torch: And I don't mean to limit that sentiment to state liquor store employees. When government puts its thumb on the scales of the market, all kinds of bad crap happens.

Submitter assumes Costco will be the sole liquor retailer in WA going forward. Submitter is very mistaken.

But it's totally cool when private industries completely fark over the general population, I'm guessing? Government isn't great, but it's a necessary evil in a lot of ways. Personally, I have no problem with funding the pensions of federal or state employees. I just wish private industry employees tended to enjoy the same benefits instead of having to beg and grovel for even the mildest considerations.

I'm absolutely for government monopolies in some areas - electricity, water, etc. - but there's no reason for a government to be a monopolistic liquor retailer. The profit they make is decent enough, but retail isn't what we have government for.

Plus, government sucks at retail. They should get out of the business of selling booze completely.

Actually it's only about $18 million. The organizers didn't spend $3.7M that they are returning to Costco.

And the laws and liquor distribution in Washington state were far more wicked than having state stores. The state also ran the distribution business with its $100M warehouse and fixed prices. We all love fixed prices,

Nice work, Washington! Now you don't have to feel the same way about liquor as you do the DMV. Now if you want to join the 1970's you can stop being a monopolistic state for Worker's Comp.

Welcome to Coshtco. *hic* I love you.

People voted for this under a lot of mistaken assumptions. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds to the public. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The amusing part about all of this is that folks will pay as much, if not more, for booze than they did with the state-run arrangement. That was one of the mistaken assumptions - that the state was somehow jacking liquor prices through the roof (and they were, mind you) - this legislation doesn't stop that at all, because it increased the tax revenues the state receives from liquor sales. I'm looking forward to the howls of short-sighted voters when they realize they're still screwed and still paying more for booze - it's just that they're giving the money to different people now.

Costco bought the legislation, but they weren't the only players here. There are about 1,400 locations that qualify for distribution - the state's already indicated that, if you already have a license for wine & beer, and you meet the other qualifications listed in the legislation, then getting a license for liquor should be a shoe-in.

how horrible, another poor person having to work for private enterprise rather than the state.


oh the humanity!

Skail: Personally, I have no problem with funding the pensions of federal or state employees.

Nor I, but liquor store workers shouldn't be government employees. C'mon- it's a retail job with the special requirement that you check IDs before letting people check out. I live in PA, and it's just ridiculous to see how corrupt the LCB is. This is a state that was so afraid that grocery stores could eat up their valuable liquor profits that they tried installing LCB managed wine vending machines in grocery stores. You had to show your ID to a camera and have it verified by some drone in Harrisburg, and you had to take a breathalyzer test before it would dispense your wine.

They spent tens of millions on this, deployed them, and- this part might be a shock- they failed spectacularly.

bobbette: I'm absolutely for government monopolies in some areas - electricity, water, etc. - but there's no reason for a government to be a monopolistic liquor retailer. The profit they make is decent enough, but retail isn't what we have government for.

Plus, government sucks at retail. They should get out of the business of selling booze completely.

So a monopolistic private entity is better?
Mind you, if the employees are that insulted there are certain things you can do with beer bottles. You could always invite the people who put you out of a job to give you work with less compensation to a friendly cocktail party.

ACallForPeace: So a monopolistic private entity is better?

Are those our only options?

FormlessOne

I agree with you. The Attorney General was talking about the ad campaign for this and said he couldn't believe how much lies and deception was involved. Time will tell what happens.

wiseolddude: FormlessOne

I agree with you. The Attorney General was talking about the ad campaign for this and said he couldn't believe how much lies and deception was involved. Time will tell what happens.

Yep. It's a done deal now, but I give it two years (after June 1, 2012) before voters try to stuff this particular spirit back into Pandora's Box.

The only thing for which I'm really hoping is a backlash against Costco for brazenly exploiting the voter initiative system to purchase legislation, especially when angry short-sighted voters start screaming "WHAR IS CHEEP BOOZE! WHAR!" - after all, that's what they think they got by voting for this initiative.

wish alabama would get out of the liqour business, we have private stores but they have to buy from the abc store so it is marked up even higher. the abc store prices are rediculous already. $56 dollars for a handle of crown, fifteen miles away in florida $42. louisiana you can buy at circle K

t3knomanser: ACallForPeace: So a monopolistic private entity is better?

Are those our only options?

Pretty much.
Many laws that regulate and deregulate business environments are set up to screw out the small players and prop up the big players.
So as long as corporate money corrupts our political system, those are usually going to be your only two options. If we could strip the ridiculous applications of corporate personhood, get rid of money=free speech in America, lobbying that practically amounts to plain bribery, and things like Citizens United then we could be set.
Freeze corporate money and overinfluence from politics and then we'd have more options.

t3knomanser: ACallForPeace: So a monopolistic private entity is better?

Are those our only options?

I'd like to add that I'm not overly worried about a minor thing like this, because perhaps the citizens can come back and update/change the law later.
Like how hopefully the citizens of America can get future bills making the corporate handout to health insurance companies more of an actual reform.
But we'll have to wait until we have less fascists (R), more business friendly conservatives (D), and an actual left to speak of.

OnlyM3: how horrible, another poor person having to work for private enterprise rather than the state.


oh the humanity!

For real. When the gov't shuts down a private firm because they decided to get in on a business the same people don't cry.

In Ohio, the State owns all the liquor then a store with the proper permits sell it. Could be a purposed liquor store, or a grocery store. Ohio then gives the retailer a certain % of sales from the bottles.
/former liquor store employee
//glad I don't have to deal with drunks on a daily basis anymore

Considering Costco actually pays their employees fairly well and offers decent medical benefits, subby may want to go beat up on some other company if he or she is trying to bash capitalism.

Other than as a revenue generator, there's no reason the government should lock up liquor sales. And Costco treats their employees quite well, with good pay and benefits, which would explain why employee morale and retention figures are so good there.

I live in the Canadian province of Ontario. Liquor here is monopolized by the government. The LCBO (government agency) here periodically RAISES the minimum price per volume of beer and alcohol, with the justification of "people won't get drunk if they can't afford to" - no joke. The cheapest beer costs $1.60 per bottle or can plus tax, and the cheapest bottle of vodka is $23. Let's compare this to the states, where I can get a bottle of good vodka for $10-$13 and a can or bottle of beer for as low as $0.75. And I'm only thinking of Seattle - there have got to be states / cities with cheaper booze.

Even better - the prices I just mentioned, $1.60 for a beer or $23 minimum for a bottle of vodka - those are the prices that ALL consumers in Ontario pay. Bars & clubs pay the same for their booze as consumers, which means two things: they charge a fark of a lot per drink ($4.50-5.50 plus tax for a domestic beer or shot) and since they don't really make a lot on the alcohol, just about every club in the major cities charge $10+ cover.

Apparently the upside to this ridiculous scenario is the government of Ontario making a couple billion per year off this scheme, and getting favorable negotiating prices with the booze makers since they're the world's single biggest alcohol distributor.

Nightjars: Considering Costco actually pays their employees fairly well and offers decent medical benefits, subby may want to go beat up on some other company if he or she is trying to bash capitalism.

This. Try Walmart or something Subby. Jesus.

Skail: Government isn't great, but it's a necessary evil in a lot of ways.

Somebody explain to me again why it's a public good that the state government run the liquor distribution and retail businesses?

And for those people complaining that this change screws small local stores for the benefit of big stores: that's another logical fallacy. Under the previous regime the small stores didn't get a look-in either. At least now it's only a small matter of amending the details of qualification, now that Costco and others have done the heavy lifting of getting the state monopoly overturned.

Having grown up in Iowa, another state where you can buy Everclear at your local grocery/drug store - I really do not understand why you would want the government to be the only place where you can buy booze. Even in GA -where I live now-, where blue laws are widespread, you can buy booze at Costco that have the proper license.

I do not understand why so many of you Fark Washingtonians hate this bill.

cybrwzrd: Having grown up in Iowa, another state where you can buy Everclear at your local grocery/drug store - I really do not understand why you would want the government to be the only place where you can buy booze. Even in GA -where I live now-, where blue laws are widespread, you can buy booze at Costco that have the proper license.

I do not understand why so many of you Fark Washingtonians hate this bill.

The government shouldn't be involving itself the sale of booze beyond the rubber stamping of alcohol applications and allowing BYOB restaurants.

Ken VeryBigLiar: Nice work, Washington! Now you don't have to feel the same way about liquor as you do the DMV. Now if you want to join the 1970's you can stop being a monopolistic state for Worker's Comp.

Are you saying that you think that you could get a better rate for W/C if there was competition? Unlike regular insurance policies, the WC rate is usually fixed by law, and insurance companies all charge the same rate.

As an aside, just because you are a business in WA state doesn't mean you have to cover your employees throught WA's L&I. We're a tiny company and have W/C through our regular insurance company.

Lexx: Other than as a revenue generator, there's no reason the government should lock up liquor sales. And Costco treats their employees quite well, with good pay and benefits, which would explain why employee morale and retention figures are so good there.

I live in the Canadian province of Ontario. Liquor here is monopolized by the government. The LCBO (government agency) here periodically RAISES the minimum price per volume of beer and alcohol, with the justification of "people won't get drunk if they can't afford to" - no joke. The cheapest beer costs $1.60 per bottle or can plus tax, and the cheapest bottle of vodka is $23. Let's compare this to the states, where I can get a bottle of good vodka for $10-$13 and a can or bottle of beer for as low as $0.75. And I'm only thinking of Seattle - there have got to be states / cities with cheaper booze.

Even better - the prices I just mentioned, $1.60 for a beer or $23 minimum for a bottle of vodka - those are the prices that ALL consumers in Ontario pay. Bars & clubs pay the same for their booze as consumers, which means two things: they charge a fark of a lot per drink ($4.50-5.50 plus tax for a domestic beer or shot) and since they don't really make a lot on the alcohol, just about every club in the major cities charge $10+ cover.

Apparently the upside to this ridiculous scenario is the government of Ontario making a couple billion per year off this scheme, and getting favorable negotiating prices with the booze makers since they're the world's single biggest alcohol distributor.

I can almost understand the LCBO, but what I really don't understand is The Brewer's Retail (THE BEER STORE). How is it that the province lets InBev and Molson/Coors operate the only other competition for LCBO when it comes to beer?

The fact that the state government was ever given a complete monopoly and the ability to price fix something as popular as alcohol is depressing as hell.

To the displaced government workers; I'm sorry. You had a sweet gig, but now it's ending. You'll find that your talents selling liquor probably won't be worth as much in the free market. I sincerely hope you find a way to get people to voluntarily pay for your services.

SnarfVader: Gig103: This doesn't affect me, but congrats Washington for finally getting the joys of a Costco liquor selection. I bought a case of Spaten Oktoberfest for less than a case of Sam Adams!

I also wish Pennsylvania could do this, but their LCB is way more mafioso than Washingtons.

In Washington, Costco already sold beer and wine.

torch: And I don't mean to limit that sentiment to state liquor store employees. When government puts its thumb on the scales of the market, all kinds of bad crap happens.

Submitter assumes Costco will be the sole liquor retailer in WA going forward. Submitter is very mistaken.

True, but my problem with the whole initiative is that it was written so that the small contract stores could not stay in business. Many like the one in Woodland were privately owned and much less than 10,000 square feet. Sucks to live in Woodland now, because the local Wal-Mart grocery store isn't going to install a liquor section and Safeway's prices suck. Well, it sucks to live in Woodland anyway, but that's another story.

Are you saying that it will be impossible to open a liquor store? Unless that's true, if Safeway rapes their customers on price, they'll get competition.

verbal_jizm: this initiative is a farking dog for Washington. What it does is screw over any competition by small mom and pop stores wanting to sell liquor. To be able to sell liquor an establishment needs to be over 10,000 square feet in size, so goodbye corner liquor store. The only place you'll be able to get it is very large grocery stores, Costco, and Walmart..

Did you already forget that the whole reason that the 10k square foot rule got written in is to try to appease those who were scared that every gas station in the state was going to sell liquor to their kids because of the anti-privatization's fear mongering tactics last time this type of initiative was tried? Costco was a sponsor for that one too, and it would have allowed for small mom-and-pop liquor stores.

By the way, the existing liquor store locations will be exempt and be allowed to be taken over by private companies, so your "goodbye corner liquor stores" is untrue.

Skail: Personally, I have no problem with funding the pensions of federal or state employees. I just wish private industry employees tended to enjoy the same benefits instead of having to beg and grovel for even the mildest considerations.

Then the answer is clear. All business should be run by government so that everyone can be a government employee and enjoy government benefits. Right?

Did you already forget that the whole reason that the 10k square foot rule got written in is to try to appease those who were scared that every gas station in the state was going to sell liquor to their kids because of the anti-privatization's fear mongering tactics last time this type of initiative was tried? Costco was a sponsor for that one too, and it would have allowed for small mom-and-pop liquor stores.

No, old jizm was busying listening to the lying ads by the American Wholesale Liquor Distributors that tried to pumped in $15M worth of TV ads.

Robert Mack, the political reporter for King 5, asked proponents of both sides what was unique about the I-1183 campaign. Both said, "The other side's contentions are total fabrications."

Gough: Ken VeryBigLiar: Nice work, Washington! Now you don't have to feel the same way about liquor as you do the DMV. Now if you want to join the 1970's you can stop being a monopolistic state for Worker's Comp.

Are you saying that you think that you could get a better rate for W/C if there was competition? Unlike regular insurance policies, the WC rate is usually fixed by law, and insurance companies all charge the same rate.

As an aside, just because you are a business in WA state doesn't mean you have to cover your employees throught WA's L&I. We're a tiny company and have W/C through our regular insurance company.

It isn't just a question of rates for your individual class codes, it's also your experience mod or for larger companies the Large Deductible discount which are pretty much where 46 other states and the District of Columbia have competition for business.

verbal_jizm: this initiative is a farking dog for Washington. What it does is screw over any competition by small mom and pop stores wanting to sell liquor. To be able to sell liquor an establishment needs to be over 10,000 square feet in size, so goodbye corner liquor store. The only place you'll be able to get it is very large grocery stores, Costco, and Walmart.

But I was told that businesses hate regulation?

Ken VeryBigLiar: Gough: Ken VeryBigLiar: Nice work, Washington! Now you don't have to feel the same way about liquor as you do the DMV. Now if you want to join the 1970's you can stop being a monopolistic state for Worker's Comp.

Are you saying that you think that you could get a better rate for W/C if there was competition? Unlike regular insurance policies, the WC rate is usually fixed by law, and insurance companies all charge the same rate.

As an aside, just because you are a business in WA state doesn't mean you have to cover your employees throught WA's L&I. We're a tiny company and have W/C through our regular insurance company.

It isn't just a question of rates for your individual class codes, it's also your experience mod or for larger companies the Large Deductible discount which are pretty much where 46 other states and the District of Columbia have competition for business.

Fair enough, thanks for pointing that out. In the other state where we do business, we went with a private carrier instead of the state fund because we can use several different class codes even for indivdual workers, depending on what they're actually doing.

People actually support state run liquor stores? Must be Stockholm Syndrome.