1 -- they've already said no, they're not interested in citizen involvement; they're only interested in citizen harassment.

I still don't understand how moving "push out" from 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. will solve any problem. People who get drunk and cause problems will only be drunker when pushed out at even later hours.

And the LCB was rightly concerned about drinkers being pushed out at 2:00 a.m. in less-enlightened towns driving into the city to continue drinking for another hour or two or three.

The real solution is to enforce the ban on overserving, and do it at all hours. If you exit the bar and can blow more than 0.08, you've been overserved!

Sorry, but as a bus driver who works overnight routes, I'd like to hand each and every one of the LCB members who voted against extending Seattle's bar hours a fucking medal.

Maybe the commercialization of our citizen initiative process isn't such a bad thing...can we get the spirits distributors to bankroll a statewide initiative to disband the liquor control board?

The WSLCB is an odd duck. We all know that alcohol is a dangerous intoxicating substance, but is totally legal for anyone over 21. The caveats are a) no driving after more than one or 2 drinks. b) no giving booze to kids. c) we'd prefer you did your blackout drinking at home. and d) bars have to close at 2am. The pro-pot people keep telling us it is super dangerous and use that as a reason to make 'safer' marijuana legal.

Every state has some mechanism for control of alcohol as a special substance. Lets not forget that there are still many dry counties, and many more places where bars shut at midnight or 1 am. In most towns in the UK pubs shut at 11pm, and that seems to work fine for them...no one would suggest that there isn't enough drinking happening over there.

Dominic hinted in a recent Morning News that MayorMikeMcGinn maaaaaaaybe let slide the work of swaying other jurisdictions to let the WSLCB know they supported the idea. Any insight on this? If he'll propose a rule change but not put in effort to shepherd support for it, instead using it as fodder to build resentment of the state among his base, well, that would be awfully Kucinichy.

"It would allow cities to seek the right to serve liquor past 2:00 a.m., but it's still unclear that Mayor Mike McGinn, who requested the rule change, ever did his homework by working with county police and nearby cities to win their support. With their opposition, the proposal could be scotched." http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…

79 fucking years, and we are still unwinding the legacy of Prohibition.

@6

The reason for extending the hours is not because we think there "isn't enough drinking."

It's because closing all the bars at 2 am is counter productive. It creates more alcohol impact, not less.

There's also the fact that we don't need a whole layer of State bureaucracy to regulate alcohol. We have a police force; every other town has one too. And a county sheriff on top of that. There are enough cops around to do the job.

The WSLCB is just bloated bureaucracy and excessive centralization of power. Based on the assumption that city mayors and councils are too stupid to decide their own alcohol policy, so we need these three boar members who are so much smarter to tell us what to do.

Just because the WSLCB doesn't effect the change you want doesn't mean they're ineffectual.

@9- as I said, every state has a special mechanism for controlling alcohol sales. They generally set the outside boundary for alcohol sales, and are happy to allow municipalities, tribes, counties to further restrict as they see fit. If the 2 am push-out is so dangerous, then lets have a few bars close at midnight and a few more close at 1am. That solves the 'problem' and we don't need any special permission to do that.

Oh, wait, that doesn't help sell more alcohol, which is absolutely the motivation behind this.

@6 The U.K. is in no way evidence that having pubs close early helps reduce problem drinking.
U.K.'s binge drinking rate is second only to Ireland. http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factshee…
They've fiddled with the hours over the past decade and saw little change. When they allowed 24-licenses there was slightly less closing-time violence and slightly more late-night violence.

It could be that most of the alcohol consumed during binges doesn't come from pubs/bars, but rather markets & liquor stores as people pre-funk or top-up with cheap stuff. Binge drinking at bars is expensive.

"...we're talking about three people arbitrarily endowed by the governor..."

Jesus, Cienna. You sound like Tim Eyman. That's the same argument he used when claiming the Transportation Commission couldn't set ferry fares.

The A#1 reason I want the WSLCB disbanded? They're the fucking Purity Police. Why don't we allow drinking in titty bars in this state? WSLCB. Why was the Eagle penalized for showing a clip that included very brief full-frontal nudity? WSLCB. They are used as a brute-force instrument against any kind of private club that wants to permit its members to enjoy a glass of wine; if the WSLCB suspects that one person might someday show a tit, they can close the club down if there is one fucking drop of alcohol present. I could care less about most of their other functions, but they're being used to enforce laws against nudity and/or sex in PRIVATE venues, all of which have to be stricter than Baptist Sunday Schools about alcohol on the premises, because of the WSLCB. Why are we allowing this absurdly Puritanical extrajudicial bunch of bluenoses to tell adults they cannot participate in two LEGAL activities in PRIVATE at the same time?

@12- that wasn't my point. My point was that those folks (I used to be one of them) get plenty of drinking done by the 11am cutoff -which is what I meant by "it works fine for them" Not implying they don't have issues w/ binge drinking or violence...just that everyone is done doing so early enough to get up for work in the morning.

So I repeat- lets give this staggered closing a shot. Dave Meinert's bar can close at 11pm. I expect he will be totally cool with that, since it is such a great idea. and totally not about selling booze for an extra hour.

Also- @14- why are you trying to take strip clubs away from the 18-20 year olds? What kind of puritanical nutjob are you?

@6, Chris Jury wrote, "We all know that alcohol is a dangerous intoxicating substance, but is totally legal for anyone over 21." Those ideas are not contrary. Alcohol is a dangerous, intoxicating drug and there is no prohibition of it for people 21 years of age and older.

"bars have to close at 2am" No, they don't. They're prohibited from selling alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and sometime approximately four hours later.

What's the reasoning behind barring the sales of alcohol at certain hours, anyway?

Staggering hours is a bad idea... Drunk people driving from spot to spot to get up on the liquor hours, not good. I'm not against it, but I think it needs to be State-wide, because the issue of people driving drunk from other areas with earlier close times is a real threat. I'd say why have a closing time at all? Leave it up to the bar, serve all night, who gives a fuck? IMO, it is your body to destroy as you wish. And I will destroy mine as I wish.

@16 -kind of splitting hairs there, aren't you?

The Liquor Control Board made a sound decision to protect public health and safety. Their decision to not extend alcohol hours is in line with National Health Reform and prevention recommendations. Vancouver B.C. has tried extending alcohol hours and has seen huge increases in crime and expenses for polices. King 5 News conducted a poll of over 3,000 people and 62% said they were not in favor of extended alcohol hours, so the Liquor Control Board is also in line with the majority of Washington residents who don't want to pick up the tab for the public safety bills, and the Emergency Room expenses that will increase because of excessive late night drinking. If nightclubs want to stay open later they already can, and should, to let people sober up before they go home.