 |
Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood |
Mamasings
offlineMember
Initiative Measure No. 1100 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers and producers.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
GoldenRetriever
offlineMember
i am choosing to vote yes. The less state run anything the better
ginamarie
offlineMember
I have two questions about it. How much wll the state loose by loosing the exclusive contract or will it not be effected due to taxes?
Also, how valid do you think the argument is that it'll be more easily accessable to underage drinkers? I feel like they have a valid point there, but I do like the idea of it being separate from the state.
Nora Bell
offlineMember
Booze will still be taxed. The state won't loose much, if anything. And there will be, IMO, no change in kids getting access to booze. They can pay somebody to get them a bottle at the liquer store just as easily as they can pay somebody to buy them booze at a 7-11.
jburgh
offlineMember
"Also, how valid do you think the argument is that it'll be more easily accessable to underage drinkers? I feel like they have a valid point there, but I do like the idea of it being separate from the state."
It will be much easier for kids. Small places like 7-11 who are very motivated to sell, will be less selective of the customer they sell to (kids). I have no faith that Seattle/WA state will try to monitor these small places. I grew up in an area where everyone sold booze. It was also an area with a far higher presence of police. It was so easily for the underage me to walk into places and buy beer or gin. I was rarely asked for an ID.
SmartsyArtsy
offlineMember
I do believe kids will have easier access. Selling booze will be a money maker for stores, both large and small. Convenience stores will not turn down every kid; I think the temptation to sell volume is too great. It will also increase the temptation of recovering alcoholics and others who shouldn't be spending their money on booze.
It's a big NO
Cookiesballard
offlineMember
Yes, kids already have access to beer and wine. If they really want hard alcohol they can get it easily. I am excited to have access to some great bottles that we can't get now.
BriarRose
offlineMember
No.
Nora Bell
offlineMember
Yes, but SmartsyArtsy, stores lose liquer licenses for selling to minors. What must THAT do to their profit margin? I think there will be enough legal penalties to dampen any temptation.
Pokerguy
offlineMember
I would vote yes.
I think the state should be more focused on things like education, crime, tourism, etc...
And for those concerned with underage drinking, it should be a parents job to police what their kids are doing, not the states. And for kids in the 18-21 range the burden falls on the retailer.
onederfullone
offlineMember
I'm pleasantly surprised in that there seem to be a few people who aren't falling for the scare tactics. This will get our tax dollars out of the currently inefficient model of marking up the cost of alcohol to subsidize public employee labor. The focus has to move away from sales to enforcement.
Hold the LCB accountable for it's currently pathetic enforcement of regulations. If truly 1 in 4 attempts for minors to purchase alcohol being successful is true, and these stores have not yet lost the ability to sell beer and wine, that is the issue of foremost concern to me, not what they can sell, but that they are allowed to continue flaunting the law.
I'd have a zero tolerance expectation of enforcement, then no store would risk the lost revenue of losing the license to sell. That should have been our expectation of the state's responsibility from day one, not how much alcohol should cost and when it's available. It won't, as it hasn't, been of any benefit to our public safety.
teigyr
offlineMember
I will vote yes. There are huge fines for selling to minors and I don't think a convenience store employee or owner wants that. Not only is the employee and store fined (I believe both are fined?) the employee would probably lose their job. If a store is known for having citations, they will be more heavily scrutinized and tested. That is the LAST thing an owner wants.
I think if anybody truly wants something, they will find a way to get it. This goes for pot at BHS or hard alcohol if you're a minor. I find the state control of liquor to be fairly insulting only I think their motivation isn't so much to "protect" us, it's purely for revenue.
briana-n-pugs
offlineMember
I am voting yes.
I lived in California, and they sell it in grocery stores and it is cheaper and more convenient. I also lived there when I was under 21 and couldn't buy it just because it was sold it in non-state-run stores. The scare-tactic commercials are annoying.
cd6
offlineMember
Vote yes.
joemomma
offlineMember
yes.
teigyr
offlineMember
briana-n-pugs, me too re California. It's amazing how perfectly logical people seem to think the world will fall apart if we can actually get hard alcohol in a normal store. To me it's abnormal NOT to be able to do that.
Ernie
offlineMember
I was going to introduce my own ballot measure that would force liquor stores to stock tonic and limes......but this one is probably better.
cyoungers
offlineMember
Limes and tonic at a place selling gin. Imagine that.
Annamatopoetry
offlineMember
I'm not yet a US citizen, so I can't vote, but if I did, it would be a definite NO. Someone said "...they sell it in grocery stores and it is cheaper and more convenient" - exactly! Alcohol should be neither cheap nor conveient. I like booze as much as the next person, but frankly, it's hard enough for me to accept that wine and reasonably strong beer can be sold in grocery stores here. It's not just about kids or recovering alcoholics either, it's about the general health (I realize people will always want booze, I am not dumb, but to have a monopoly is a pretty effective way to keep an eye on it.)
Ernie
offlineMember
If you like booze as much as the next person, you must be able to regulate your intake to a healthy level, right?
In your post you imply that the average person isn't able to do that, and they need the government to do it for them. IMO people who are going to abuse alcohol will do so whether the state controls the sales or not. The state should focus on enforcing liquor laws.
Nora Bell
offlineMember
I don't think a monopoly is a good idea for anything. And those who are true alcoholics will find a way to get booze, believe me. My father found a way to get completly blotto on a substitute teacher's salary because he was a true addict. Making it more convienient wouldn't have made him any more blotto. And I believe it won't change anything now regarding alcoholics or underage drinking.
Cyoungers - Have you ever experienced BevMo? The gin, limes, shaker, glasses, snacks all sold in one wonderful place.
onederfullone
offlineMember
Oh, I'd love a BevMo here. Ballard has lots of space available for one...
pennygirl
onlineMember
So 'BevMo' is basically an Off-Licence, correct?
onederfullone
offlineMember
Not sure what you mean. They are a chain, sort of like if a liquor store here went on steroids, and sold everything that any wet bar required, for about half, or less. My last trip there was cleverly planned, took a homeward flight to the south instead of Sea-Tac, picked up a rental car, and stocked up. I saved more than the price of the rental car, seriously, and the drive home was great until about Olympia, where I knew I was home...'welcome home, you idiot'
Nora Bell
offlineMember
They have one in Oakland and it's the first place I go before checking into the hotel. It is a chain, and stocks EVERYTHING you need for any cocktail party. For less than you could get here and all in one stop. Saving time and gas, as well as money.
pennygirl
onlineMember
OK...an Off-Licence it is!
ddutch
offlineMember
I voted yes.
The commercials airing against 1100 just do what a lot of political ads do best: make you scared. We give up a ton of freedoms or items we can buy in the name of "safety for <insert inspiring fear item here>". If you're a minor, reality is that if you want alcohol... you'll be able to get alcohol. If not from your own liquor cabinet, than from their friends or an acquaintance.
plasticbags
offlineMember
I'm voting yes.
I was underage a lot more recently than most of you and lived in a state that even had drive-thru liquor stores. If a store failed one of their random inspections, it was huge news because it happened so rarely. You would just get your friends over 21 to buy you alcohol. Even when you're in high school. So sorry parents but you still actually have to be parents.
onederfullone
offlineMember
I can't stand it when some young whippersnapper makes sense.
Nora Bell
offlineMember
I know, right?
Signed,
Bitter Old Codger
onederfullone
offlineMember
lol...and the avatar FTW ;-)
Love booze, wish the state wasn't in charge, still voting NO.
The Office of Financial Management estimates that 1100 will cost state and local services $250 million over five years. Prior to that analysis, the people who wrote the initiative (Stephan Sharkansky of Sound Politics blog) said that it would cost the state about $60 million each year. That's because it eliminates the state markup. The markup currently goes 50% to the state, 40% to cities and 10% to counties - this is a huge revenue stream, especially for cities. If Eyman's 1053 passes, then we won't be able to raise any taxes to make up for that lost revenue. That's why nearly every city in Washington has taken a stand against this initiative - they know that without that funding, they will be forced to cut into essential services like cops and firefighters.
1100 will also hurt local craft brewers and Washington wines. Grocery stores sell shelf space to the highest bidder (that's why the cheap cereal is on the bottom shelf). There's a limited amount of space, and our local breweries and wines aren't going to be able to compete with big liquor distributors for shelf space, so they lose out.
And yeah, I lived in CA too, and found a store to sell me booze, no questions asked, within a week of arriving there at 18-years-old. Sure, kids can always get alcohol - but we don't have to make it super easy for them. Just like adults can always get alcohol - for all the whining about convenience and how hard it is to buy booze, somehow, we're all still managing to get drunk, even with state run stores.
To me, it's not worth losing more teachers or more firefighters just so I can be even more spontaneous in my binge drinking.
BallardENTP
offlineMember
My instinct is Yes. The government of Washington shouldn't be a retailer. Or in other words, "the less state-run anything, the better". But Martensa's comments inspire me to do a bit more research into actual impact.
michp
offlineMember
BallardENTP - 30 plus other states seem to be able to do it without any more issues then Washington.
Ballard Ninja
offlineMember
State run liquor stores are a result of prohibition. After the repeal, many states decided they wanted to control the sale of alcohol, to limit widespread use. It makes no sense in today's world for our government to have a monopoly on any consumer product.
1100 hurting local breweries and wineries doesn't make much sense to me. I would have to see some numbers that back that claim up. Beer drinkers will still drink beer, wine drinkers will still drink wine. And complaining about some competition? Buck up and work a little harder, market better, grow your business, make it run more efficiently (you get my drift). Competition can be a good thing.
Regarding underage drinking, data shows that CA has less underage drinkers that WA, yet they have privatized sales. There really isn't much correlation between privatized or state run liquor sales and underage drinking. Educating them early on is the best way to curb underage drinking. There are many other more important factors that lead to underage drinking.
Edog
offlineMember
"Buck up and work a little harder, market better, grow your business, make it run more efficiently (you get my drift)." With respect to competition, this is a case where the law is being written by big box stores, for the benefit of big box stores. Its simply a changing of the playing field, not a leveling of it.
Ballard Ninja
offlineMember
Honest question, why isn't it a leveling of the playing field? Liquor would be able to be sold in the same stores as beer and wine.
Edog
offlineMember
In addition to taking the state out of the liquor business, it changes many regs with respect to alcohol. For example, stores like costco would be able to buy alcohol on credit, which would adversely effect smaller producers.
onederfullone
offlineMember
Home Depot builds and stocks their stores on a cash basis, while Lowes builds and stocks their stores on credit. Neither seems to have an unfair advantage, one is more solvent, granted, but to we the consumer, there is no appreciable difference. Costco would have to rely on volume to make up for the credit costs, which I suspect they will. Smaller retailers would either apply for credit sales, or COD as they currently do for beer and wine. Either way, I don't see it as a negative, or unfair.
Edog
offlineMember
Onder its not smaller retailers, its smaller producers. In an area with so much local beer and wine, I'm surprised more people are not sensitive to this.
onederfullone
offlineMember
I see, so it is assumed that our prolific, incredible local producers would be unable to compete. I don't purchase many national brand beverages, in fact, I can't remember the last time I have. I will still prefer Maritime over others, and I don't suspect that will change for me. If the fear is the product will no longer be available to me, I'd like to know how that could be the case.
Anyhow, I'd suspect that when the legislature gets a hold of these two initiatives, which will pass, this discussion will fall onto the heap of other [edit-moot] extrapolations, as they will certainly alter the landscape...
Edog
offlineMember
"so it is assumed that our prolific, incredible local producers would be unable to compete." Yes it is assumed, I've been trying to get my head around this. I don't think all would be hurt, but there are so many small niche players who I think would walk away if the market favored big box players.
Speaking of assumptions, as this has been written by and for costco, its my belief they will make these 20+ regulatory changes to benefit them, no one else. The liquor stores are part of it, and while I don't really care if the state is in that business or not, that aspect of this seems like a front as nobody it talking about, or even seems aware of the other changes.
FWIW - I mentioned this once before, but the Washington Brewers Guild is against this law. I don't know how each an every member feels about the law, but take a look at this list, it includes a few locals like Hales and Maritime
DDF
offlineMember
Just sent in my ballot = YES!
You must log in to post.
