Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
sobo

I-1183

Recommended Posts

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: :brew: :brew:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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: :brew: :brew:

 

Just squeeking that ballot in under the wire, eh Sobo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-shaaaa! I mailed that puppy in last Monday! THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE!!!1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I grew up in Michigan, where the mini-mart on the corner sells pints, but you can also go to the specialty stores and get really good advice on single malt just like you do on wine here in Washington. While some may not think mini-marts should sell pints, I think the smaller retailers should not be nixed in favor of COSTCO when it comes to the general sale of spirits.

 

Get the State out of it. But do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costco and Safeway sell wine and beer too, that hasn't put every other purveyor of wine and beer out of business.

 

Why is it a negative that Costco supports this Initiative and has invested tons of money into it? Afterall, isn't Costco a Washington corporation and a big employer and taxpayer in this state? If Costco florishes at the expense of out-of-state liquor distributors that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete:

 

Have you read the proposal? Liquor will be restricted to stores of 10,000 square feet or more unless, in the case of small communities, there are no large stores in the area.

 

It is not a "negative" that COSTCO supports this bill. It is the intended outcome of this bill that I don't like. Yes, COSTCO and Safeway sell wine. But the small specialty store does too. That cannot occur with liquor under this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. I hope you voted NO.
Nope! Voted "yea" and am very proud to have done so.

 

I think our liquor laws are stupid...
Wholeheartedly agree.

 

...and the State should not be in the distribution business...
Again, totally agree.

 

...but I don't think that restricting the sale of liquor to Costco and 10,000 square foot Safeway stores is the right idea.
I-1183 provides for the sale of spirits and wine in lesser-floor-area stores when larger venues are not readily available. Also, the initiative provides for any former WSLCB store to continue to sell wine and spirits as a private enterprise. I expect that a lot of them will do this, so I do not foresee a drop in "conveniently located" stores. And it also provides for smaller stores to be licensed where no "big box" stores, grocery stores, or former WSLCB stores exist, thereby increasing convenience for them country folk out in Roy that don't want to drive 30 miles to get their squeez'ns.

 

I grew up in Michigan, where the mini-mart on the corner sells pints, but you can also go to the specialty stores and get really good advice on single malt just like you do on wine here in Washington. While some may not think mini-marts should sell pints, I think the smaller retailers should not be nixed in favor of COSTCO when it comes to the general sale of spirits.
And I became of purchasing age in Virginia when it was still 18, and they also sold spirits and wine in the mini-marts. Although I did not see anything in the legislation specifically calling for the closure of existing wine specialty stores and/or wine bars/tasting rooms smaller than 10,000 SF, I do not expect that any such stores/bars/rooms will be forced to close their doors under this legislation. That would be stupid and in direct conflict with the allowance for the opening of stores smaller than 10,000 SF. There are no specialty stores in WA dealing solely in spirits, since that is currently controlled/monopolized by the WSLCB, and the WSLCB liquor stores cannot be considered "specialty stores" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Get the State out of it.
Agreed.

 

But do it right.
Agreed, and I believe that 1183 does just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I became of purchasing age in Virginia when it was still 18, and they also sold spirits and wine in the mini-marts. Although I did not see anything in the legislation specifically calling for the closure of existing specialty stores smaller than 10,000 SF, I do not expect that any such stores will be forced to close their doors under this legislation. That would be stupid and in direct conflict with allowing the opening of stores smaller than 10,000 SF.

 

As I understand the proposal, the law would NOT allow smaller stores to sell spirits, unless there is not a 10,000 SF facility in the area. There are now no "specialty stores" except STATE RUN liquor stores. ALL of them will close.

 

I agree that the State should not be our liquor store. But I don't like this particular proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Sobo I-1183 :tdown:

 

I-1183 provides vitally needed new revenues for state and local public services…

 

FALSE: While it is true that the corporate backers of I-1183 have changed their self-described “flawed” proposal from a year ago, there are still hidden consequences and costs to I-1183. Supporters claim that I-1183 would generate millions for the state. However, as the Office of Financial Management report notes, this doesn’t take into account the medical and legal costs associated with the passage of I-1183 and a rapid expansion of liquor sales. 



 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently came out against privatizing liquor sales, contending it leads to a 48% increase in consumption. Here in Washington, a 2009 Justice Department study found that underage drinking cost the state more than $500 million annually in youth violence and traffic collisions. And a new CDC report found that excessive alcohol consumption cost the U.S. $224 billion in 2006. They recommended strategies to combat problem/binge drinking, which includes reducing the number of places that sell and serve alcohol.

 

 

I-1183 will create four times as many outlets selling liquor and supporters falsely claim that consumption will remain flat. While big box retailers make huge profits, we all pay the price for greater access to alcohol for minors, increased binge drinking, and increased drunk driving crashes—high costs that will be paid by our local and state governments.

 

I-1183 will prevent underage drinking and improves public safety…

 

FALSE: Even the sponsors of this measure called last year’s proposal flawed and know this measure would lead to increased youth drinking and increased costs for our public safety system. It only dedicates $10 million statewide toward public safety. When this amount is divided amongst all city and county governments, it’s impact will be negligible considering that the number of outlets will be expanded over four times the current amount and alcohol sales will be extended until 2 AM at many grocery stores. For example, when you divide up $10 million using the current distribution model of state liquor funds, the Chelan County government would receive approximately $24,000 in additional money dedicated to public safety to be split among police and fire departments. The Spokane County government under the same formula would receive just $132,000. Even one automobile crash due to drunk driving could cost well over this amount.

 

The fact is I-1183 does not provide any additional funds to the Liquor Control Board for enforcement and regulation of our liquor laws. The board employs 55 enforcement officers to regulate the 323 liquor stores that currently exist in Washington State. I-1183 allocates no additional funding for increased oversight--the same 55 officers will be tasked with regulating more than 1,400 private-sector liquor outlets that we will see if this measure passes.

 

I-1183 doubles penalties for selling to minors, but even this provision comes with a huge loophole. The initiative states that if grocery stores opt into a new voluntary “self-policing” program, then they are exempt from having to pay the doubled fines.

 

In Washington, kids are successful when buying alcohol in grocery and convenience stores 1 in 4 times. Our state liquor stores have a 96% enforcement rate—one of the best in the entire country. With state and local governments already cutting our public safety budgets, the last thing we need are laws that further increase the burden on our police and firefighters. That is why public safety organizations and officials have joined the campaign to oppose this initiative.

 

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-getfacts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I became of purchasing age in Virginia when it was still 18, and they also sold spirits and wine in the mini-marts. Although I did not see anything in the legislation specifically calling for the closure of existing specialty stores smaller than 10,000 SF, I do not expect that any such stores will be forced to close their doors under this legislation. That would be stupid and in direct conflict with allowing the opening of stores smaller than 10,000 SF.

 

As I understand the proposal, the law would NOT allow smaller stores to sell spirits, unless there is not a 10,000 SF facility in the area. There are now no "specialty stores" except STATE RUN liquor stores. ALL of them will close.

 

I agree that the State should not be our liquor store. But I don't like this particular proposal.

Please see my reply above, notably the last sentence in the fifth (parsed) quote of your original post, wherein I agree that there are currently no specialty stores that deal solely in spirits in WA. And correct again that if there are no large facilites (>10k SF) in the area, then a smaller store can be licensed, after public input and approval according to existing zoning laws.

 

In response to your statement that "ALL of them will close," what the law will do is eliminate the WSLCB's power to operate state liquor stores and to supervise contract liquor stores. Yes, those WSLCB stores will close temporarily, BUT the law further requires the WSLCB to sell its assets and auction the rights to operate stores at the same locations where the WSLCB conducted business. So I see a lot of private enterprise folks lining up to purchase those rights and re-open those same stores. I see many of those same stores reopening; they'll just be "under new management."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete:

 

Have you read the proposal? Liquor will be restricted to stores of 10,000 square feet or more unless, in the case of small communities, there are no large stores in the area.

 

It is not a "negative" that COSTCO supports this bill. It is the intended outcome of this bill that I don't like. Yes, COSTCO and Safeway sell wine. But the small specialty store does too. That cannot occur with liquor under this proposal.

 

The reason for the large sq footage specified this time is that last time a similar initiative was proposed the opposition said that allowing for sales of hard liquor at hundreds, even thousands, of small stores would promote teen drinking and abuse and make it impossible to control such businesses. So arguing now that 10,000 square feet excludes too many businesses, well, it's retarded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Sobo I-1183 :tdown:

 

I-1183 provides vitally needed new revenues for state and local public services…

 

FALSE: While it is true that the corporate backers of I-1183 have changed their self-described “flawed” proposal from a year ago, there are still hidden consequences and costs to I-1183. Supporters claim that I-1183 would generate millions for the state. However, as the Office of Financial Management report notes, this doesn’t take into account the medical and legal costs associated with the passage of I-1183 and a rapid expansion of liquor sales. 



 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently came out against privatizing liquor sales, contending it leads to a 48% increase in consumption. Here in Washington, a 2009 Justice Department study found that underage drinking cost the state more than $500 million annually in youth violence and traffic collisions. And a new CDC report found that excessive alcohol consumption cost the U.S. $224 billion in 2006. They recommended strategies to combat problem/binge drinking, which includes reducing the number of places that sell and serve alcohol.

 

 

I-1183 will create four times as many outlets selling liquor and supporters falsely claim that consumption will remain flat. While big box retailers make huge profits, we all pay the price for greater access to alcohol for minors, increased binge drinking, and increased drunk driving crashes—high costs that will be paid by our local and state governments.

 

I-1183 will prevent underage drinking and improves public safety…

 

FALSE: Even the sponsors of this measure called last year’s proposal flawed and know this measure would lead to increased youth drinking and increased costs for our public safety system. It only dedicates $10 million statewide toward public safety. When this amount is divided amongst all city and county governments, it’s impact will be negligible considering that the number of outlets will be expanded over four times the current amount and alcohol sales will be extended until 2 AM at many grocery stores. For example, when you divide up $10 million using the current distribution model of state liquor funds, the Chelan County government would receive approximately $24,000 in additional money dedicated to public safety to be split among police and fire departments. The Spokane County government under the same formula would receive just $132,000. Even one automobile crash due to drunk driving could cost well over this amount.

 

The fact is I-1183 does not provide any additional funds to the Liquor Control Board for enforcement and regulation of our liquor laws. The board employs 55 enforcement officers to regulate the 323 liquor stores that currently exist in Washington State. I-1183 allocates no additional funding for increased oversight--the same 55 officers will be tasked with regulating more than 1,400 private-sector liquor outlets that we will see if this measure passes.

 

I-1183 doubles penalties for selling to minors, but even this provision comes with a huge loophole. The initiative states that if grocery stores opt into a new voluntary “self-policing” program, then they are exempt from having to pay the doubled fines.

 

In Washington, kids are successful when buying alcohol in grocery and convenience stores 1 in 4 times. Our state liquor stores have a 96% enforcement rate—one of the best in the entire country. With state and local governments already cutting our public safety budgets, the last thing we need are laws that further increase the burden on our police and firefighters. That is why public safety organizations and officials have joined the campaign to oppose this initiative.

 

http://protectourcommunities.com/1083-getfacts

Sorry, Kurt, but I do not agree with the opposition's assessment.

And I educated myself on the issue since the last time this came up. My vote is a considered action, not a knee-jerk one.

I-1183 has provisions to restrict sales to minors, and provides doubled penalties for failing to follow those provisions. The "protect our children" angle is a shrill and devious obfuscation tactic employed by those that would wish to see their monopoly of liquor sales profits continue unabated. Litmus test: Look at the list of those who endorse the status quo, then look at the list of those that support I-1183.

 

I-1183 :tup:

http://www.yeson1183.com/?_c=104iwnr2mx09p77

 

http://www.yeson1183.com/facts/?_c=104iwnr2mx09p77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retarded is believing what has been said publicly in the campaigns for these proposals, KK.

 

I agree that the 10,000 square feet thing is being promoted as a "response" to prior criticisms of the prior initiative. I do not believe that COSTCO is worried about teen drinking or places a higher priority over this concern than its bottom line, however - and I believe the actual facts regarding teen drinking in other states do not indicate that the 10,000 square foot thing will curb teen drinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retarded is believing what has been said publicly in the campaigns for these proposals, KK.

 

I agree that the 10,000 square feet thing is being promoted as a "response" to prior criticisms of the prior initiative. I do not believe that COSTCO is worried about teen drinking or places a higher priority over this concern than its bottom line, however - and I believe the actual facts regarding teen drinking in other states do not indicate that the 10,000 square foot thing will curb teen drinking.

 

Get WS out of the liquor sales monopoly first. The law can change again later to accommodate smaller businesses. Incremental change works just fine with me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you in goals, KK. But I fear it will be harder to pry COSTCO out of the monopoly than it would be to wait for a better privatization proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the 10,000 square feet thing is being promoted as a "response" to prior criticisms of the prior initiative. I do not believe that COSTCO is worried about teen drinking or places a higher priority over this concern than its bottom line, however - and I believe the actual facts regarding teen drinking in other states do not indicate that the 10,000 square foot thing will curb teen drinking.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you in goals, KK. But I think it will be harder to pry COSTCO out of the monopoly than it would be to wait for a better privatization proposal.

 

I currently buy wine at both CostCo and at small wine shops and will continue to do so. I currently buy liquor from a monopoly and now will have... well a set of stores to buy from. There will be chains that spring up outside of CostCo - in California Beverages & More is one such chain, which sells both hard liquor and a great selection of wines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the worry about the convenience stores was that they would have less to lose than might a large business like a Costco or Safeway store of 10,000 square feet. I'm not sure that this is true because the mom and pop stores are exactly that: mom and pop stores. The operators are dependent on the income and are not any more likely than anybody else to violate the law. But, either way, the "teen drinking" thing has been an issue that is subject to a lot of emotional argument but nobody has actually suggested that states where liquor is available at minimarts have higher rates of teen drinking as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you in goals, KK. But I think it will be harder to pry COSTCO out of the monopoly than it would be to wait for a better privatization proposal.

 

I currently buy wine at both CostCo and at small wine shops and will continue to do so. I currently buy liquor from a monopoly and now will have... well a set of stores to buy from. There will be chains that spring up outside of CostCo - in California Beverages & More is one such chain, which sells both hard liquor and a great selection of wines.

BevMo is da shitz, man! :tup: :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get WS out of the liquor sales monopoly first. The law can change again later to accommodate smaller businesses. Incremental change works just fine with me.
+1 Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...But, either way, the "teen drinking" thing has been an issue that is subject to a lot of emotional argument but nobody has actually suggested that states where liquor is available at minimarts have higher rates of teen drinking as far as I know.
Precisely! Hence, the opposition's cries of a higher incidence of teen drinking with the passage of I-1183 just doesn't wash with me. It's nothing more than emotionally charged over-reaction, shrill scare tactics, and the plucking of heartstrings.... :tdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess it doesn't matter what you want now, does it feller??
To whom is that comment addressed, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×