ivan Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 +1 Teens buy the cheapest stuff (beer, generally) they can get their hands on. boy did i not go to high school w/ you the main reason i'm for keeping shit the way it is w/ state run stores is we need to legalize weed - the public will need it's hand held during the transition process, and so state run liquor stores will be the most logical place to allow it - i'm fine w/ ditching state-run stores after that Quote
Sam Furley Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Rob's GF sucks my cock on a daily basis. Quote
prole Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Just leave things the way they are. Keep the state in the liquor business. What's it hurting? Who cares? Where's the spilt milk? Quote
Sam Furley Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Spilling out your bitch's titty, most likely. Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 the main reason i'm for keeping shit the way it is w/ state run stores is we need to legalize weed - the public will need it's hand held during the transition process, and so state run liquor stores will be the most logical place to allow it - i'm fine w/ ditching state-run stores after that Dood, that's what the "medical dispensaries" are for. Duh. Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 Just leave things the way they are. Keep the state in the liquor business. What's it hurting? Who cares? Where's the spilt milk? Outdated, outmoded, monopolistic oligarchy. I have no qualms with the State regulating the sales of liquor (via enforcement and/or legislation regarding minimum age, etc.). I just don't believe they should be the ones selling it. Quote
Dannible Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 It is my contention that teen drinking does not begin at the liquor store (at least, it never did for me). Teens acquire their alcohol either by stealing it from their parents, purchasing it themselves with a fake ID, or finding someone 21 or older to purchase it for them. The former will continue until hell freezes over. The latter two will occur whether or not I-1183 passes or fails, just as it occurs now. So the argument that getting the State out of liquor sales and putting it into the hands of private enterprise will increase the incidence of teen drinking just doesn't flush. +1 Teens buy the cheapest stuff (beer, generally) they can get their hands on. I'd say these days highschoolers drink more liquor because it's easier to buy in large quantities, which is important when some much older person is doing you a favor in buying it. As teens get older they have more older friends and friends with fake IDs, so they drink more and more beer because it's more convenient to just go down to the gas station. I think I usually drank better stuff as a teenager because my income wasn't going to things like rent and expensive gas, and because snoopdogg recommended it. I was young not that long ago. I'm too tired to write anything about the real issue at hand. Quote
kevbone Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Before you ask me, "HEY SOBO! WHAT TIME IS IT???" ...ask me how I voted on I-1183. Now really, would you have expected me to vote any other way? :brew: Just squeeking that ballot in under the wire, eh Sobo? I sure did. After reading this I ran and found my ballot and completed it. I drove down to the local drop off box. A worker was collecting them along with the evening news going live on the spot. I asked when is the latest we can drop them off. He said 8 pm. It was 7:56 pm. "under the wire" is right. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 +1 Teens buy the cheapest stuff (beer, generally) they can get their hands on. boy did i not go to high school w/ you the main reason i'm for keeping shit the way it is w/ state run stores is we need to legalize weed - the public will need it's hand held during the transition process, and so state run liquor stores will be the most logical place to allow it - i'm fine w/ ditching state-run stores after that I-502 (legalize weed) only requires that the Liquor Control Board remains intact - which it does (to regulate the sale of liquor) under I-1183. So it's consistent to vote YES on 1183 and still support weed legalization. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 the main reason i'm for keeping shit the way it is w/ state run stores is we need to legalize weed - the public will need it's hand held during the transition process, and so state run liquor stores will be the most logical place to allow it - i'm fine w/ ditching state-run stores after that Dood, that's what the "medical dispensaries" are for. Duh. Not true. I-502 has nothing to do with the existing medical marijuana law (medical dispensaries still exist a legal gray area in WA, BTW). It requires the state to sell pot directly, not through dispensaries or other private entities. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Underage drinking has declined significantly among 12th graders, but not much among younger kids since the 70s. NIH report on underage drinking I graduated in '77 and remember lots of kids dying or getting maimed in really bad drunk driving accidents. I hope that's changed. Quote
rob Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 When I was in high-school, it was HARD to get alcohol and cigarettes. Really easy to buy drugs, though. Way to go, war on drugs! Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 the main reason i'm for keeping shit the way it is w/ state run stores is we need to legalize weed - the public will need it's hand held during the transition process, and so state run liquor stores will be the most logical place to allow it - i'm fine w/ ditching state-run stores after that Dood, that's what the "medical dispensaries" are for. Duh. Not true. I-502 has nothing to do with the existing medical marijuana law (medical dispensaries still exist a legal gray area in WA, BTW). It requires the state to sell pot directly, not through dispensaries or other private entities. My understanding is that it also allows the user to privately grow his own, up to 30 plants at any one time, I believe. The "medical dispensaries" comment was just a (shitty) joke for ivan, Pat. I know nothing really about I-502. It's just not in my kitchen cuz I put the bong down years and years ago. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 I-502 isn't about who smokes and who doesn't: It's about reducing our 2.4 million person prison population (7 times greater than China, almost twice Russia's per capita), and the 3:1 discrimination against African Americans it represents. Quote
Jim Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Back to orginal topic: One thing I noticed distinctly missing from the 1183 discussion was what would have happened if it did not pass regarding SB 5942 - which was already pass by Olympia back in April. It would sell liquor distribution and warehousing to the highest bidder - basically a one time revenue boost (WA would maintain control -whatever that means), while 1183 provides a long-term revenue source. So the default would lose us a pile of future revenue for a short-term, temporary boost. Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 On the original topic... It's official!!!1 Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Back to orginal topic: One thing I noticed distinctly missing from the 1183 discussion was what would have happened if it did not pass regarding SB 5942 - which was already pass by Olympia back in April. It would sell liquor distribution and warehousing to the highest bidder - basically a one time revenue boost (WA would maintain control -whatever that means), while 1183 provides a long-term revenue source. So the default would lose us a pile of future revenue for a short-term, temporary boost. We win. Quote
Stefan Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Yup. I hope you voted NO. I think our liquor laws are stupid and the State should not be in the distribution business, but I don't think that restricting the sale of liquor to Costco and 10,000 square foot Safeway stores is the right idea. Give the law time. In the future the law will change to allow smaller stores. Don't expect home runs. A lot of base hits is a good strategy. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Beat ya to it, Stephen. Looks like there'll be a period leading up to the transfer where selection will suck Sobo. Better stock up on Nighttrain! ;-) Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 Yup. I hope you voted NO. I think our liquor laws are stupid and the State should not be in the distribution business, but I don't think that restricting the sale of liquor to Costco and 10,000 square foot Safeway stores is the right idea. Give the law time. In the future the law will change to allow smaller stores. Don't expect home runs. A lot of base hits is a good strategy. The new law ALREADY allows for smaller stores. Please review the thread, or the legislation. Either one, it'll tell you the same thing. Quote
sobo Posted November 9, 2011 Author Posted November 9, 2011 Beat ya to it, Stephen. Looks like there'll be a period leading up to the transfer where selection will suck Sobo. Better stock up on Nighttrain! ;-) Oh, yes, I saw that train (no pun intended) comin'! Already ahead of there, Holmes. And for the record, Wild Irish Rose is my "stockpile" wine of choice... Quote
ivan Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 anybody find it aggravating that you actually have to be a member of costco to shop there? seem like there'll be more than a few folks who will have to get a costco membership to get booze now, b/c there wont' be a big enough alternative nearby? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.