**hole cops out pulling over everyone who drives between 11pm and 5 am. not all cops are *censored*s but all the ones doing traffic patrol at night are A**HOLES!
Sounds like someone with a couple of tickets! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 12, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Post by: MikeWalking on October 12, 2011, 09:29:39 AM
If it's privatized the State should get more per sale as other States have, at least I've heard it explained that way.
Post by: lokidog on October 12, 2011, 10:02:07 AM
As I see it, the state makes a profit from the sale of liquor and they get the taxes that are added on to the cost and profit. All of this is paid by the consumer. The taxes go for a variety of things including education, the profit goes to pay employees and pay for rent of space, the rent money then goes to landlords who often have employees or other companies that collect some of the money from the original profit of the sale.
Now, if the sale is from a private store, what will/could happen? The price to the consumer will decrease... yeah, don't think so! The taxes assessed will decrease? Don't think so again! OK, so the taxes are the same funding education and other less important liberal junk. The profit now goes to a corporation since most of the smaller, privately/locally owned stores will not be allowed to sell. Does that profit trickle down into local communities as increased numbers of workers, or rent payed to landlords and the downward flow of monies from that? Probably not, more money to line CEO's pockets since the existing employees will just ring up the purchases and the rent or mortgages from these buildings would be there anyways. Did I miss anything? Who is funding the "yes" campaign? That may answer the question for some.
So, in the end, I am not sure I see any advantage in getting rid of the state liquor stores other than availability and that governemnt should probably not be in the business in the first place. What to do? :dunno:
Post by: uplandhunter870 on October 12, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
what i like most about private liquor is the competition between stores, some are nicer than others and the variety of liquor is amazing its not like the WA stores that all carry the same limited product list. the liquor store i go to here in bozeman is a third of the size of most WA St. stores but has ten times the selection and theres always something new on the selves
Post by: Glockster on October 12, 2011, 10:18:37 AM
Just got back from a Napa Valley trip with my wife. A 1/5 of Maker's Mark is $19.99 down there and you can buy it in any grocery store any day of the week. I got carded every single time, everywhere we went (I look nothing like a 20 something....I'm UGLY gray hair and balding).
Here in WA that same brand/same bottle costs $29.95, I can only buy it in state stores, can't buy it on Sundays.
I do agree that we need minimum fines/jail time for those caught selling to minors and increased penalties for drunk drivers who cause injury.
Post by: GoldTip on October 12, 2011, 10:26:00 AM
Post by: Curly on October 12, 2011, 10:27:37 AM
Post by: Alchase on October 12, 2011, 10:28:03 AM
There is no proof at all that states that have private liqueur sale have more DUIs or more kids that drink.
Take that out of the picture, and it is all about the taxes. This state is so two faced about "sin taxes" it makes me sick. Washington state makes more money off a pack of cigarettes then Philip Morris does. The hundreds of millions of dollars our disingenuous queen Gregoire got for the state from the tobacco lawsuits disappeared into the general fund with no accountability. Last I heard they had only spent 86k on disinformation TV adds.
What it boils down to "the state should not be selling any product".
Post by: frostman on October 12, 2011, 10:42:35 AM
Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.
A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 12, 2011, 10:44:14 AM
This would not only affect them but, the Homeless Alcoholics would have an even easier time of accessing it then they currently do.
Post by: jyerxa on October 12, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Yes!
Post by: rebal69972 on October 12, 2011, 10:53:24 AM
my x brother n law was convicted of selling booze to a miner he got a $200 fine 2 years later convicted of stealing 3 hand guns and got 5 years probation. i don't trust the state or federal government or the leagal system
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 12, 2011, 11:11:55 AM
Can the county pass its own law restricting sale just in that county? Or can your tribal council prohibit it from being sold on the rez? I know in the south there are dry counties and even cities.
Post by: bigtex on October 12, 2011, 11:20:16 AM
Plateau,
Can the county pass its own law restricting sale just in that county? Or can your tribal council prohibit it from being sold on the rez? I know in the south there are dry counties and even cities.
I can answer this.
Yes a tribe could prohibit booze from being sold on the rez. As far as off the rez everytime somebody applies for a liquor license no matter if they are a bar, restaurant, or mini-mart the "local authority" is notified. The "local authority" is either the city or the county if the location is not within city limits. The city/county can either not respond to the Liquor Control Board or they can request that the LCB not issue that license. Cities/counties could go one step further prohibiting liquor sales, essentially creating a dry area like some cities/counties in the south.
Several years ago the state passed a law allowing cities to create "alcohol impact areas" which essentially limit what types of alcohol stores can sell. Cities must petition the LCB to create these areas. These are often in areas with high homeless numbers and drunk in public areas. Many of the "ice" beers and fortified wine are banned in these areas. Spokane, Tacoma, and Seattle have several AIA areas. Vancouver has a voluntarily one, basically trying to get compliance so they don't have to petition the state for an actual official area. Kent startes a voluntary one but it never really took off or got much support from the city.
Also, there are some cities in WA that do not allow non-tribal casinos, even though they are legal at the state level.
Post by: jyerxa on October 12, 2011, 11:50:45 AM
Post by: Armadillo on October 12, 2011, 12:09:08 PM
We need to QUIT throwing more money at "schools". How many of you think that your tax dollars are being properly allocated? We keep throwing more money at our problems and not getting good results.
Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.
A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".
Yeah lets cut back on our kids so we can pay $5 less a bottle for idiot juice!! The average college professor makes 60k, how is that too high as to be a major problem in their budget requiring hundreds of millions to be taken out of KID'S the education system? What should a college professor earn?
Post by: flatbkman on October 12, 2011, 12:33:07 PM
Jose Cuervo Gold Jose Cuervo Silver
CA Price $23.04 $23.04
WA Price $42.95 Unavailable
Capt Morgan Rum Jack Daniels Jim Beam Johnny Walker Red Tanqueray
CA Price $19.74 $34.01 $24.13 $29.62 $27.43
WA Price $39.95 $50.95 $34.95 $54.95 $49.95
Skyy Vodka Stolichnaya Vodka Ketal One Vodka Absolut Vodka
CA Price $23.04 $26.33 $34.01 $28.52
WA Price $36.95 $46.95 $53.95 $46.95
Washington State for a bottle costing $13.65
$3.48 25% Distillers Price
$2.14 16% Federal Tax
$3.36 25% Markup
$4.67 34% State Tax
And these taxes were before the last raise a couple of years ago.
By the way, where are all the dollars that are suppose to be going to education?
Post by: yakimarcher on October 12, 2011, 12:53:28 PM
I would be for it but the state is giong to use that money to put more a**hole cops out pulling over everyone who drives between 11pm and 5 am. not all cops are *censored*s but all the ones doing traffic patrol at night are A**HOLES!
Sounds like someone with a couple of tickets! :chuckle: :chuckle:
It's worse than that I used to work swing shift at Yakima Public works and the cops would target city employees leaving the facility when our shift got off. I'm not kidding i got 4 tickets in two years and they were all chicken sh*t too, no seat belt, cracked tail light lens, not using turn signal etc, nothing legitimate like speeding. Other co-workers had the same experiences.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 01:09:31 PM
Do you think the state is ripping us off?
Jose Cuervo Gold Jose Cuervo Silver
CA Price $23.04 $23.04
WA Price $42.95 Unavailable
Capt Morgan Rum Jack Daniels Jim Beam Johnny Walker Red Tanqueray
CA Price $19.74 $34.01 $24.13 $29.62 $27.43
WA Price $39.95 $50.95 $34.95 $54.95 $49.95
Skyy Vodka Stolichnaya Vodka Ketal One Vodka Absolut Vodka
CA Price $23.04 $26.33 $34.01 $28.52
WA Price $36.95 $46.95 $53.95 $46.95
Washington State for a bottle costing $13.65
$3.48 25% Distillers Price
$2.14 16% Federal Tax
$3.36 25% Markup
$4.67 34% State Tax
And these taxes were before the last raise a couple of years ago.
By the way, where are all the dollars that are suppose to be going to education?
It's incredible how much we pay for booze in WA. Even OR, the average savings in booze is about $10 a half gallon (not that I go to OR to buy because that would be illegal). I moved out from NH who has among the lowest liquor taxes in the country. What a shock to an alcoholic like me! :yike: :yike: :yike:
Post by: rjn cajun on October 12, 2011, 01:35:41 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 01:38:49 PM
Big no here. This would mean 1000`s more people without jobs. My family and all my hunting party work for or retired from small distributers around the area. This would mean that no one would have to go through distibuters anymore and could go to your big store to get what you need. All the convienent stores could go to big stores. all the drivers merchindisers salesman etc. Instead of the big wigs up state taking jobs away we as voters will be taking jobs away from each other. Perfect just what they want. :bdid:
I think your fears are unfounded. Why would a store buy from another store when they can buy from distributors and cut out the markup? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 12, 2011, 02:01:49 PM
I really think I should be able to make my own moonshine actually. :chuckle:
Dad used to do a lot of that...till that little "explosion" but hey! Mom got to remodel the kitchen ;)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 12, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 02:29:07 PM
I think you can make moonshine as long as it isn't sold and you make less than 5 gallons of each liquor at a time.
Yeah, I thought is was something like 12 gallons a year for personal consumption.
Post by: pips4bucks on October 12, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
A couple of things that come to mind though;
Government is a parasite, so it has to suck up our resources in the form of taxes. If the State is selling liquor to make a profit, that would mean they wouldn't be taking additional taxes from lost revenue made from liquor sales. Regardless of how inefficient government is, they have to be making a profit. I find it hard to believe they can't make money on booze. But, leave it to government to screw up making a profit on alcohol.
On the other side, if liquor sales are privatized, that would mean lost revenue from the State, therefore the most sensible step would be to raise the taxes on said liquor. So your $29.95 bottle of firewater would cost even more.
I'm no fan of government and like to see any part of government privatized because of lack of efficiency, profitablity, and customer service issues, not to mention business owners need help with profits as well.
Just like they did on the $30 vehicle tabs deal, when they lose revenue from one area, they'll create a way to make it up somewhere else.
Post by: Mike450r on October 12, 2011, 03:03:59 PM
I think you can make moonshine as long as it isn't sold and you make less than 5 gallons of each liquor at a time.
Yeah, I thought is was something like 12 gallons a year for personal consumption.
Do not think so, I believe it is illegal to manufacture liquor in Washington unless you are a licensed manufacturer.
Post by: Curly on October 12, 2011, 03:09:22 PM
I'm on the fence on this until I do some more research.
A couple of things that come to mind though;
Government is a parasite, so it has to suck up our resources in the form of taxes. If the State is selling liquor to make a profit, that would mean they wouldn't be taking additional taxes from lost revenue made from liquor sales. Regardless of how inefficient government is, they have to be making a profit. I find it hard to believe they can't make money on booze. But, leave it to government to screw up making a profit on alcohol.
On the other side, if liquor sales are privatized, that would mean lost revenue from the State, therefore the most sensible step would be to raise the taxes on said liquor. So your $29.95 bottle of firewater would cost even more.
I'm no fan of government and like to see any part of government privatized because of lack of efficiency, profitablity, and customer service issues, not to mention business owners need help with profits as well.
Just like they did on the $30 vehicle tabs deal, when they lose revenue from one area, they'll create a way to make it up somewhere else.
Some good points there. I wonder where the state will come up with the lost revenue from alcohol sales? I'll probably end up paying more fees/taxes to make up for it, but I still would vote yes because the state should just get out of the liquor business.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 12, 2011, 05:04:28 PM
Plateau,
Can the county pass its own law restricting sale just in that county? Or can your tribal council prohibit it from being sold on the rez? I know in the south there are dry counties and even cities.
I can answer this.
Yes a tribe could prohibit booze from being sold on the rez. As far as off the rez everytime somebody applies for a liquor license no matter if they are a bar, restaurant, or mini-mart the "local authority" is notified. The "local authority" is either the city or the county if the location is not within city limits. The city/county can either not respond to the Liquor Control Board or they can request that the LCB not issue that license. Cities/counties could go one step further prohibiting liquor sales, essentially creating a dry area like some cities/counties in the south.
Several years ago the state passed a law allowing cities to create "alcohol impact areas" which essentially limit what types of alcohol stores can sell. Cities must petition the LCB to create these areas. These are often in areas with high homeless numbers and drunk in public areas. Many of the "ice" beers and fortified wine are banned in these areas. Spokane, Tacoma, and Seattle have several AIA areas. Vancouver has a voluntarily one, basically trying to get compliance so they don't have to petition the state for an actual official area. Kent startes a voluntary one but it never really took off or got much support from the city.
Also, there are some cities in WA that do not allow non-tribal casinos, even though they are legal at the state level.
For the most part bigtex is correct. The Yakama Reservation has been a dry reservation for a long time. They even took steps in the 90's to enforce the resolutions created many many many years ago but to no avail. Reasons were due to non-tribal members are allowed to sell alcohol on the Reservation but only within incorporated cities. The Tribe has taken measures to never allow Tribal Members regardless of where they plan to open a business to never sell alcohol but outside of that they don't have jurisdiction over non-tribal members.
There are 3 incorporated cities in the heart of the Yakama Reservation and there are at least 7 large grocery stores that are owned by non-tribal members that sell alcohol and would more than likely stock liquor.
The smallest inc. City is Harrah and they have a store and also 2 different bars next door to each other and all sell alcohol.
Wapato has 2 big chain grocery stores and 2 smaller mexican stores and 2 small grocery stores all that currently sell alcohol. It also has 4 bars within a 5 block radius.
Toppenish has 2 big chain grocery stores and 2 small mexican stores and all sell alcohol. No bars.
The alcohol problem has drastically increased over the last 5 years within the homeless population. It was predominantly older age groups but has now shifted to younger demographics as young as early 20's. The numbers here on the Reservation have gone from 10-15 to as high as 50+ and not just Tribal Members. We are starting to see hispanics, whites and blacks within these groups as well.
Post by: rjn cajun on October 12, 2011, 06:27:20 PM
There won`t be any distibuters for the stores to go to. All the big stores like Costco will be able to go direct to the manufactors. How is a small distributer going to compete with manufactors. Yes they all work for each other but if you had the chance to cut out the middle man would you? Out of any inititive this one is the most misleading. Don`t believe everything you see on tv. If these ads were true it would have passed by a land slide last year. All I`m saying is before you decide to vote on it read the hole inititive before voting. Even the fine print. Costco is behind the hole thing. They want the public to believe it`s just liqure they want. So the public thinks well we`re getting the state out of the liqure buisness by voting on this and passing it. So if it passes next year you`ll be buying liqure at costco. The prices of name brand beer will be to high unless you buy it in bulk so I hope you like Kirkland beer. Just today they put up another million dollars for this inititive.Big no here. This would mean 1000`s more people without jobs. My family and all my hunting party work for or retired from small distributers around the area. This would mean that no one would have to go through distibuters anymore and could go to your big store to get what you need. All the convienent stores could go to big stores. all the drivers merchindisers salesman etc. Instead of the big wigs up state taking jobs away we as voters will be taking jobs away from each other. Perfect just what they want. :bdid:
I think your fears are unfounded. Why would a store buy from another store when they can buy from distributors and cut out the markup? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on October 12, 2011, 06:47:04 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
There won`t be any distibuters for the stores to go to. All the big stores like Costco will be able to go direct to the manufactors. How is a small distributer going to compete with manufactors. Yes they all work for each other but if you had the chance to cut out the middle man would you? Out of any inititive this one is the most misleading. Don`t believe everything you see on tv. If these ads were true it would have passed by a land slide last year. All I`m saying is before you decide to vote on it read the hole inititive before voting. Even the fine print. Costco is behind the hole thing. They want the public to believe it`s just liqure they want. So the public thinks well we`re getting the state out of the liqure buisness by voting on this and passing it. So if it passes next year you`ll be buying liqure at costco. The prices of name brand beer will be to high unless you buy it in bulk so I hope you like Kirkland beer. Just today they put up another million dollars for this inititive.Big no here. This would mean 1000`s more people without jobs. My family and all my hunting party work for or retired from small distributers around the area. This would mean that no one would have to go through distibuters anymore and could go to your big store to get what you need. All the convienent stores could go to big stores. all the drivers merchindisers salesman etc. Instead of the big wigs up state taking jobs away we as voters will be taking jobs away from each other. Perfect just what they want. :bdid:
I think your fears are unfounded. Why would a store buy from another store when they can buy from distributors and cut out the markup? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Fair enough. I'll check into it. Thanks for filling me in on stuff I didn't know.
Post by: Hunterman on October 12, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: dreamunelk on October 12, 2011, 07:28:19 PM
This will just increase profits for large corporate retailers.
These profits will leave the State.
People will loose Jobs and some small business owners will lose their business.
To me it is three strikes, so a NO vote.
Post by: bigtex on October 12, 2011, 07:31:00 PM
I sure hope this passes this time, and Cosco sell booze.. I would be a better customer when they start giving out the free samples :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Well not sure if your sample comment is a joke but...The Liquor Control Board controls alcohol sampling in WA and will continue to control it if this initiative passes. Currently the LCB hand picks which stores can give out samples, this pilot program started about 2 years ago. There are some (like 20) non-liquor stores that can sample beer/wine and liquor stores which can sample their products. There are restrictions as to how many samples you can get, I believe one sample per person a day. The days that the stores will be providing samples must be reported to the LCB in advance and the LCB will frequently send out a plain clothes officer to see if the store is following all regulations.
Basically, don't expect Costco to be giving away samples of booze anytime soon, even if this passes.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 12, 2011, 08:18:13 PM
I sure hope this passes this time, and Cosco sell booze.. I would be a better customer when they start giving out the free samples :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'd like to see that, not that I don't already know what I like. But there's some new $60-$100 a fifth stuff out there now I'd like to taste first...
Post by: Atroxus on October 12, 2011, 10:48:16 PM
My view:
This will just increase profits for large corporate retailers.
As opposed to the small retailers that profit now? You would rather the state keep taking all the profit? Seems to me they have not shown the best track record of spending that money wisely.
Quote
These profits will leave the State.
Really, all the taxes on liquor are just going to mystically disappear overnight? I don't see that happening unless people stop buying liquor, and if you look back in time to prohibition you will see that is not very likely. Some profits might leave the state, but I think far more would go back into our communities than what the state would have us believe.
Quote
People will loose Jobs and some small business owners will lose their business.
To me it is three strikes, so a NO vote.
The only people who will lose jobs are state liquor store employees. All those "small businesses" that would go out of business are STATE OWNED. Move all those liquor sales to private businesses and guess what, they will have to HIRE people to handle that extra business. Maybe even some of those people who have previous experience working in liquor stores. Our government is supposed to exist to SERVE US, not to make a profit off of us. Personally I would rather have seen one of the initiatives from last year pass, and am not thrilled with limiting licenses based on square footage of stores. I would much rather see this pass now to get the state out of sales, and fix it down the road than continue with the current program though. It may be a less than ideal solution but it would be way better than what we have now.
Post by: boneaddict on October 12, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 12, 2011, 11:11:18 PM
My view:
This will just increase profits for large corporate retailers.
As opposed to the small retailers that profit now? You would rather the state keep taking all the profit? Seems to me they have not shown the best track record of spending that money wisely.
It should be noted that in the 2011 fiscal year the Liquor Control Board contributed $71 million to cities and counties for law enforcement and alcohol education/prevention. $345 million went to the general fund which funds most state agencies, the biggest being k-12 education.
It should be noted that the Liquor Control Board is the only state agency that brings in more money then it spends.....
Post by: frostman on October 13, 2011, 10:06:01 AM
We need to QUIT throwing more money at "schools". How many of you think that your tax dollars are being properly allocated? We keep throwing more money at our problems and not getting good results.
Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.
A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".
Yeah lets cut back on our kids so we can pay $5 less a bottle for idiot juice!! The average college professor makes 60k, how is that too high as to be a major problem in their budget requiring hundreds of millions to be taken out of KID'S the education system? What should a college professor earn?
Come on man! You really believe that the current education system is working? I would agree that the best teachers and proffessors should be well compensated, but yes the AVERAGE LIBERAL college proffessor under our current system based on tenure is probably worth no more that $60K. If you keep falling for the liberal trick of "we're doing it for the kids" then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Post by: Mike450r on October 13, 2011, 10:30:48 AM
12 gallons for consumption. CAN'T SELL OR TRADE IT!
Not true, you need to get a license to distill through the department of licensing regardless of personal use or for sale.
Post by: xd2005 on October 13, 2011, 10:54:09 AM
My view:
This will just increase profits for large corporate retailers.
As opposed to the small retailers that profit now? You would rather the state keep taking all the profit? Seems to me they have not shown the best track record of spending that money wisely.
It should be noted that in the 2011 fiscal year the Liquor Control Board contributed $71 million to cities and counties for law enforcement and alcohol education/prevention. $345 million went to the general fund which funds most state agencies, the biggest being k-12 education.
It should be noted that the Liquor Control Board is the only state agency that brings in more money then it spends.....
Not disagreeing, but it should also be noted that when you force people to buy something only from you it isn't too hard to bring in more money than you spend. Imagine if the state forced people to buy milk, eggs, cars, etc from them. Just think of all the tax money they could generate!
I will note, I have not read the bill yet (so don't know how I will vote), but how much will the state be actually losing? Tax dollars will remain the same, if not significantly increase due to increased sales. I'm guessing the markup will go away for the state? Along with expenses for stores, employees, etc, so just not sure how much of a net impact that will have, but I could easily see them coming out ahead still.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 13, 2011, 11:14:58 AM
Post by: steeleywhopper on October 13, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
The state provides the booze, pulls you over and says you can't drink it, gives you a ticket and fines you heavily, then makes you pay them to go to their treatment programs. Sounds to me like they should be able to be sued for any type of DUI deaths or accidents. Why no one has sued them yet I have no idea. They have quite the racket going on if you ask me. Let them be enforcement instead of the supplier and pusher. My opinion and I'm not sorry if I offended you or you don't like it.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 13, 2011, 12:08:03 PM
Post by: 300rum on October 13, 2011, 01:24:48 PM
My view:
This will just increase profits for large corporate retailers.
As opposed to the small retailers that profit now? You would rather the state keep taking all the profit? Seems to me they have not shown the best track record of spending that money wisely.
It should be noted that in the 2011 fiscal year the Liquor Control Board contributed $71 million to cities and counties for law enforcement and alcohol education/prevention. $345 million went to the general fund which funds most state agencies, the biggest being k-12 education.
It should be noted that the Liquor Control Board is the only state agency that brings in more money then it spends.....
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 04:46:08 PM
We need to QUIT throwing more money at "schools". How many of you think that your tax dollars are being properly allocated? We keep throwing more money at our problems and not getting good results.
Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.
A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".
Yeah lets cut back on our kids so we can pay $5 less a bottle for idiot juice!! The average college professor makes 60k, how is that too high as to be a major problem in their budget requiring hundreds of millions to be taken out of KID'S the education system? What should a college professor earn?
Come on man! You really believe that the current education system is working? I would agree that the best teachers and proffessors should be well compensated, but yes the AVERAGE LIBERAL college proffessor under our current system based on tenure is probably worth no more that $60K. If you keep falling for the liberal trick of "we're doing it for the kids" then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?
Post by: xd2005 on October 13, 2011, 04:56:18 PM
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?
Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.
Post by: bigtex on October 13, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.
The statement about the doubling the fines is fuzzy. The LCB is the agency that sets the fine for stores under the WAC. When stores are cited they are cited under the WAC while people are cited under RCW and somtimes both a RCW and WAC. Initiatives cannot change the WAC, but only the RCW. So what the initiative basically says is the LCB should double the fines, but they are not forced to because the initative cannot do that legally.
The initiative does nothing to increase or toughen the criminal penalties on the individual that sold the product to the minor. And who's fault is it the clerk sold to a minor, the store or the clerk????
Post by: cmiller85 on October 13, 2011, 07:32:48 PM
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?The initiative does nothing to increase or toughen the criminal penalties on the individual that sold the product to the minor. And who's fault is it the clerk sold to a minor, the store or the clerk????
Personally, my answer would be neither. As in, its neither the store clerk's fault or the store's fault. Why is it someone else's fault that some minor decided to break the law in the first place by purchasing liquor? It seems silly when you get down to the root of the problem (the minor).
If I shoplift, why is it not the store's fault for not stopping me?
Heck, why isn't it the cop's or government's fault that there is even crime at all?
These are rediculous arguments of course because people should be held accountable for their own actions. I say make it a $10,000 fine for an MIP or MIC and see what kind of problems you have with underage drinking.
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?The initiative does nothing to increase or toughen the criminal penalties on the individual that sold the product to the minor. And who's fault is it the clerk sold to a minor, the store or the clerk????
Personally, my answer would be neither. As in, its neither the store clerk's fault or the store's fault. Why is it someone else's fault that some minor decided to break the law in the first place by purchasing liquor? It seems silly when you get down to the root of the problem (the minor).
If I shoplift, why is it not the store's fault for not stopping me?
Heck, why isn't it the cop's or government's fault that there is even crime at all?
These are rediculous arguments of course because people should be held accountable for their own actions. I say make it a $10,000 fine for an MIP or MIC and see what kind of problems you have with underage drinking.
But since the store decided to sell booze in the first place should they not be responsible for anything? It would be like a gun store selling to a wanted fugitive...Would this be the fugitive or the gun store at fault?
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 08:41:08 PM
Well as Big Tex states 345 million undisputedly went to k-12 education.... I just dont see taking that money away as the lesser of two evils as far as valuating the "well being" of our education system. When that money dries up, what then?
Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.
Increase?? get the govmt to not sell and they will make more money from something that they arent selling anymore?? huh
Lets not forget rajn cajn's concern about all of the distribution jobs that will go in the toilet once the big box stores go to the manufactures directly.
Sounds like a win win for big business
So getting back to my original question.. If the government is going to make any money off the liquor anymore they will have to raise the tax.. which in turn will eat up any savings you thought you would get by voting yes on the initiative. Whats to stop the big box stores from selling at the price of the gov liquor stores? competition?
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 08:44:38 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 13, 2011, 09:07:01 PM
in the long run there wont be any competition because the distribution jobs that will be eliminated, now all of the restaraunts will get their booze at...yes you guessed it..costco (along with the rest of us)
And if they don't get it there they can get it directly from the producer of the product. I think people are unaware of the current system.
So here is a quick snapshot of the current system:
The restaurants/bars/store have to go thru a distributor to get their booze from the booze producer. So essentially it goes:
Producer>
Distributor>
Bar/restaurant/store
Under the proposed system with the initiative the distributor is essenitally cut out and the bar/restuarant/store can deal directly with the producer. So it would go:
Producer>
Bar/restuarant/store
There are some pretty big distributing companies in this state which employ a lot of people...
Post by: xd2005 on October 13, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
1. Hopefully you noticed the sarcasm and realize this is not a good idea.
2. If this is a bad idea, how is this truly different? ESPECIALLY if you are against this proposal based on "economic" reasons.
Post by: xd2005 on October 13, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.
Increase?? get the govmt to not sell and they will make more money from something that they arent selling anymore?? huh
Lets not forget rajn cajn's concern about all of the distribution jobs that will go in the toilet once the big box stores go to the manufactures directly.
Sounds like a win win for big business
So getting back to my original question.. If the government is going to make any money off the liquor anymore they will have to raise the tax.. which in turn will eat up any savings you thought you would get by voting yes on the initiative. Whats to stop the big box stores from selling at the price of the gov liquor stores? competition?
[/quote]
Straight from the Voter's Pamphlet:
The fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine bottle cost and markup for spirits. Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One-time debt service costs are $5.3 million. Ongoing new state costs are estimated at $158,600 over six fiscal years.
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop (http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop)
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 10:39:40 PM
Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.
Increase?? get the govmt to not sell and they will make more money from something that they arent selling anymore?? huh
Lets not forget rajn cajn's concern about all of the distribution jobs that will go in the toilet once the big box stores go to the manufactures directly.
Sounds like a win win for big business
So getting back to my original question.. If the government is going to make any money off the liquor anymore they will have to raise the tax.. which in turn will eat up any savings you thought you would get by voting yes on the initiative. Whats to stop the big box stores from selling at the price of the gov liquor stores? competition?
Straight from the Voter's Pamphlet:
The fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine bottle cost and markup for spirits. Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One-time debt service costs are $5.3 million. Ongoing new state costs are estimated at $158,600 over six fiscal years.
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop (http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop)
[/quote]
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
Post by: Armadillo on October 13, 2011, 10:42:51 PM
in the long run there wont be any competition because the distribution jobs that will be eliminated, now all of the restaraunts will get their booze at...yes you guessed it..costco (along with the rest of us)
And if they don't get it there they can get it directly from the producer of the product. I think people are unaware of the current system.
So here is a quick snapshot of the current system:
The restaurants/bars/store have to go thru a distributor to get their booze from the booze producer. So essentially it goes:
Producer>
Distributor>
Bar/restaurant/store
Under the proposed system with the initiative the distributor is essenitally cut out and the bar/restuarant/store can deal directly with the producer. So it would go:
Producer>
Bar/restuarant/store
There are some pretty big distributing companies in this state which employ a lot of people...
The smaller restaraunts and bars might find that ordering directly from a manufacturer can be a pain in the butt because of the minimum orders that are usually required when you order direct (we're talking pallets and pallets of booze)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 13, 2011, 11:09:33 PM
The penalty for selling/serving alcohol to a minor is a 5000 dollar fine. Up to a year in jail. And a criminal record. How more aggressive should the law be?
You couldn't be more wrong.
My friend is a Enforcement Officer for the Liquor Control Board. The fine for selling/serving/providining alcohol (no difference for a clerk or a 21 yr old giving a beer to a kid at a party) is UP TO $5,000 and/or a year in jail. He has told me that probably 98% of the cases his agencies have end up with less then a $250 fine and many times result in a deferal which basically means no fine and be a good boy for 6-12 months and this all goes away, including no criminal record. This officer says every year they have around 20 people who are cited and they learn they have been cited for this offense before. This is the same penalty for underage drinking. I know many kids that got MIP's nobody got over a $500 fine.
In the state of California if you are found guilty of serving to a minor you face a MINIMUM $1,000 fine (no minimum in WA). Your business also loses liquor license for a minimum of 14 days for the first violation, in WA it is a $500 fine for the store.
Two years ago 4 republican house members wanted to institute a $500 minimum for selling to minors in WA, it never made it out of comittee. If there was a minimum fine of atleast $500 I would have no problem privitizing liquor.
Regardless of how 1183 is voted on I agree with what you say here.
Post by: xd2005 on October 14, 2011, 07:24:25 AM
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.
I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?
Post by: Armadillo on October 14, 2011, 07:45:43 AM
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.
I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?
No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.
I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.
Post by: ribka on October 14, 2011, 07:51:03 AM
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.
I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?
No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.
I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.
The problem lies in the fact that the govt bureaucrats determine what a "sin" is and how it should be taxed. A gun or ammo tax? Now that would be bad.
Post by: Bigshooter on October 14, 2011, 07:59:10 AM
Post by: ribka on October 14, 2011, 08:00:58 AM
We need to QUIT throwing more money at "schools". How many of you think that your tax dollars are being properly allocated? We keep throwing more money at our problems and not getting good results.
Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.
A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".
Yeah lets cut back on our kids so we can pay $5 less a bottle for idiot juice!! The average college professor makes 60k, how is that too high as to be a major problem in their budget requiring hundreds of millions to be taken out of KID'S the education system? What should a college professor earn?
I know 4 college professors. My sister is a college professor. All the professors I know make over 100 k a year. They spend about 10 hours a week teaching.I would not call their work schedule rigorous. Getting tenure is difficult but once tenure is obtained they have very high paying and desirable jobs. I give my college professor sister a hard time re this. Then they have sabbaticals. Not a bad gig.
It has been shown again again that the more money spent on students in secondary schools the worse the education. Test standards are lowered every year and grades are so inflated now 1/2 the graduating classes have 4.0 or higher GPA's.An 8th grade education 40 years ago is better than a lot of college educations these days I have met so many illiterate college grads these days it is scary.
Post by: xd2005 on October 14, 2011, 08:46:46 AM
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.
I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?
No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.
I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.
Taxes and monopolistic management of an industry/product are two completely different things. This is not about the taxes on the product, only the state's monopoly on it.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 14, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?
They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long
This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.
I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?
No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.
I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.
Taxes and monopolistic management of an industry/product are two completely different things. This is not about the taxes on the product, only the state's monopoly on it.
Stop trying to bring logic & reason to this issue. In order for 1183 to be defeated we must keep up the emotional spects in play. That is how all the Union/Democrat ploys play out now days.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 14, 2011, 02:14:32 PM
I just got a flyer in the mail from the Anti side. It shows what claims to be Text from I-1183 "...license to sell will not be denied based on the size of the premises to be licensed"
I don't think anyone's campaign Ads can be trusted... :dunno:
Post by: xd2005 on October 14, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
There is a post here talking about Square Footage being the deciding factor on Mini Marts etc getting to sell liquor.
I just got a flyer in the mail from the Anti side. It shows what claims to be Text from I-1183 "...license to sell will not be denied based on the size of the premises to be licensed"
I don't think anyone's campaign Ads can be trusted... :dunno:
To clarify, this is what the Initiative says:
Quote
...
(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, the board may issue spirits retail licenses only for premises comprising at least ten thousand square feet of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure, including storerooms and other interior auxiliary areas but excluding covered or fenced exterior areas, whether or not attached to the structure, and only to applicants that the board determines will maintain systems for inventory management, employee training, employee supervision, and physical security of the product substantially as effective as those of stores currently operated by the board with respect to preventing sales to or pilferage by underage or inebriated persons.
(b) License issuances and renewals are subject to RCW 66.24.010 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including without limitation rights of cities, towns, county legislative authorities, the public, churches, schools, and public institutions to object to or prevent issuance of local liquor licenses. However, existing grocery premises licensed to sell beer and/or wine are deemed to be premises "now licensed" under RCW 66.24.010(9)(a) for the purpose of processing applications for spirits retail licenses.
(c) The board may not deny a spirits retail license to an otherwise qualified contract liquor store at its contract location or to the holder of former state liquor store operating rights sold at auction under section 102 of this act on the grounds of location, nature, or size of the premises to be licensed. The board shall not deny a spirits retail license to applicants that are not contract liquor stores or operating rights holders on the grounds of the size of the premises to be licensed, if such applicant is otherwise qualified and the board determines that:
(i) There is no retail spirits license holder in the trade area that the applicant proposes to serve;
(ii) The applicant meets, or upon licensure will meet, the operational requirements established by the board by rule; and
(iii) The licensee has not committed more than one public safety violation within the three years preceding application.
...
It may talk about it further, but this seems be the area under discussion.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 14, 2011, 02:41:49 PM
Post by: xd2005 on October 14, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 14, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
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!
Post by: bullcanyon on October 14, 2011, 03:41:05 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 14, 2011, 05:59:36 PM
http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition (http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition)
Post by: Curly on October 14, 2011, 06:17:33 PM
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 (http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-coalition)
Interesting. With those groups against it, I'm sure that YES is going to be the correct vote.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 14, 2011, 11:05:24 PM
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 (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???
Post by: twinners on October 15, 2011, 06:58:15 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 15, 2011, 07:12:19 PM
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 (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? :dunno:
Post by: runamuk on October 16, 2011, 12:42:13 PM
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 (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? :dunno:
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... :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: steen on October 16, 2011, 01:27:35 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 16, 2011, 01:40:21 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on October 16, 2011, 09:08:08 PM
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
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2011, 08:26:47 AM
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.
Post by: bigtex on October 17, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
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 (http://www.king5.com/news/up-front/Ad-Watch-Iniiative-1183-131951113.html)
Post by: Special T on October 17, 2011, 05:14:21 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 17, 2011, 05:50:01 PM
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 07:07:11 AM
Post by: rtspring on October 18, 2011, 07:42:22 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2011, 08:00:25 AM
Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.
I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.
Post by: skipper on October 18, 2011, 08:22:15 AM
Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.
Yes i have in Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and they have a way better selection then state liquor stores i drive to reno to get my alcohol and just for this reason they have different stuff then way do i will be voting yes
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 18, 2011, 08:31:01 AM
(Which is what they should have always done. :twocents:)
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 08:43:46 AM
And when the city of Vancouver loses the $2 million per year that it received in 2011 from the sale of liquor, what do you suppose will be used to fill that gap? I doubt Costco will be handing that over...Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.
I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 08:45:08 AM
Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?
(Which is what they should have always done. :twocents:)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2011, 08:52:35 AM
Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?
(Which is what they should have always done. :twocents:)
They shouldn't have to. The 25% markup they now charge covers the cost of doing business. Without those costs, the tax remains. There should be no tax increase.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2011, 08:55:38 AM
And when the city of Vancouver loses the $2 million per year that it received in 2011 from the sale of liquor, what do you suppose will be used to fill that gap? I doubt Costco will be handing that over...Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.
I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.
Was that money taxes collected on liquor sales or profits above and beyond taxes? I believe it was Vancouver's chunk of the taxes. If the bill DOES pass, liquor will be more competitive and people will buy more in WA state instead of sneaking it across state lines from somewhere else. Tax revenues will increase as a result. There would be no gap. There would be more revenue collected.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 18, 2011, 09:19:19 AM
Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?
(Which is what they should have always done. :twocents:)
There will be more revenue for the State if I-1183 passes. Washington does not have a revenue issue it has a spending issue. Raising taxes won't fix that. There will be less Union control and less Union revenues if I-1183 passes. Distributors fear wholesalers because they sell directly to the consumer. The jobs that are lost are Public Sector Union jobs. All distributors jobs may or may not be lost but distribution will still happen so these jobs will change, many of them may not be Union. This means less money to buy Democrats into office but probably more jobs for working people. Sorry to play the single cord of "Democrat/Union/Washington" but sometimes it's the facts that are hardest for some to accept. I have already posted the facts behind why I say this. I am all for more enforcement, no, I am not opposed to high taxes on some "sin items" like liquor, they already exist anyway. I think that is separate from the I-1183 merits.
Regardless of IF this passes the State will raise the Tax on liquor and cigarettes again. That is what they do. They do not care what I think as I'd doubt they would put it to a public vote. This is about allowing for free"er" markets. The laws against illegal sale are the same. The tax revenue is the same. All this does is increase convenience to the consumer and allow competition. That is always good for revenues in a free market, but the Government is not interested in markets, it is interested in CONTROL; As are socialists, if free markets are allowed we go strait to anarchy in their minds. If I-1183 passes the sky will not fall. If it does feel free to say you told me so.
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 12:10:54 PM
The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.
The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.
For 4th quarter of SFY2011, $140.6M was distributed to the General Fund, Local Governments, UW, WSU, WSP, and a couple other programs. Of that $140.6M, $27.8M was excess funds (non-dedicated revenue after expenses). So, if we apply that to the entire year, that is $111M that the state will no longer be receiving through the sale of liquor. $71M goes to the cities and counties annually, so even cutting them completely out won't close the gap. Thinking they will make up $111M in taxes without a tax increase would mean that the border-hoppers would have to spend another $400M on liquor in WA State annually (using the proposed 27% tax rate). So, please, tell me again how there is going to be more revenue for the state...?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2011, 01:10:22 PM
My phone won't let me quote the long posts for some reason, but I will try to address them.
The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.
The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.
For 4th quarter of SFY2011, $140.6M was distributed to the General Fund, Local Governments, UW, WSU, WSP, and a couple other programs. Of that $140.6M, $27.8M was excess funds (non-dedicated revenue after expenses). So, if we apply that to the entire year, that is $111M that the state will no longer be receiving through the sale of liquor. $71M goes to the cities and counties annually, so even cutting them completely out won't close the gap. Thinking they will make up $111M in taxes without a tax increase would mean that the border-hoppers would have to spend another $400M on liquor in WA State annually (using the proposed 27% tax rate). So, please, tell me again how there is going to be more revenue for the state...?
Your math is funky. It doesn't tell us how much of that money is from taxes and how much is from profits. The taxed income will increase. I'm also not sure what non-dedicated revenue is and where that comes from and goes to.
Regardless, I don't believe that the state can do a better job running liquor than private business can. Our government shouldn't be in the money-making business. They've never, ever been better at it than private business. Obviously, I've decided to vote yes.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 18, 2011, 01:10:29 PM
It's funny I thought the Government has to over-inflate the price of Liquior by 25% to run it's monopoly, but that is not the case. That is actually a 25% hidden tax!?
Thanks, I will add that to my reasons to vote for I-1183.
Gosh, that I think people keeping more of the own money is better than letting the Government tax & spend it, sooo selfish of me.
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 02:19:32 PM
EDIT: just to clarify, the $2M is an annual figure. In 4Q2011, $20.6M went to cities and counties, of which I don't know the breakdown between profits and taxes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2011, 02:26:28 PM
Post by: Antlershed on October 18, 2011, 02:27:50 PM
You threw out the statement that there will be more revenue. I would like to see the proof and how you come to that conclusion. My numbers show the state will lose out on the $111M of excess profits. They will have to make cuts somewhere, or increase some sort of tax to fill that void. I don't disagree with people being able to keep more of the money they earn, but if the cost of alcohol affects someones personal budget so bad, maybe they shouldn't drink :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 18, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
[/quote]And when the city of Vancouver loses the $2 million per year that it received in 2011 from the sale of liquor, what do you suppose will be used to fill that gap? I doubt Costco will be handing that over...
[/quote]
If the city of Vancouver is making 2 mill a year there aren't enough people driving to Jansen beach liquor store to save nearly $10 a half gallon... you can buy a half gal for almost the same price of a fifth in WA...
I'm tired of getting shook down in nearly every way in this state. Fee based taxes are the most fair when it's not turned into a shell game like all our taxes have been. I don't care where the state says the money is going... They are liars and cannot be trusted. Those who bought special Licence plates to help support the WDFW got hosed by the Governor when she decided that their budget would be reduced by that amount... They don't care about tax paying citizens so why should i support the machine?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 18, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
I will be voting yes, I would rather see the bulk of that $77.5 million go to law enforcement enforcing liquor laws, than to state employees selling liquor to the public.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 18, 2011, 04:44:35 PM
Wenatcheejay - What are you talking about a 25% hidden tax? The state currently has a markup of 51% which includes the tax portion. If 1183 passes, there will still be a 27% tax.
You threw out the statement that there will be more revenue. I would like to see the proof and how you come to that conclusion. My numbers show the state will lose out on the $111M of excess profits. They will have to make cuts somewhere, or increase some sort of tax to fill that void. I don't disagree with people being able to keep more of the money they earn, but if the cost of alcohol affects someones personal budget so bad, maybe they shouldn't drink :twocents:
Brent, I took that from you saying that the extra 25% mark up is not for the expense of selling liquor but to redistribute to the City of Vancouver.
" The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.
The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.
Your words. To me it shows that the CONTROL and the PRICE is about taxes and monopolies.
You asked me if I am in favor of even higher taxes. You make my point, 27% is not enough? How much is enough?
You state people should not drink if they can't afford the Government Monopoly Prices. Why? How is that reasonable for policy and economic basis? Personally I don't think that forcing people to pay more, get less, and I believe that tax revenue suffers under the current system so people get less all the way around. I makes no sense unless you are strait up against hard liquor all together. That I can understand. I am all for tough DUI laws. I am in favor of higher penalties for the illegal selling of any alcohol product. I think that if Costco & Retailers can sell this merchandise more efficient than our Government can it is a good thing. There will be plenty of revenue for our Governments cut. They need to stop being greedy. Have you ever looked at the web pages that are in favor I-1183? It is interesting that many reputable organizations and positive changes will come of this if it passes.
http://yeson1183.com/ (http://yeson1183.com/)
Look at the facts here. Many of your questions will be answered.
Look at this coalition and compare it to the one opposed. It shows what's going on here.
Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2011, 08:30:37 PM
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...
Post by: xd2005 on October 19, 2011, 07:04:39 PM
My phone won't let me quote the long posts for some reason, but I will try to address them.
The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.
The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.
For 4th quarter of SFY2011, $140.6M was distributed to the General Fund, Local Governments, UW, WSU, WSP, and a couple other programs. Of that $140.6M, $27.8M was excess funds (non-dedicated revenue after expenses). So, if we apply that to the entire year, that is $111M that the state will no longer be receiving through the sale of liquor. $71M goes to the cities and counties annually, so even cutting them completely out won't close the gap. Thinking they will make up $111M in taxes without a tax increase would mean that the border-hoppers would have to spend another $400M on liquor in WA State annually (using the proposed 27% tax rate). So, please, tell me again how there is going to be more revenue for the state...?
Straight from the Voter's Pamphlet:
The fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine bottle cost and markup for spirits. Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One-time debt service costs are $5.3 million. Ongoing new state costs are estimated at $158,600 over six fiscal years.
Post by: Atroxus on October 19, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
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? :dunno: I don't see a problem with that.
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 07:57:02 PM
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? :dunno: 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.
Post by: Atroxus on October 20, 2011, 12:31:20 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2011, 06:15:53 AM
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? :dunno: 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.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 20, 2011, 08:15:33 AM
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? :dunno: 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.
The program license fee is also not cheap. It is one way the State is going to raise money. I believe I read that it requires $150 million in new fees to the Government or the distributors have to make it up but I could be wrong that's from memory and not something I have in front of me. The State will make more money. The Economy will make more money. New Jobs are probably going to be opened up. People will have more choices at lower costs. Like a gun people will have to make choices as to what they do. Criminal behavior and poor personal choices are still that, we are responsible for what we personally do. The Nanny State has not solves the problem of poor choices with the system in place. The only people are going to not win are the ones who profit from the Status quo.
Post by: lokidog on October 20, 2011, 10:24:27 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2011, 10:38:54 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on October 20, 2011, 11:14:13 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 20, 2011, 11:54:52 AM
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 :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2011, 11:57:31 AM
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 :tup:
I know, right? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 20, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on October 20, 2011, 01:07:00 PM
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.
:yeah:
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.
Post by: Atroxus on October 20, 2011, 04:07:03 PM
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.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 20, 2011, 04:46:05 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on October 20, 2011, 08:29:32 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on October 20, 2011, 08:33:32 PM
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? :dunno: 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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2011, 05:33:34 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 21, 2011, 05:52:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2011, 06:39:56 AM
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
Post by: GoldTip on October 21, 2011, 06:40:01 AM
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.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on October 26, 2011, 10:26:04 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 26, 2011, 10:32:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 26, 2011, 10:43:28 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 26, 2011, 10:53:33 AM
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...?The property owner probably put it up. I work for the state in Spokane and we had political signs in our parking lot and on the buildings because the property owner puts then up. We have no say what he puts on the building we lease. Makes sense he or she probably doesn't want to lose the rent the state is paying them.
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 26, 2011, 11:14:29 AM
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 (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???
The government stores, for all their ills, actually care a very wide range of brands. Smaller distillers are worried that the big box stores will concentrate on the Smirnoffs and the Jack Daniel's and other large brands and not carry smaller brands. Not to mention Costco markets its own line of high quality liquors.
I don't think it will be a big problem in reality though, there is a lot of consumer demand for craft distillers.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 26, 2011, 12:09:39 PM
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.:yeah:
And the mini-marts are already selling beer, wine, and fufu drinks. If all these folks are so concerned that mini-marts are selling alcohol to teens maybe they should try to have the state take control of beer and wine too. :rolleyes: Teens will get liquor if they want it, and I know of none that ever went to buy it from a store. Some druggies I knew back in college days used to always be opposed to legalizing drugs if it had an age limit....they said it was always easier to score drugs than alcohol or cigarettes.
Post by: StacyDave97 on October 26, 2011, 12:43:06 PM
And 2. Doesn't anyone wonder why all this money is being thrown into the pot by the biggie stores for a YES vote?? I'm pretty sure the big box stores don't really care about us - the consumer, other than to get our dollars. The way the initiative reads, there has to be a certain amount of money made by May 2013, I believe that was the date, or the stores will have to come up with the money. So if the money is not made....who gets to pay for that? We do in higher prices.
I don't mind going to the liquor store and would prefer they just keep it there. My :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 26, 2011, 02:24:54 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 26, 2011, 03:43:37 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 26, 2011, 05:08:37 PM
Let's do both, state run and private, then everyone is happy!!
Great Idea, but as is the State doesn't allow it. They would perfer it to stay that way.
I like the commercials that say Costco wants to line their pockets with untold millions if 1183 passes. So, is that what the State does now???
At least Costco pays taxes....
Post by: bigtex on October 26, 2011, 09:15:29 PM
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...?
There are two types of liquor stores in WA. State stores which are leased by the state and ran by state employees. Contract stores are ran much like a private business in that the employees are not government employees, the store manager is the one running the store and pays the lease payments, the store essentially contracts with the state to sell liquor. Most contract stores are in smaller towns, considering how small Chewelah is I would assume it is a contract store and thus not leased by the state.
Post by: MikeWalking on October 26, 2011, 10:26:54 PM
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...?
There are two types of liquor stores in WA. State stores which are leased by the state and ran by state employees. Contract stores are ran much like a private business in that the employees are not government employees, the store manager is the one running the store and pays the lease payments, the store essentially contracts with the state to sell liquor. Most contract stores are in smaller towns, considering how small Chewelah is I would assume it is a contract store and thus not leased by the state.
Ditto. Contract Stores are privately owned and run. The owner of one told me the last time this stuff was on the ballot it would hurt them badly. They wouldn't be able to afford the inventory. I got the impression the State "fronts" them the inventory. That wont happen if this passes.
Post by: ICEMAN on October 27, 2011, 04:40:08 AM
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...?
There are two types of liquor stores in WA. State stores which are leased by the state and ran by state employees. Contract stores are ran much like a private business in that the employees are not government employees, the store manager is the one running the store and pays the lease payments, the store essentially contracts with the state to sell liquor. Most contract stores are in smaller towns, considering how small Chewelah is I would assume it is a contract store and thus not leased by the state.
Ditto. Contract Stores are privately owned and run. The owner of one told me the last time this stuff was on the ballot it would hurt them badly. They wouldn't be able to afford the inventory. I got the impression the State "fronts" them the inventory. That wont happen if this passes.
What? The state fronts the store owner the booze to sell? How does the store owner get all the other merchandise to sell?
IMHO, if there is a profit to be made on any merchandise, a store owner will figure out a way to get it onto their shelf, and to get it there at a competitive price. Capitalism.
Getting the government involved with getting merchandise to the marketplace IS the problem, an extra layer of bureacracy and cost which the consumer must now fund.
I am voting yes on the Initiative.
Post by: dreamunelk on October 27, 2011, 04:49:01 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 27, 2011, 04:55:03 AM
The owner of the business will lose their business under 1183. Costco did not put up 20mil because this will benefit the state! More jobs will be lost in the private sector than gained by this.
So you feel that the more government intervention there is, the more private sector jobs there are? Just trying to figure this out.....
Should the state intervene in tire sales? Fly fishing gear sales? Yarn?
How about ammunition sales. Ammunition is a regulated item for sale. Should the state also involve itself in the sale of ammo. Gotta keep the kids safe....(just being a wise azz, no offense intended...)
Also, I do not feel that the intiative is about saving jobs. It is about getting bloated governement expenditures down. Reduce the size of government.
I feel the consumer will benefit from a reduced cost to them when they purchase alcohol. This alone is a value to the taxpayers.
Post by: rasbo on October 27, 2011, 05:03:08 AM
Post by: gasman on October 27, 2011, 05:05:52 AM
Get teh Gov. out of the liquor busines and would liek to walk in to Safeway, Fred Meyers< Market Place, Costco, etc... and buy my boose. Enjoyed the variety you can get at the grocery store that you cant get at a stste run store. The state only sells a fraction of the liq. available to consumers. I always stop in a liq. store when I am in other states and always see and but items I cant get here in WA.
Post by: Special T on October 27, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
The owner of the business will lose their business under 1183. Costco did not put up 20mil because this will benefit the state! More jobs will be lost in the private sector than gained by this.By this same kind of logic we need complex laws for living and paying taxes. It keeps lawyers, accountants busy that might otherwise have to do some other kind of work. The IRS is a great way of keeping good paying jobs in this country!
Think of all that great jobs that are in King county because of all the local regulations. Health inspectors, Invasive species contoll officers, and all forms of the permitting and consulting businesses that help keep you legal! :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 27, 2011, 09:46:26 AM
And, as soon as we can put every employee for the IRS, the US Dept. of Education, and the Dept of Health and Human Services out of work, the better we'll all be for it. Our government is out of control and this is only one step toward correcting that.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 27, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 27, 2011, 12:46:13 PM
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...?
There are two types of liquor stores in WA. State stores which are leased by the state and ran by state employees. Contract stores are ran much like a private business in that the employees are not government employees, the store manager is the one running the store and pays the lease payments, the store essentially contracts with the state to sell liquor. Most contract stores are in smaller towns, considering how small Chewelah is I would assume it is a contract store and thus not leased by the state.
Ditto. Contract Stores are privately owned and run. The owner of one told me the last time this stuff was on the ballot it would hurt them badly. They wouldn't be able to afford the inventory. I got the impression the State "fronts" them the inventory. That wont happen if this passes.
What? The state fronts the store owner the booze to sell? How does the store owner get all the other merchandise to sell?
The state and the private store under operate under a contract, thus being called a contract store. Essentially the state provides the store the liquor, and a portion of the money goes to the private owner and a part goes to the state. Whereas at state run stores all the profits go into the govt account for distribution among many funds.
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 27, 2011, 12:57:17 PM
Post by: spookgus on October 27, 2011, 01:06:59 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 27, 2011, 01:40:03 PM
I have no problem with privatizing liquor sales. The main problem I have with this initiative is that if you are not big enough, you can't get a piece of the action. I'm split.
I am not overly fond of the size restriction either. But I would rather hurry up and get the state out of the retail business, and get the other parts of the initiative fixed later on.
Post by: Tacomahunter on October 27, 2011, 02:06:28 PM
To me, it is amazing there is even an debate to this.:yeah:
Post by: sisu on October 29, 2011, 10:34:46 PM
Washinton State would like to wipe your ass if it could for a dollar.
Post by: oldcamper on October 29, 2011, 11:29:22 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 30, 2011, 04:43:22 AM
I am going to have to go with a no, becouse I just don't see any other store being able to accuratly control the alcohol. Or the workers selling to friends.
Ok...., so should the stores currently selling wine and beer stop selling this, or is your concern only over hard liquor?
Post by: MikeWalking on October 30, 2011, 08:26:20 AM
I am going to have to go with a no, becouse I just don't see any other store being able to accuratly control the alcohol. Or the workers selling to friends.
:DOH: :rolleyes:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 30, 2011, 08:30:46 AM
I am going to have to go with a no, becouse I just don't see any other store being able to accuratly control the alcohol. Or the workers selling to friends.
Ok...., so should the stores currently selling wine and beer stop selling this, or is your concern only over hard liquor?
There is the same argument as to why guns should not be sold in private sales. I pity this generation.