Opinion
Liquor Loopholes and Costs
With all initiatives, we should ask some basic questions: does the measure help our families and our communities? Does it make Washington a better place?
Initiative 1183, Costco’s second effort in two years to privatize the state’s liquor system, fails this test.
The I-1183 campaign is not a groundswell or a citizens’ movement to right a government wrong. It’s a profit grab by Costco and a small handful of other big box stores, pure and simple. By the most conservative estimates, it would increase in the number of liquor stores from 328 to more than 1,420. And although supporters of I-1183 argue that only stores over 10,000 square feet could sell booze, a loophole in the poorly written initiative gives mini-marts and gas stations the same opportunity. In Section 103, it states the Liquor Control Board “shall not deny” a liquor license to any stores less than 10,000 square feet if there is no other liquor store in the “trade area.” But the initiative never defines trade area.
There are a lot of grocery stores less than a mile from each other. Are they in different trade areas? If one mini mart is allowed to sell liquor, the one down the street will apply for a license too, just to stay competitive. The Liquor Control Board has said it doesn’t know how to define a trade area, so how can it arbitrarily pick and choose if the initiative directs it to not deny liquor licenses?[pullquote]The Liquor Control Board has about 50 compliance officers throughout the state. Under I-1183, there are still about 50 officers, but more than four times the number of outlets selling liquor.[/pullquote]
I have no idea why the corporate authors of I-1183 chose such vague language. You’d think these folks would know how to write a contract. But the reality is the loophole is large enough to encompass every corner of the state. And that will obviously increase the likelihood that teens will get access to liquor.
We know that teens don’t drink for the taste. They drink for the buzz. And grocery stores, even large ones, have a dismal record of keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors. In compliance tests by the Liquor Control Board, grocery stores sell alcohol to teens an average of one out of every four attempts. Supporters of I-1183 say it will increase enforcement and penalties. But who is going to do the enforcement? The Liquor Control Board has about 50 compliance officers throughout the state. Under I-1183, there are still about 50 officers, but more than four times the number of outlets selling liquor. And we know that some stores will rack up the penalties and pay the fine. If they get their liquor license revoked, they just change names on the ownership and re-apply. We’ve seen this today.
In the pro I-1183 ads on TV, they show an officer (presumably a paid actor) giving a breath test to a driver. That’s supposed to make us feel better—a teenager buying liquor will get stopped by a vigilant police officer. Unless, of course, the teen gets away with it. And that scenario should make all of us very nervous about I-1183.
Jim Cooper is President of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention
Initiative 1183, Costco’s second effort in two years to privatize the state’s liquor system, fails this test.
The I-1183 campaign is not a groundswell or a citizens’ movement to right a government wrong. It’s a profit grab by Costco and a small handful of other big box stores, pure and simple. By the most conservative estimates, it would increase in the number of liquor stores from 328 to more than 1,420. And although supporters of I-1183 argue that only stores over 10,000 square feet could sell booze, a loophole in the poorly written initiative gives mini-marts and gas stations the same opportunity. In Section 103, it states the Liquor Control Board “shall not deny” a liquor license to any stores less than 10,000 square feet if there is no other liquor store in the “trade area.” But the initiative never defines trade area.
There are a lot of grocery stores less than a mile from each other. Are they in different trade areas? If one mini mart is allowed to sell liquor, the one down the street will apply for a license too, just to stay competitive. The Liquor Control Board has said it doesn’t know how to define a trade area, so how can it arbitrarily pick and choose if the initiative directs it to not deny liquor licenses?[pullquote]The Liquor Control Board has about 50 compliance officers throughout the state. Under I-1183, there are still about 50 officers, but more than four times the number of outlets selling liquor.[/pullquote]
I have no idea why the corporate authors of I-1183 chose such vague language. You’d think these folks would know how to write a contract. But the reality is the loophole is large enough to encompass every corner of the state. And that will obviously increase the likelihood that teens will get access to liquor.
We know that teens don’t drink for the taste. They drink for the buzz. And grocery stores, even large ones, have a dismal record of keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors. In compliance tests by the Liquor Control Board, grocery stores sell alcohol to teens an average of one out of every four attempts. Supporters of I-1183 say it will increase enforcement and penalties. But who is going to do the enforcement? The Liquor Control Board has about 50 compliance officers throughout the state. Under I-1183, there are still about 50 officers, but more than four times the number of outlets selling liquor. And we know that some stores will rack up the penalties and pay the fine. If they get their liquor license revoked, they just change names on the ownership and re-apply. We’ve seen this today.
In the pro I-1183 ads on TV, they show an officer (presumably a paid actor) giving a breath test to a driver. That’s supposed to make us feel better—a teenager buying liquor will get stopped by a vigilant police officer. Unless, of course, the teen gets away with it. And that scenario should make all of us very nervous about I-1183.
Jim Cooper is President of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention
