As I posted last Friday, we have three bills in the state legislature pushing to privatize WA liquor sales (SB 6204, SB 6839, and SB 6840), their sponsors arguing that the role of government isn't to peddle booze. In the midst of state and local budget crises, privatization would generate over a $100 million a year in additional revenue, advocates say. But even if it didn’t, they argue it’s more appropriate to be cutting employees’ health care and pension plans at 315 state liquor stores than to lose more teachers.

What's the other side of the debate?

Jim Cooper, vice president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, testified against state senator Sheldon’s bill (SB 6204) and thinks the revenue argument for privatization is bullshit (my words, not his). Successful privatization, he argues, would mean thousands of new liquor stores would flood the state, which would drive up underage drinking rates.

Right now the WSLCB brings in $850 million in revenue from selling booze, a little less than half of which goes to state and local governments ($332.7 million in 2009). Currently, the state gets money from both liquor markup and taxes, but if liquor stores go private, the state loses out on markup.

If we were to privatize liquor stores—thereby putting the state simply in the business of selling licenses— Cooper says the state would have to open up between 3,000 and 6,000 new stores to generate the same amount of revenue we are now. He adds, "We have to sell that much more booze to generate the same amount in taxes."

Then there's the case to be made regarding increased underage drinking. The liquor enforcement officers and police regularly execute compliance checks, sending teenagers into liquor stores to try and buy alcohol. “In state stores,” Cooper continues, “compliance is above 90 percent, in private stores, it’s below 70 percent.”

“We know from research that when you have a higher liquor density, there are higher rates of youth and adult abuse of alcohol," says Cooper. "In the 12th grade we have 60 percent using alcohol in last 30 days [according to AskHys, which sponsors Healthy Youth Surveys throughout Washington]. In 10th grade, the percentage is about 35 or 40. With higher access, there’s more availability, and a direct correlation to more youth drinking."

Cooper adds, “It’s an American myth" that European kids can handle their liquor. "Several states in the EU are looking to change their drinking age to 21 because of high rates of abuse.”

Which is partly true: France, Australia, Scotland, Italy, and Scotland have all explored raising their legal drinking ages in the last few years to curb youth binge drinking—but most to 18 or 19, not 21. Only France succeeded in raising its drinking age from 16 to 18 in 2009.

“The bottom line is, there’s no huge revenue increase for the state unless we drastically increase the amount of liquor we sell,” says Cooper. “We don’t know what it’s going to cost in prevention and treatment when alcohol abuse goes up that much.”