State of Washington Informative - Battle Over Initiative 1183

Review by Starlord on 2011-10-14
We are embroiled in a battle right now over an initiative to get the state of Washington out of the business of selling liquor. To those who do not live in Washington, the state is the only source for hard liquor. I am one who feels the state has no business sellinng booze, so of course, I am in favor of 1183 passing. The opponents have been waging a campaign based in emotion and putting forth a lot of false information. While I respect the opinions of those who do the commercials, what it comes down to, the have lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident. Just as Ted Kennedy blamed the guns for the death of his brothers, and did everything he could to kill the Second Amendment, these people, for whatever reason, think that keeping the sale of liquor a state function. They claim there will be a 27 percent tax put on us. The Attorney General has declared this to be false and misleading, and it was rejected by the Superior Court in Thurston County, where the state capital is located. They claim that a thousand mini-marts will be able to sell booze, while the initiative forbids that idea. The opponents claim that police stings CONDUCTED IN WASHINGTON show that said non-state liquor outlets, of which there are none, have been shown to sell liquor to teens. Since there are no non-state liquor stores, where are these stings being conducted? The initiative specifically doubles the fines and other actions for selling liquor to kids. Maybe they were conducting these stings on the sales of beer or wine, which can be bought in many places, the initiative's purpose is to do away with the 100 million dollars a year the state liquor stores cost us, do away with the monopoly prices and give customers the benefits of comptetion in the marketplace, and provide funding for more police, fire and other emergency services, without raising taxes. I urge other members who live in Washington to vote Yes on I-1183.
Comments:11 Replies - Latest reply on 2011-11-10
Posted by Anonymous on 2011-10-14:
Shouldn't this be in the "News/Politics" section?
Posted by T on 2011-10-14:
The same thing is happening here in Pennsylvania, where it is the same for hard liquor. Beer is sold at outlets that are private.

It used to be that going to the liquor store was a bad experience. The employees were surly and not helpful. That changed several years ago, and I find them quite helpful and knowledgeable. However, there seems to be widespread support for getting out of the liquor sales business, which I agree with.

I don't see any good reason a state should be selling liquor.
Posted by lexophiliac on 2011-10-14:
Good review Star. I too have been following the debate closely, weighing both sides of the issue against my personal feelings on the subject, and have been researching statistics and other states laws.
Posted by Old Timer on 2011-10-14:
Utah, Washington and Oregon have had some strange liquor laws and systems over the years. When I used to travel to Utah for biz I had a club where I had a bottle in a locker. Then I would have to buy a set-up for around $3.00. It was a glass, ice and my mix, then I would pour my own booze.

Before going into Oregon from California some of the busiest shops are the large liquor stores right at the border. Load up as it gets tough to get a beer or drink in a lot of places.
Posted by T on 2011-10-14:
Old_Timer -> Back in the day, which was like 60-70 years ago, I visited friends in Utah. At the bar, they would give you a small bottle of liquor and a glass with the rest. You had to leave the bar counter before mixing them together. That is my memory anyway.
Posted by Alain on 2011-10-14:
They still use that system in some counties in NC, I beleive, Trmn8r. They call them 'set ups'. It'll be interesting to see what happens in PA, as well as Washington.
Posted by Clamshell on 2011-10-14:
Interesting that you used Ted Kennedy as 'blaming' guns, but didn't mention Ms. Kopechne and his drunk "prayer time" accident.

Posted by Starlord on 2011-10-15:
I saw a bumper sticker I jusr loved once. "My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car." I feel for the people who lost loved ones to drunk drivers, but it has nothing, really to do with whether or not liquor sales is a legitimate function of government. As far as beer and wine go, they are sold by private businesses here, but the state controls their distribution. I understand that under 1183, that would be unchanged. I was a deputy sheriff in Arizona, and the opponents are making a fuss over the fact that the state only has 51 liquor control agents. They can do what Arizona did and train commissioned police officers and empower them to enforce liquor laws. After we received the training and were certified, we became the most hated people by the bars in our district. In our district alone, they had, in effect, nine more agents, and we enjoyed the compliance checks.
Posted by Old Timer on 2011-10-15:
Starlord, I remember the good old days at the Colorado River. If we were on the Az side on a Sunday morning and we ran out of beer, too bad. No beer till 12:00 noon. We would take the boat accross the river to buy our beer.

I was always amazed at how someone would say "you know there is only one beer left" always about 10:00am on Sunday in 110' heat.
Posted by Starlord on 2011-10-15:
OT, been there, done that, didn't even get the lousy ball cap or t-shirt. Thnx.
Posted by lexophiliac on 2011-11-10:
Well Star, the most costliest initiative in Washington state history has passed. 1183 is a done dada.

Your Name:
(displayed with your comment)
Your E-mail:

Your Experience/Advice:
Check spelling

By clicking submit you agree that you have read and accept the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.

Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.