Boozy Ballot Initiatives
WASHINGTON VOTERS COULD TAKE our state out of the booze biz on November 2. Two liquor privatization initiatives—1100 and 1105—will appear on the ballot. If one (or both) passes, it will forever alter how liquor is made, moved, and sold here. This poses two tricky questions for We, the People. Should we support privatization? And if so, which of the two proposals has the better plan? Let’s look at the nitty-gritty.
Initiative 1100 aims to abolish Washington’s three-tier system, which segregates the manufacture of liquor from its distribution and sales. That means liquor companies could sell their spirits directly to stores, eliminating the middleman. The measure also calls for an end to the ban on volume discounts for alcoholic beverages, so big businesses like Costco —which has contributed more than $1 million in resources to 1100—could buy lots of it on the cheap. That, along with much slimmer markups from private retailers, translates to lower prices for consumers as well.
The second measure, 1105, proposes to privatize only retail stores, preserving the three-tier system and protecting distributors. It is backed, unsurprisingly, by two distribution giants: Youngs Market Company in Los Angeles and the Bellevue-based Odom Corporation. Proponents paint 1105 as the more temperate option, claiming it allows the state to more easily recoup dollars lost in the privatization process. ($333 million in liquor profits helped fund state and local programs last year, Seattle Weekly reported.)
In fact, both initiatives present comprehensive if complicated plans for returning lost revenue to the state, but what about public safety? If liquor goes private, Washington’s 5,000-plus beer and wine stores will all be eligible to sell the hard stuff—meaning there could be up to 16 times as many liquor stores in Washington neighborhoods. And statistically, private retailers sell significantly more liquor to minors than public programs. Not a problem, say initiative supporters. The liquor control board will have plenty of time to deal with public safety issues once it is no longer in sales.
Published: October 2010
What happens if both pass???
I support I-1100 as well. For a state with some strong mix of liberal and conservative ideals, I-1100 reminds me of some of the ultra-conservative and old-fashioned policies in Alabama, where I lived for 15 years. Washingtonians pay the highest taxes in the nation per gallon of liquor — some $26. For example, what people pay $29 in Illinois at Costco we pay $55 for in our state-controlled liquor stores.
What is unfortunate is that the ads for and against I-1100 (and I-1105) claim some of the same outcomes — protecting small wineries and craft brewers. Consumers in the market should be the sole determinant of who stays in business and who does not, the government should not. I do understand that I-1100 might give the big retailers (e.g. Costco & Safeway) a bit more say in which producers they choose, but again, that’s the market, not government deciding.
I’m all for Initiative 1100. The state should not be in the booze business. It’s time for the state to focus on the basics and get out of the extra curricular activities. Let the market regulate itself, it works well in other states and it will work well here. When has the state done anything efficiently or economically? I’m not in the restaurant business nor the distribution business, I just want the state to focus on roads, education, and essential services.
The state liquor board has already demonstrated to the public that it can not efficiently manage liquor distribution effectively when it started paying paying its delivery service based on an fixed estimated weight per case….the thought that case of 40’s may be heavier or lighter than a case of absolute never crossed there mind….no private company would eat the cost of such a premium for laziness and mismanagement as the state liquor board….time to hand over the biz