Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 9, 2010
Olympia Privatizing WA Liquor Carries a High Cost, Says Opponent
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM
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.”
1
Are they counting limes? And mixer? And ice? Because what pisses me off is having to stop at two or three stores to get everything you need. Used to be I'd go to one liquor store and get my limes and lemons and a few bags of chips and whatnot, along with liquor, wine, or beer (or liquor, wine, AND beer) and be done with it.
Now it's such a bother I often don't get all that stuff just to keep it simple and not have to drive all over. So it's no wonder state run liquor stores have low sales: crappy selection, crappy service and inconvenient too.
I'd like to see alcohol abuse measured side by side with other comparable states that don't have state run liquor stores. Do teens in Colorado drink more than in Washington? No. No, they do not.
Interesting trivia about France though, but fuck France, OK? Compare Washington to other states.
Now it's such a bother I often don't get all that stuff just to keep it simple and not have to drive all over. So it's no wonder state run liquor stores have low sales: crappy selection, crappy service and inconvenient too.
I'd like to see alcohol abuse measured side by side with other comparable states that don't have state run liquor stores. Do teens in Colorado drink more than in Washington? No. No, they do not.
Interesting trivia about France though, but fuck France, OK? Compare Washington to other states.
2
I forgot condoms. You can't even buy fucking condoms at the WA liquor stores. You call that a liquor store? What the hell?
4
Bullshit. Start allowing liquor sales in grocery stores and gas stations like California, and the 3,000-6,000 would filled in a heartbeat.
And why does this guy assume teenage drinking will spike because of the sale of liquor alongside beer and wine...? Last time I checked, teens were more apt to drink wine coolers and 40s than top-shelf liquor, making his point moot. (Or at least that's how it was in my day)
And why does this guy assume teenage drinking will spike because of the sale of liquor alongside beer and wine...? Last time I checked, teens were more apt to drink wine coolers and 40s than top-shelf liquor, making his point moot. (Or at least that's how it was in my day)
5
@3: Yeah, fuck those losers who expect health coverage with their crappy jobs. Let 'em go out on the open market and buy it!
6
I do have to say, I wasn't expecting the liquor situation out here to be so annoying when I moved from Chicago. Most of the time when I buy liquor I'm buying it for a reason -- I'm having people over or whatever. It was so convenient to be able to buy liquor in the grocery store along with all the other stuff you need for a party, and now I have to make a separate stop at a liquor store that closes ridiculously early.
7
Sometimes I wonder if all the doom-predictors claiming every bus driver and teenybopper will be drunk in the gutter within a week have ever been to other states. You know, the ones that treat drinking like a legal adult beverage?
Last time I visited, states that don't have prison-system-like state liquor stores have no higher incidence of people swilling booze than we do. We just like to make it more of a pain in the ass here. Some sort of weird atavistic Puritanism, I suppose.
Last time I visited, states that don't have prison-system-like state liquor stores have no higher incidence of people swilling booze than we do. We just like to make it more of a pain in the ass here. Some sort of weird atavistic Puritanism, I suppose.
9
The drinking age being 21 is one of those things that I still just can't get my head around.
Speaking for my own country at least, we may be apathetic as fuck, but I guarantee you that if they tried to up Ireland's drinking age to 21, there would be war.
And regarding the idea of a difference between the way young Europeans and young Americans drink, I can say that where I live (Galway, 1/4 university students, or near about) when you see someone absolutely past the point of no return, odds are it's an American student on study-abroad. Even if the locals are off their faces, they're rarely as bad.
Speaking for my own country at least, we may be apathetic as fuck, but I guarantee you that if they tried to up Ireland's drinking age to 21, there would be war.
And regarding the idea of a difference between the way young Europeans and young Americans drink, I can say that where I live (Galway, 1/4 university students, or near about) when you see someone absolutely past the point of no return, odds are it's an American student on study-abroad. Even if the locals are off their faces, they're rarely as bad.
10
Blame children. "...drive up underage drinking rates." That's right blame the Kids. If that fails, it's "The Homosexual Agenda".
11
I thought the mark-up at the state liquor stores was basically all tax. But from reading this, I assume there is also a mark-up that the liquor stores apply in addition to tax. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter who sold it; state revenue would be the same.
Still, I can't imagine that mark-up exceeds the operation costs of the stores. My guess is state liquor store employees make $25/hour, minimum, which is a good $9/hour over what civilian grocery store employees make. Plus rent, maintenance, transport, WSLCB management salaries, etc.
Cooper's numbers sound like bullshit. Cienna, did you check his math?
Still, I can't imagine that mark-up exceeds the operation costs of the stores. My guess is state liquor store employees make $25/hour, minimum, which is a good $9/hour over what civilian grocery store employees make. Plus rent, maintenance, transport, WSLCB management salaries, etc.
Cooper's numbers sound like bullshit. Cienna, did you check his math?
12
@7 Read a little closer. He's not saying that privatizing liquor would necessarily lead to a huge increase in consumption. Rather, that in order for privatized liquor to yield the same amount of government revenue as the current system, there would have to be an increase in sales (since the state's revenue per unit would go down).
So privatizing liquor would either:
A) reduce the state's revenue from alcohol sales; or
B) increase alcohol consumption
Which seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
So privatizing liquor would either:
A) reduce the state's revenue from alcohol sales; or
B) increase alcohol consumption
Which seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
13
Sorry, Mr. Cooper, but you are full of shit.
The argument about youth drinking is a red herring, since no one is suggesting lowering the drinking age. Separate issue, dude.
The markup argument also falls flat when you consider that the state also will not be PAYING rent, utilities, wages, and benefits. Do WSLCB stores make an operating profit? How much? Net vs. gross.
It is also completely untrue that increased liquor sales = increased abuse. No one is suggesting that WSLCB enforcement be eliminated.
The bottom line is, Cooper's deliberately obfuscating the facts, just like the nannyish puritan scold he is. We've been dealing with boobs like him for 150 years; he's a modern-day Rev. Mark Mathews (look him up).
The argument about youth drinking is a red herring, since no one is suggesting lowering the drinking age. Separate issue, dude.
The markup argument also falls flat when you consider that the state also will not be PAYING rent, utilities, wages, and benefits. Do WSLCB stores make an operating profit? How much? Net vs. gross.
It is also completely untrue that increased liquor sales = increased abuse. No one is suggesting that WSLCB enforcement be eliminated.
The bottom line is, Cooper's deliberately obfuscating the facts, just like the nannyish puritan scold he is. We've been dealing with boobs like him for 150 years; he's a modern-day Rev. Mark Mathews (look him up).
14
out, monsieur, you do not weesh to fare the comparison with the france. Becuase we in la france, we have the health care for everyone, we have the six weeks long vacation, we have the trains, we have the wine, we have the butter it ees so rich you will not know it ees butaire, we have the the cheese, we have the beaches "topless," avec des grandes tetons et des petites, and we have the elan and the joie de vivre. En Seattle, meh, not so much.
And you? You in Wasington, the state of Washington? You have the river, the mountain, the eagles and the porpoise whales. You have the what the God he give you. We have a civilization during 2,000 years, you perhaps for the 60 years. Perhaps.
And then ones arrives at les femmes.....
oui, je comprends why you in the Washington state do not wish to compare....in one place, they look like models, in the other, they look like the boats of the fishing ...d'alaska.... what can one say?
One -- she is willing for the rendezvous a l'apres midi.
The other one, chez vous, she wishes to give the lessons on recycling, even at the 23 heures....
qu'elle dommage, n'est-ce pas?
And you? You in Wasington, the state of Washington? You have the river, the mountain, the eagles and the porpoise whales. You have the what the God he give you. We have a civilization during 2,000 years, you perhaps for the 60 years. Perhaps.
And then ones arrives at les femmes.....
oui, je comprends why you in the Washington state do not wish to compare....in one place, they look like models, in the other, they look like the boats of the fishing ...d'alaska.... what can one say?
One -- she is willing for the rendezvous a l'apres midi.
The other one, chez vous, she wishes to give the lessons on recycling, even at the 23 heures....
qu'elle dommage, n'est-ce pas?
15
I say we should sell vodka at cost, so that the armed citizenry of the middle class have effective weapons when the rich roll their tanks into our city.
We can tear up our hemp bags to make them into molotov cocktails, so we don't need that.
Oh, and outsource right wing think tanks to Antarctica - it's about the only place that has increased snow fall due to the global warming desertification of Australia.
No parkas though. Let them hunt for seal pups by the sweat of their brows. If they can't hack it, they aren't "individuals", right?
We can tear up our hemp bags to make them into molotov cocktails, so we don't need that.
Oh, and outsource right wing think tanks to Antarctica - it's about the only place that has increased snow fall due to the global warming desertification of Australia.
No parkas though. Let them hunt for seal pups by the sweat of their brows. If they can't hack it, they aren't "individuals", right?
16
@11 Yes that was my first question. Do the numbers listed take into account the employees, rent, upkeep, utilities, etc of running those liquor stores? If the state doesn't pay those costs, does that make up for any supposed loss with the mark up?
17
I don't really like living in a state with private liquor sales. I still have to go to a specialty store to get the good stuff (chain stores won't do special orders like my old neighborhood liquor store did) , the mark-up is the same as it was in Washington (sometimes more), every drug store/grocery store/gas station loses shelf space for other merchandise to gallon jugs of Smirnoff & Black Velvet, and I get to run into drunks everywhere now (not to mention surly teens who solicit for buys outside of every store)!
I would gladly trade the convenience for the way it's done in Washington. It may be just because it's what I'm used to, but the minor inconvenience of going to a specialty store really doesn't bother me when the other choice is avoiding drunks in the liquor aisle while they try to remove security devices from quarts of Gordon's Gin.
I would gladly trade the convenience for the way it's done in Washington. It may be just because it's what I'm used to, but the minor inconvenience of going to a specialty store really doesn't bother me when the other choice is avoiding drunks in the liquor aisle while they try to remove security devices from quarts of Gordon's Gin.
18
Keep the liquor stores state-owned but open more branches inside of big grocery stores., then one can buy limes, ice and etc.
19
Yeah this is ridiculous. First of all, ZOMG KIDS MIGHT BE DRINKING DA LIQOURS!!11!!! Who cares? That is the responsibility of the people who sell (ie card the people who buy) and the PARENTS of the kids. I know, I know, its a novel concept that parents have to RAISE their kids, so maybe I am asking too much?
Secondly, as stated, all the grocery stores, costcos, walmarts, etc would scoop up those licenses in a HEARTBEAT. There would be no lag at all. If nothing else, having stores selling 24/7 would increase the total sales which (for you non math majors) would increase revenue.
And yes, the draconian laws saying you can't buy liquor after 2am are also stupid. I can understand bars closing, but why can't I buy some gin at 3am if I feel like it? Nanny state bullshit all around.
Secondly, as stated, all the grocery stores, costcos, walmarts, etc would scoop up those licenses in a HEARTBEAT. There would be no lag at all. If nothing else, having stores selling 24/7 would increase the total sales which (for you non math majors) would increase revenue.
And yes, the draconian laws saying you can't buy liquor after 2am are also stupid. I can understand bars closing, but why can't I buy some gin at 3am if I feel like it? Nanny state bullshit all around.
20
@11 and 16 - Actually, I just talked to a liquor store manager about this idea last week. Believe me, he wishes he made $25/hour. I don't know where all the money is going, but it's not that well-paying of a job.
21
Another thing with the "state mark-up"- it means that it is more expensive for bar owners to buy alcohol, thus making drinks more expensive for consumers.
That added amount actually makes it hard to make micro-liquors here, since the profit margins are so low.
That added amount actually makes it hard to make micro-liquors here, since the profit margins are so low.
22
Not to mention an over 100% increase in the amount of time liquor could be sold (and that's even assuming the best possible WA liquor store hours of 8am-11pm and 12pm-5pm on Sundays, versus the current beer/wine laws of 6am-2am 7 days a week.)
23
@14, "she wishes to give the lessons on recycling, even at the 23 heures" made me laugh out loud.
24
Let's push state liquor stores to sell limes and mixers, stay open later, sell more local products, and open more stores. Liquor store reform, not privatization.
Liquor stores are also a perfect infrastructure for legal marijuana to ensure compliance, quality, availability, and revenue.
I'm sick of the teabaggers/libertarians constantly pushing privatization for everything.
Liquor stores are also a perfect infrastructure for legal marijuana to ensure compliance, quality, availability, and revenue.
I'm sick of the teabaggers/libertarians constantly pushing privatization for everything.
25
@13: I'M suggesting that we lower the drinking age. it will be utter chaos at first, but treating adults like adults might eventually lead to a rise in the general maturity level of this retarded country. again, why does it work in Europa and not here? because it's forbidden fruit - kids should learn to drink with their parents & grandparents looking on in the town square.
hell, i'd lower it to 16.
hell, i'd lower it to 16.
26
#22: Don't you think it would be easier to just change state liquor store hours? You know, rather than laying off hundreds of state employees and abandoning real estate and infrastructure across the state? Is it THAT important that your favorite Walmart sell you tequila at 6am? Why do teabaggers always jump to the most difficult and harmful conclusion first?
27
@24, your argument might make sense if there was even the slightest hint of a logical connection between retail sales of a legal commodity and government. We're not talking railroads or power companies here; we're talking retail shops. Why doesn't the government restrict the sale of SHOES or OFFICE SUPPLIES to government stores? Because that would be stupid. Ditto liquor.
Prohibition ended 77 years ago.
Max @24, it DOESN'T work in "Europa" (which doesn't exist; Denmark, Portugal, and Ukraine don't have anything in common) anymore. That part of the argument is irrelevant but true. And even if it was a good idea, it's not a good idea to confuse the issue. One thing at a time, please.
Prohibition ended 77 years ago.
Max @24, it DOESN'T work in "Europa" (which doesn't exist; Denmark, Portugal, and Ukraine don't have anything in common) anymore. That part of the argument is irrelevant but true. And even if it was a good idea, it's not a good idea to confuse the issue. One thing at a time, please.
28
@12 is right. Yes, this guy is a MADD type out there spinning the tiresome underage drinking doom and gloom argument. However, it is basically true, lame as "won't somebody please think of the children!" sounds.
But that's not the point.
The big problem is that privatization advocates are spinning this as a big boon for the State budget, which is complete and utter bullshit. The fact is we have something special, if admittedly occasionally annoying, here in WA. We're one of only a handful of states to maintain government control of two tiers of the three tier system (at least regarding hard alcohol). The State has legal mandatory price markups on both the distribution and retail tiers, meaning that when it controls retail (hard liquor) it gets that markup, on top of taxes. (I know it's hard Slog readers, but sorry, Vodka just should not be cheaper than water. Read the history of the Prohibition Era, it's really quite fascinating.) If retail was turfed off to the most likely buyers of new licenses (Costco, Walgreens, Etc.) the State loses that 10% markup revenue from the retail tier.
Yes, it will make money on the licenses but those licenses will all be bought by major corporations with lots of $$$ and influence, who as we know currently aren't huge on paying taxes. If you want mom and pop corner liquor stores, kind of like we have here only with WA's LCB as Mom and/or Pop, forget it. You're going to get those horrible little liquor stores attached to a Walgreens that you see in other states. No huge selection, no variety, no special orders.
There are projections that the state will make money off auctioning these licenses over the next few years. Ok great. But if the argument is that we need money NOW, and we do, then this doesn't fly. We lose money in the short-term when we need it most on the hope of getting money a couple years from now when, hopefully the economy has turned around and sales/property taxes have rebound? Great. Meanwhile out of state corporations that pay fewer in-state taxes make millions. Brilliant.
Also, when the state loses its retail markup it'll eventually just jack up taxes to compensate for lost revenue anyway. Without centralized volume discount like you get in CA Costco's, currently illegal in WA, you're not going to see cheaper booze. It may even be more expensive.
You like local products, you know, from our newborn growing micro-distilling movement? Try convincing Costco to stock it. Also, here's a slippery slope argument for you: in 2008 Costco lost Costco v. Hoen, their challenge to WA's laws regarding centralized warehousing of alcohol (and other WA liquor laws.) This isn't just about the retail tier, they're going after the distribution tier too. Another markup gone, millions of dollars gone from the state budget.
And by the way free market advocates out there, the distribution tier was designed to be the choke point where regulation and taxation would be easy to do, leaving retail free to get on with business. Well, it has turned out to also concentrate power in a few huge wholesale monopolies that control almost all liquor sales in the country. Between the billion dollar Southern Wine and Spirits or the WA LCB, I'll take the LCB any day.
Fact is the LCB is a relic of Prohibition, but it's a relic that can serve a modern purpose. First, it's practically the only State agency that makes money. A lot of money.
Second, it does help to keep underage drinking under control, which for all the Charlie Brown Adult Speaking "Waaa Waaa Waaa" is a good thing.
Third, and this is a biggie for some of you I'm sure, do you like smoking pot? Would you like to see it legalized and sold? By far your best bet is to get a bill through Oly so that it's taxed, regulated and sold through WA's liquor stores. And if they go, then so does that option. The State will be far more comfortable selling through its already well controlled and organized infrastructure. Hell, they had the same problem at the end of Prohibition with alcohol and LCB stores are how they solved it. Now we're one of only 8 states that control retail of hard alcohol. If we lose that, you think we're ever getting it back?
Basically these are big companies trying to use the budget crisis to make a lot of money while taking a vital revenue source from the State. I say no.
More...
But that's not the point.
The big problem is that privatization advocates are spinning this as a big boon for the State budget, which is complete and utter bullshit. The fact is we have something special, if admittedly occasionally annoying, here in WA. We're one of only a handful of states to maintain government control of two tiers of the three tier system (at least regarding hard alcohol). The State has legal mandatory price markups on both the distribution and retail tiers, meaning that when it controls retail (hard liquor) it gets that markup, on top of taxes. (I know it's hard Slog readers, but sorry, Vodka just should not be cheaper than water. Read the history of the Prohibition Era, it's really quite fascinating.) If retail was turfed off to the most likely buyers of new licenses (Costco, Walgreens, Etc.) the State loses that 10% markup revenue from the retail tier.
Yes, it will make money on the licenses but those licenses will all be bought by major corporations with lots of $$$ and influence, who as we know currently aren't huge on paying taxes. If you want mom and pop corner liquor stores, kind of like we have here only with WA's LCB as Mom and/or Pop, forget it. You're going to get those horrible little liquor stores attached to a Walgreens that you see in other states. No huge selection, no variety, no special orders.
There are projections that the state will make money off auctioning these licenses over the next few years. Ok great. But if the argument is that we need money NOW, and we do, then this doesn't fly. We lose money in the short-term when we need it most on the hope of getting money a couple years from now when, hopefully the economy has turned around and sales/property taxes have rebound? Great. Meanwhile out of state corporations that pay fewer in-state taxes make millions. Brilliant.
Also, when the state loses its retail markup it'll eventually just jack up taxes to compensate for lost revenue anyway. Without centralized volume discount like you get in CA Costco's, currently illegal in WA, you're not going to see cheaper booze. It may even be more expensive.
You like local products, you know, from our newborn growing micro-distilling movement? Try convincing Costco to stock it. Also, here's a slippery slope argument for you: in 2008 Costco lost Costco v. Hoen, their challenge to WA's laws regarding centralized warehousing of alcohol (and other WA liquor laws.) This isn't just about the retail tier, they're going after the distribution tier too. Another markup gone, millions of dollars gone from the state budget.
And by the way free market advocates out there, the distribution tier was designed to be the choke point where regulation and taxation would be easy to do, leaving retail free to get on with business. Well, it has turned out to also concentrate power in a few huge wholesale monopolies that control almost all liquor sales in the country. Between the billion dollar Southern Wine and Spirits or the WA LCB, I'll take the LCB any day.
Fact is the LCB is a relic of Prohibition, but it's a relic that can serve a modern purpose. First, it's practically the only State agency that makes money. A lot of money.
Second, it does help to keep underage drinking under control, which for all the Charlie Brown Adult Speaking "Waaa Waaa Waaa" is a good thing.
Third, and this is a biggie for some of you I'm sure, do you like smoking pot? Would you like to see it legalized and sold? By far your best bet is to get a bill through Oly so that it's taxed, regulated and sold through WA's liquor stores. And if they go, then so does that option. The State will be far more comfortable selling through its already well controlled and organized infrastructure. Hell, they had the same problem at the end of Prohibition with alcohol and LCB stores are how they solved it. Now we're one of only 8 states that control retail of hard alcohol. If we lose that, you think we're ever getting it back?
Basically these are big companies trying to use the budget crisis to make a lot of money while taking a vital revenue source from the State. I say no.
29
@17: where do you live now that you
get to run into drunks everywhere now (not to mention surly teens who solicit for buys outside of every store)!
30
#27: Shoes and office supplies aren't strongly regulated, and they're already privatized. It's almost impossible for the government to takeover an industry that's already privatized (see: health insurance). Which is why privatizing an existing public industry should be VERY CAREFULLY considered.
Getting the government out of every area that isn't a core/essential function is essentially the teabagger/libertarian argument in a nutshell. That's an argument that I don't care to get into.
The pragmatic difference between replacing reformed state liquor stores with privatized liquor stores is 1) more profits for Walmart and other megacorps instead of government services, 2) delay in legalizing marijuana, 3) less regulated products, 4) probable civil rights issues around unequal distribution of liquor products. Flooding poor minority neighborhoods with cheap shoe stores wouldn't increase domestic violence, drunk driving, or robberies.
Getting the government out of every area that isn't a core/essential function is essentially the teabagger/libertarian argument in a nutshell. That's an argument that I don't care to get into.
The pragmatic difference between replacing reformed state liquor stores with privatized liquor stores is 1) more profits for Walmart and other megacorps instead of government services, 2) delay in legalizing marijuana, 3) less regulated products, 4) probable civil rights issues around unequal distribution of liquor products. Flooding poor minority neighborhoods with cheap shoe stores wouldn't increase domestic violence, drunk driving, or robberies.
31
@30: But that's a false equivalency... the liquor "industry" isn't privatized. This one state has a state run monopoly on sales of this product. We don't have a public distillation or socialist bar network, we merely control the middle man. Depending on the figures, this costs the state money. Wouldn't it be better to privatize this utterly nonessential industry and use that money somewhere useful?
If your agenda is to slowly create more socialism, than I understand your point. Otherwise "nationalized liquor distribution" isn't really that practical.
If your agenda is to slowly create more socialism, than I understand your point. Otherwise "nationalized liquor distribution" isn't really that practical.
32
@30, in what way is liquor retail a "public industry"? It's a ridiculous argument on the face of it. It's a legal commercial product.
@28, your "no variety" Walgreens argument might be more believable if there weren't dozens of indie wine and beer shops around town, including several in my neighborhood, catering to a sophisticated clientele. The reason this could never happen with liquor is, uh, what exactly?
@28, your "no variety" Walgreens argument might be more believable if there weren't dozens of indie wine and beer shops around town, including several in my neighborhood, catering to a sophisticated clientele. The reason this could never happen with liquor is, uh, what exactly?
33
#31: I'm talking about the Washington State Wholesale and Retail Liquor Sales industry, not the worldwide liquor industry. I don't suggest socializing current private industries unless there's a very good reason (ie, local broadband or health insurance).
Privatizing isn't the only solution besides keeping things exactly as they are right this second. See my screen name below. Extend the hours, extend the product line, open more stores, serve customers better, become more profitable - you get 100% of the benefits of privatization without all of the evil.
Privatizing isn't the only solution besides keeping things exactly as they are right this second. See my screen name below. Extend the hours, extend the product line, open more stores, serve customers better, become more profitable - you get 100% of the benefits of privatization without all of the evil.
34
By the way, someone is suggesting eliminating WSLCB enforcement. Me. And I think Catalinia too, among others.
Let the cops enforce the law. That's what cops are for. We have city cops, county cops, and state cops. Do we not have enough police agencies? The WSLCB is a redundant bureaucracy that exists for political patronage. Kill it.
Let the cops enforce the law. That's what cops are for. We have city cops, county cops, and state cops. Do we not have enough police agencies? The WSLCB is a redundant bureaucracy that exists for political patronage. Kill it.
35
Thank you, elenchos, I was just about to chime in about that.
Privatize it. If we are concerned about minors, then only let the big grocery stores with their already-in-place infrastructure for carding sell the booze (I'm not in favor of that, but if it will stop at least some of the hand-wringing, so be it. In a few years, when we see this is NO BIG DEAL, we can open it up more)
As for the enforcement, scrap it. It's archaic, redundant, and has a history of being incredibly corrupt. They do nothing that cops and zoning can't do.
The WSLCB is the entity that, until very recently, thought people shouldn't be allowed to be standing and drinking at the same time. The folks that forbid single women (or was it all women?) from sitting at a bar. The organization that wouldn't allow male nipples to be exposed wherever liquor was sold (it still won't let female nipples be shown)
It's ridiculous. Shut the whole thing down, jack up the tax on booze, and collect the revenue. The convenience alone will make it worthwhile to most consumers.
Privatize it. If we are concerned about minors, then only let the big grocery stores with their already-in-place infrastructure for carding sell the booze (I'm not in favor of that, but if it will stop at least some of the hand-wringing, so be it. In a few years, when we see this is NO BIG DEAL, we can open it up more)
As for the enforcement, scrap it. It's archaic, redundant, and has a history of being incredibly corrupt. They do nothing that cops and zoning can't do.
The WSLCB is the entity that, until very recently, thought people shouldn't be allowed to be standing and drinking at the same time. The folks that forbid single women (or was it all women?) from sitting at a bar. The organization that wouldn't allow male nipples to be exposed wherever liquor was sold (it still won't let female nipples be shown)
It's ridiculous. Shut the whole thing down, jack up the tax on booze, and collect the revenue. The convenience alone will make it worthwhile to most consumers.
36
Yep good point @34. Arresting a drunk driving 16 year old after he kills you on your motorcycle is the exact same thing as preventing him from killing you. To me, anyway.
37
@36: Do you have comparable statistics for underage drinking fatalities in Washington versus other states? I would guess this unnecessary board is doing little to prevent these problems.
Also, @34 was never saying we should only enforce crimes, just that the police should and could do enforcement of the currently existing laws.
Also, @34 was never saying we should only enforce crimes, just that the police should and could do enforcement of the currently existing laws.
38
I AGREE WITH 36. ALL TEENAGERS WILL NOW BE DRUNK AND WILL BE RUNNING US OVER ON OUR BICYCLES WHERE IS THE JUSTICE? I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING
39
@ 33, as a resident of a state with free market, private sector liquor stores, I'm interested in what "evils" we're experiencing that Washington is not.
Colorado has some stupid issues of its own regarding liquor sales, but with a private store in nearly every strip mall I doubt that our youth drinking or other alcohol-related problems are any worse than Washington's.
Colorado has some stupid issues of its own regarding liquor sales, but with a private store in nearly every strip mall I doubt that our youth drinking or other alcohol-related problems are any worse than Washington's.
40
#40: Every post I make is pretty much exactly the same but I guess I'll post it again.
1) We are talking about laying off every state liquor retail/wholesale employee and abandoning all of the real estate and infrastructure. Colorado does not have to do this. It would be the equivalent of shutting down every current Colorado liquor store and starting fresh.
2) Go to a liquor store in a poor black Denver neighborhood. Go to a liquor store in a rich white Denver neighborhood. Which one is clearly better? Which one is more likely to sell to kids? Which one is likely to sell liquor to someone already drunk or on drugs? They're the same here.
3) Who is profiting off your liquor sales? Walmart? Here it goes to state services.
4) States are scared of legalizing marijuana due to California's blight of medical marijauana shops. Activists and politicians are looking at state liquor store infrastructure to curb that perceived problem and hasten the social injustice caused by prohibition. Colorado doesn't have that option.
Etc etc etc.
All of Colorado's benefits regarding convenience and store hours can be solved by the first word in my screen name.
1) We are talking about laying off every state liquor retail/wholesale employee and abandoning all of the real estate and infrastructure. Colorado does not have to do this. It would be the equivalent of shutting down every current Colorado liquor store and starting fresh.
2) Go to a liquor store in a poor black Denver neighborhood. Go to a liquor store in a rich white Denver neighborhood. Which one is clearly better? Which one is more likely to sell to kids? Which one is likely to sell liquor to someone already drunk or on drugs? They're the same here.
3) Who is profiting off your liquor sales? Walmart? Here it goes to state services.
4) States are scared of legalizing marijuana due to California's blight of medical marijauana shops. Activists and politicians are looking at state liquor store infrastructure to curb that perceived problem and hasten the social injustice caused by prohibition. Colorado doesn't have that option.
Etc etc etc.
All of Colorado's benefits regarding convenience and store hours can be solved by the first word in my screen name.
41
@40: I'm in Denver too, so I'll respond to your post:
1) Can't argue with that.
2) Argonaut Liquors, a grocery-store-sized liquor store, is conveniently located for all the folks in the poor section of town. Not that it matters much, because there's a liquor store on every other block also.
3) Walmart doesn't sell liquor here. Nor does Costco.
4) Marijuana's already legal here, and it's not sold in liquor stores.
1) Can't argue with that.
2) Argonaut Liquors, a grocery-store-sized liquor store, is conveniently located for all the folks in the poor section of town. Not that it matters much, because there's a liquor store on every other block also.
3) Walmart doesn't sell liquor here. Nor does Costco.
4) Marijuana's already legal here, and it's not sold in liquor stores.
42
@34, @35, yes, yes, yes, I'm with you. I'm also trying to be realistic and get what it is possible to get from the state legislature. I don't think it helps to demand all or nothing, abolish the WSLCB entirely or keep it exactly the way it is. A middle ground is progress.
Bear in mind that state-run liquor stores are unusual, but state liquor control boards of some type are universal. 10 states have state-run stores; another nine control wholesaling or contract stores; but all 50 have boards.
Bear in mind that state-run liquor stores are unusual, but state liquor control boards of some type are universal. 10 states have state-run stores; another nine control wholesaling or contract stores; but all 50 have boards.
43
@29 - I live in SoCal. In a very nice suburban community. I believe I've referred to it previously as the Seventh Circle of Hell.
44
Go to a nasty-ass corner grocery store in a poor Seattle neighborhood. Go to a Metropolitan Market in a rich Seattle neighborhood. Which one is clearly better? Which one is more likely to sell to kids? Which one is likely to sell malt liquor or fortified wine to someone already drunk or on drugs?
Fortified wines and Malt liquor will get you just as drunk as almost anything at a liquor store will.
Fortified wines and Malt liquor will get you just as drunk as almost anything at a liquor store will.
45
Privatized liquor here in Ohio. It's not so bad, but stores have some odd and annoying policies in effect to try and prevent underage drinking. For instance, I'm 19. A friend of mine is 22. If a cashier sees us checking out and suspects we're friends or whatever and she's buying liquor, the cashier has the right to card both of us by store policy or they will refuse service. Since I'm 19, the liquor can and will be confiscated. Even if I'm with my mother or another older relative, they can still do it. This has happened several times in a Meijers and once at a local supermarket.
Privatized liquor is convenient with problems, but apparently, your state agencies aren't any better. I don't think our alcohol problems are any worse than yours, although there are some rural areas with high rates of alcoholism, but rural kids have little else to do here.
Privatized liquor is convenient with problems, but apparently, your state agencies aren't any better. I don't think our alcohol problems are any worse than yours, although there are some rural areas with high rates of alcoholism, but rural kids have little else to do here.
46
@ 45, that happens in Colorado too, and probably a lot of other states. In Washington I think it's illegal for you to even enter a state-run liquor store (someone correct me if I'm wrong), although you can wander freely amongst the large beer and wine sections in all the grocery stores.
@ 40, here are my responses.
1) You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Job protection isn't a legitimate defense of bad business practices. If the state owns that real estate, it can always sell it. Now, obviously such a reform shouldn't be attempted all at once; it ought to come in stages. That would adequately address your concerns about infrastructure, I think.
2) I used to live in a poor, mixed-race neighborhood, very close to such a liquor store as you describe. (And a couple of blocks from the aforementioned Argonaut.) They got busted for selling to underage kids. Who says your state can't enforce the law the same way?
3) My fellow Denverite 5280 is slightly misinformed here. Under our law, one business entity is entitled to one liquor license. So Safeway, for example, has exactly one store in the whole state that sells liquor. I'm sure that our Kroger affiliate has one somewhere too.
Now, I'm not sure how this works, but I have patronized two Costcos that sell liquor, albeit in a securely sectioned-off part of the store. I've also noticed that most of the Whole Foods around here seem to have little stores next door to all of them that seem to have the same decor and selection, although not any of the "365" labeled stuff I tried a few times in Seattle. Don't know what's going on there...
Nonetheless, nearly all our liquor stores are small, sole proprietor run operations. You could have that in Washington, if you make your legislation say as much. (Although I'm sure Walmart and the others will lobby hard to allow for full liquor sales everywhere, so you have legitimate concern there.)
4) see 5280 again.
So... Basically you say that Washington can open more stores and keep them open later. That's all well and good. But what about the monopoly that means that you can't get certain liquors? How much autonomy would a state store have to specialize in, say, tequila or scotch? I know where I can get a decent bottle of single-malt Irish whiskey in Denver, but I never saw anything but Bushmill's in Seattle. Generally speaking, a monolithic monopoly controlling all the supply in one state can not do that sort of specialization.
More...
@ 40, here are my responses.
1) You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Job protection isn't a legitimate defense of bad business practices. If the state owns that real estate, it can always sell it. Now, obviously such a reform shouldn't be attempted all at once; it ought to come in stages. That would adequately address your concerns about infrastructure, I think.
2) I used to live in a poor, mixed-race neighborhood, very close to such a liquor store as you describe. (And a couple of blocks from the aforementioned Argonaut.) They got busted for selling to underage kids. Who says your state can't enforce the law the same way?
3) My fellow Denverite 5280 is slightly misinformed here. Under our law, one business entity is entitled to one liquor license. So Safeway, for example, has exactly one store in the whole state that sells liquor. I'm sure that our Kroger affiliate has one somewhere too.
Now, I'm not sure how this works, but I have patronized two Costcos that sell liquor, albeit in a securely sectioned-off part of the store. I've also noticed that most of the Whole Foods around here seem to have little stores next door to all of them that seem to have the same decor and selection, although not any of the "365" labeled stuff I tried a few times in Seattle. Don't know what's going on there...
Nonetheless, nearly all our liquor stores are small, sole proprietor run operations. You could have that in Washington, if you make your legislation say as much. (Although I'm sure Walmart and the others will lobby hard to allow for full liquor sales everywhere, so you have legitimate concern there.)
4) see 5280 again.
So... Basically you say that Washington can open more stores and keep them open later. That's all well and good. But what about the monopoly that means that you can't get certain liquors? How much autonomy would a state store have to specialize in, say, tequila or scotch? I know where I can get a decent bottle of single-malt Irish whiskey in Denver, but I never saw anything but Bushmill's in Seattle. Generally speaking, a monolithic monopoly controlling all the supply in one state can not do that sort of specialization.
47
Many good points here, and clearly Jim Cooper is full of shit.
The other stat that jumped out at me is 60% of 12th graders have had alcohol in the last 30 days, despite 90% legal-age compliance from the state liquor stores. That tells me that compliance doesn't have squat to do with underage drinking.
The other stat that jumped out at me is 60% of 12th graders have had alcohol in the last 30 days, despite 90% legal-age compliance from the state liquor stores. That tells me that compliance doesn't have squat to do with underage drinking.
48
@13 I was under the impression that the liquor stores I go to are franchisees operating under govt. license. It's not a fucking public service like a library.
49
#47 I suspect the kids are drinking a lot of alcohol that comes from places other than liquor stores, i.e. beer and wine.
51
@19 - if open cases of 24 beers on the back porch aren't good enough for kids, I don't see why we should be expected to let them drink the good stuff ...
52
No offense to who I'm sure are hard-working folks at the state liquor stores but... they get health care and pension plans? For working at a liquor store?
53
'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."'
I guess he's assuming the state would be selling their licenses for free.
If "a little less than half" of the liquor revenue from state stores is going to governments, doesn't that tell us that they are marking up that liquor a whole lot?
I don't know about the whole argument that the state will save/make any money from the proposition, but I fall in the camp who doesn't understand why the state is involved in a retail business in the first place.
Jim Cooper's logic could be applied to any retail market... why limit it to booze? If only the state would take control of other markets, like tobacco, gas, food, clothing... wouldn't it be great if every retail good was sold by the state, so the state could not only get revenue from the taxes, but from the markup too. Our state deficit problems are solved!
If it's alcohol abuse you're worried about, well I pass by Joe's every day in the ID and those folks don't seem to have any problems abusing alcohol. If it's too many liquor stores that Jim's worried about, can't he lobby the state to just sell less licenses (and here's an idea... auction them off for more than free)?
I guess he's assuming the state would be selling their licenses for free.
If "a little less than half" of the liquor revenue from state stores is going to governments, doesn't that tell us that they are marking up that liquor a whole lot?
I don't know about the whole argument that the state will save/make any money from the proposition, but I fall in the camp who doesn't understand why the state is involved in a retail business in the first place.
Jim Cooper's logic could be applied to any retail market... why limit it to booze? If only the state would take control of other markets, like tobacco, gas, food, clothing... wouldn't it be great if every retail good was sold by the state, so the state could not only get revenue from the taxes, but from the markup too. Our state deficit problems are solved!
If it's alcohol abuse you're worried about, well I pass by Joe's every day in the ID and those folks don't seem to have any problems abusing alcohol. If it's too many liquor stores that Jim's worried about, can't he lobby the state to just sell less licenses (and here's an idea... auction them off for more than free)?
55
"No offense to who I'm sure are hard-working folks at the state liquor stores but... they get health care and pension plans? For working at a liquor store?"
Well, why the hell not? Everyone ought to have those things.
Well, why the hell not? Everyone ought to have those things.
56
@55 Everyone should have a pension? I think you need to research how pensions work before you make such a claim. The fact that they aren't substainable at some of our richest companies should tell you something about their ability to be applied to our general population.
57
What a bunch of whiners, oh I have to go to two places to buy my booze, or I can't easily host a party. The issues are State revenue which is of huge concern. Do we really want to lay off teachers, raise tuition on higher learning, not have an adequate infrastructure in this state? We all pay for treatment for people that have over indulged or are frankly addicted to alcohol. We pay for treatment for their addiction, we pay for police to protect others from someone driving that clearly should not be, we pay for accident victims in hospitals for people with no health or auto insurance. The consequences of all these issues cannot be looked at through one lens. Throw a rock into a lake and look at the ripple effect, then try to predict the unintended consequences of changing what is a pretty good (I am not saying great) system. Anyone who can actually come up with a better policy to solve all of these intertwined issues please raise your hand (oops should I have made that plural)?
59
57 IS RIGHT/NO ONE IN WASHINGTON STATE BECOMES AN ALCOHOLIC BECAUSE WE HAVE STATE RUN LIQUOR STORES/IF WE WERE TO PRIVATIZE THEM WE WOULD HAVE ALCOHOLICS EVERYWHERE/IT REALLY IS A RIPPLE EFFECT AND I FOR ONE DON'T WANT A LIQUOR STORE BY MY FAVORITE LAKE ROTFLMAO!/PEACE OUT AND DON'T SELL US OUT!
60
you know, I work for a beer distributor. we rent a portion of our warehouse out to a liquor distributor. according to WSLCB, the liquor has to be totally separated from the beer and wine, behind lock and key IN A WAREHOUSE. not a place where customers just waltz in to buy things. that and my boss has been trying to get approval to distribute liquor as well and the hoops he has to jump through are simply ludicrous. seriously, the state liquor control board is a silly, archaic, paranoid bureaucracy and we would do well to be rid of it. I'm all for government run programs where it makes sense and isn't wasteful. reselling of private enterprise is not one of those areas. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.
61
First of all, I think it's wrong to tax wine. Wine is part of a meal, a healthy agricultural product just like broccoli or raisins. I think beer fits in this category as well. What are you supposed to have with dinner? Coca-cola? Fuck that. If it's about paying for the cost of drunk drivers, then it's also appropriate to tax Coke, Pepsi, fast food, etc. to pay the health care costs of diabetes and other obesity-related problems.
It's absurd for the state to tax healthy drinks. We should be *encouraging* wine and beer consumption.
But it's not about diet or health, is it? It's about the unionized liquor store workers, their health care, and most of all - most of all - the $850 million in taxes the state gets to spend however it wants. Do you think they spend $850 million EVERY YEAR repairing the damage that drunk driving causes? I don't. In fact I'm sure the cost is nowhere near that.
This is a tax that we pay because we don't want to have an income tax here. So we use clever ways to nickel-and-dime ourselves into some kind of revenue-generating portfolio of annoyances and inconveniences which also has the benefit of being impossible to figure out let alone reform. This is like the 20-page contract you sign to get a credit card.
I agree: it's a dire emergency to conceive of this revenue stream going away without some tangible plan for a replacement, but that's the hole we've dug ourselves into. I'd rather just get one bill: an income tax or, even fairer, a value-added tax. Get rid of all of the silly fees and tariffs we impose to make up for the lack of a universal tax. That way, I could tell when taxes were going up or down and measure that against how what was being spent was being spent.
It's absurd for the state to tax healthy drinks. We should be *encouraging* wine and beer consumption.
But it's not about diet or health, is it? It's about the unionized liquor store workers, their health care, and most of all - most of all - the $850 million in taxes the state gets to spend however it wants. Do you think they spend $850 million EVERY YEAR repairing the damage that drunk driving causes? I don't. In fact I'm sure the cost is nowhere near that.
This is a tax that we pay because we don't want to have an income tax here. So we use clever ways to nickel-and-dime ourselves into some kind of revenue-generating portfolio of annoyances and inconveniences which also has the benefit of being impossible to figure out let alone reform. This is like the 20-page contract you sign to get a credit card.
I agree: it's a dire emergency to conceive of this revenue stream going away without some tangible plan for a replacement, but that's the hole we've dug ourselves into. I'd rather just get one bill: an income tax or, even fairer, a value-added tax. Get rid of all of the silly fees and tariffs we impose to make up for the lack of a universal tax. That way, I could tell when taxes were going up or down and measure that against how what was being spent was being spent.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (61) RSS