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.