Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Washington State's privatization of liquor sales leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Oregon, tri-cities, sales lead, Columbia River, Walla Walla, liquors  
•       •       •

11469 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:10 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-19 09:44:35 AM  
I like how I and some others post hard facts from experience with the new law, showing how its worked out worse in most cases for the consumer ... and the opposition posts "durr unions bad private market good" typical noise.

Not all private markets are set up right, you incompetent asswits. What you thought you voted for and what we actually got are pretty far apart.

But thanks for voting to raise my taxes on booze without even realizing it, eff-for-brains.
 
2012-07-19 09:59:34 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...


FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.
 
2012-07-19 10:02:07 AM  

Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.


You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.
 
2012-07-19 10:02:40 AM  

trotsky: The Ohio model is pretty decent: hard stuff in state stores, watered down stuff in groceries.

I actually don't have a problem with the privatization of the Ohio Liquor monopoly. What I DO have a problem with is how Kasich wanted to sell it off to his cronies and donors. That's my problem. I would rather see it left intact than sold off to the same group of supporters he put in JobsOhio.


Enjoy that trip to Indiana to buy Everclear!
 
2012-07-19 10:04:06 AM  
For those of you lamenting how far you have to drive to get decent beer: It really isn't that hard
to make your own very good beer. you need a certain amount of inexpensive equipment and a
good purveyor of brewmaking supplies. try morebeer.com.

a month ago I turned a friend on to making beer. we did a sierra nevada knockoff. the hardest
part of the whole thing was waiting two weeks for it to age enough to drink. his cheif complaint was
"it's too flat". My response was "It's sorta like a line at a whorehouse- you want good head you have
to wait a while"
 
2012-07-19 10:04:39 AM  

MugzyBrown: Why would you have to buy wine at the supermarket? If the PCRB was gone, then you could get awesome wine stores like a few in Jersey that have rows and rows of great wine. I got the PCRB store looking for some Argentinean wine, I'm lucky if there are 3 to choose from. At Total Wine & More or Hops & Grapes there are 20+ cheaper than I can get in Argentina.


Yeah, I thought the same thing. Privatization doesn't eliminate the liquor store.

The current PA system just flat out sucks. Limited selection, less convenient, and more expensive. Luckily I'm just a few minutes from the Delaware border.
 
2012-07-19 10:06:35 AM  
Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?
 
2012-07-19 10:07:56 AM  
They bring the charger back and now Washington is giving some yokel an excuse to paint one bright orange and race across the state border hauling booze. Next we'll have a new show, Dukes of KIickitat.
 
2012-07-19 10:08:16 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?


Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.
 
2012-07-19 10:11:04 AM  
I live in Washington..... and can see oregon from my porch. I was already buying my cigarettes in oregon, now I pick up liquor there as well!

The taxes do suck..... but the selection sucks a lot worse. The law only allows stores that are 10K sq. ft. or larger to sell booze......and that just leave supermarkets, and they aren't going to offer anything but the most popular selling brands.

/Oh, well..... at least I can still buy in Oregon.
//Voted against it. But, nobody ever listens to me.
 
2012-07-19 10:11:53 AM  
This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.
 
2012-07-19 10:13:42 AM  
The original reason for the State Liquor Control Board was the Conservatives. They wanted to keep prohibition in place. The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through, and they would not agree to the 21st without some measure of control of Liquor sales by the Government. The WSLCB was a direct compromise by the Liberals to Conservatives to ratification of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution by the Washington State legislature.

Bear in mind, that before the 18th Amendment, alcoholism was so prevalent that people regularly drank themselves to death by their mid 40's in the US, and there were almost no restrictions on who could buy it. That was the original reason for the religious nuts to shove the 18th Amendment through in the first place. Alcohol related diseases were the number one cause of premature death in the country. There are hundreds of photographs of old saloons and taverns that show kids as young as 12 drinking.

I voted against the bill, as I see the value of a revenue stream to the State. The State does in fact have the right to impose taxes, it is both in the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The States paramount duty to its citizens is education, that is also spelled out quite specifically in the State Constitution. This system was supported in large part by the States profits on liquor. The loss of those profits had to be compensated for by taxation of retail sales. Now, those profits are going to private companies, and the State has lost that revenue stream.

Washington State has had several major tax reductions over the last 15 years. The "privatize everything" crowd are really just people who cannot stand the fact that the State has the right to enforce the law. The law is supported by taxation. so they claim to want to reduce the number of laws. But those laws did not appear in a vacuum, they were imposed for a reason. Food safety, workplace safety, labor laws, child and family protections, traffic laws, standards on how residences can be built, standards on how gas stations can sell fuels. Prisons, road construction, sewers, water treatment and delivery. There are too many to list of course, but the fact is, nearly all of those laws were put in place because someone was running a scam somewhere, or poisoning people or stealing from people and people wanted to have laws put in place to restrict people from running those scams, and have a means of punishing the ones who did.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the drunks in this State. You made your bed, now pass out and puke in it, morons.
 
2012-07-19 10:14:20 AM  

Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.


LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!
 
2012-07-19 10:16:39 AM  
Whew, this country's puritan focus on regulating alcohol has resulted in some truly byzantine, expensive and inefficient systems.

You would think that a certain 'party of small government' would look to fixing this clusterfark before anything else.

Ah but wait, there's all those people that benefit from the regulation like the distributors. Well, then, ideology can wait I suppose
 
2012-07-19 10:17:44 AM  

Baloo Uriza: doglover: sno man: The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it.

False. In Japan, you see no centralization of booze sales. So convenience stores and super markets carry a small selection of wine, liquor, and booze freely.

But what you see is small specialty shops with a variety of selection of special vintages you can't find at the supermarket. You can get anything, and there's still super stocked liquor stores, it's just that there's no need to go out of your way for a bottle of standard favorited! anymore.

I'm going to probably look weird for saying this, but I kind of like how Oklahoma's ABLE ensuring convenience stores can only sell 3.2% pretty much ensured there's a liquor store on every major intersection with a decent beer selection and the hard stuff in one convenient place.


We have a similar thing here in Colorado, so there are even more liquor stores than marijuana dispensaries. It's disgusting!
 
2012-07-19 10:17:58 AM  

rohar: pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?

Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.


And Wine availability has decreased (but to a lesser extent).... The liquor stores had the largest selection of wines in most areas of Washington.
 
2012-07-19 10:19:07 AM  
This was a bad law. I knew it was a bad law. Anyone who was paying attention knew it was a bad law.

The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway, and sold as a "think of the children!" idea, since people were freaking out that their snowflakes might be able to buy liquor at the gas station. It was, as others have said, also supposed to increase competition, but the state stores actually had some decent microbrands that are totally absent from the big stores now.

I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax, and the major businesses threaten to pick up and leave for Carolinistan any time the words "corporate taxes" are whispered. I like having schools, working roads, world-class public universities, and health care for low income children. So do most Washingtonians. But we have to pay for it somehow and if the booze has to now make a profit for Sam Walton as well as pay for our stuff, it's gonna cost more. And anyone paying attention should have figured that out.
 
2012-07-19 10:20:11 AM  

Sammichless: rohar: pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?

Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.

And Wine availability has decreased (but to a lesser extent).... The liquor stores had the largest selection of wines in most areas of Washington.


Sorry, we didn't notice the same affect over here. Sometimes I forget that the rest of the state doesn't have Huckleberry's and Yokes. The state stores in this area never could compete with them on selection.
 
2012-07-19 10:24:25 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?


Actually, there were almost no restrictions on what was available. The local liquor store could order nearly anything if they didn't have it on the shelves. They did their market research just like any company would, and kept the most popular brands on the shelves. But one could order specific brands with a phone call and a couple days wait. Now, most of the stores just carry the knockoff store brands, and the nice single-malt Whisky that I buy two or three times a year is impossible to find.

As for beer and wines, that was not restricted to State stores, and there were already many specialized stores where the finer wines were sold. There was one near my old place in Seattle that specialized in French wines that became the regular target of vandals after 9/11 when the Republicans started blaming the French for everything. That guy was almost put out of business, he had his glass smashed about 20 times, someone broke in at one point and smashed about 200 bottles. One person tried to burn the place down but his little gasoline bomb went out before it could do much damage.

Thanks Republicans! You sure have a lot of class.
 
2012-07-19 10:24:46 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: We have a similar thing here in Colorado, so there are even more liquor stores than marijuana dispensaries. It's disgusting!


You mean it doesn't just grow wild wherever there's dirt and water there? That sucks.
 
2012-07-19 10:25:56 AM  

rohar: Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.

LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!


Wow.... that's a fact. You wouldn't see a Washingtonian smoking that dirtweed even if you were handing it out for free!! We're connoisseurs here!
 
2012-07-19 10:26:55 AM  
Whenever I hear about these places where the government is making revenue from liquor sales I always think, what country is that in where it would actually be in the government's interest to have more people drinking.
 
2012-07-19 10:27:31 AM  
I've been driving to Oregon to buy hard liquor since way before 1183 passed. Neither WA nor ID stores have sold Everclear (95% ETOH) for years, but I can be at the liquor store in beautiful downtown Umatilla in just over 3 hours.

/I use it to make shellac...no, really.
 
2012-07-19 10:27:40 AM  

Sammichless: rohar: Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.

LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!

Wow.... that's a fact. You wouldn't see a Washingtonian smoking that dirtweed even if you were handing it out for free!! We're connoisseurs here!



Washington is a "Green" state. If it's brown, turn it down. No exploding bowls!
 
2012-07-19 10:33:47 AM  

rohar: LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!


No doubt! You try to give someone some dirty mexican brick here in Seattle and they'll look at you like your yam bag is hanging out the bottom of your shorts.

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...



They slapped a big ole tax on it on their way out the door. For a 1.75l of vodak that's on sale for 18.99, add 6.60 bucks liter fee and a 20.5% sales tax on top of it.
 
2012-07-19 10:34:21 AM  

GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.


yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.
 
2012-07-19 10:36:03 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


'bagger please!
 
2012-07-19 10:39:22 AM  

rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.


So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).
 
2012-07-19 10:42:07 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


Alright, where would you cut? Schools, prisons? How about we eliminate vehicle inspections or workplace safety laws. Perhaps getting rid of child protective services. Maybe we should stop inspecting restaurants and slaughterhouses. Or perhaps we should just stop maintaining our roads and freeways. Or maybe sell off our State lands to the timber companies and developers like Reagan did in California and then magically fail to charge them for the damage they do when feling the timber or building access roads. That land isn't going to slide by itself you know

Oooh, I have an idea, lets sell off our prisons to the same companies that lobby the Legislature for higher prison sentences for everything, and then charge the prisoners for their incarceration, arbitrarily adding time to those sentences when the convicts can't pay the bill.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.
 
2012-07-19 10:43:16 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.
 
2012-07-19 10:52:00 AM  

Noah_Tall: Ummmmm.... Last week I picked up a bottle of Grey Goose for about $5 less than I'm used to paying in liquor stores. And the "HUGE" extra taxes and fees came to $3.

The old liquor stores are still in business only their prices are lower. AND (this is an important one) they are (a really important one) open on Sundays.


They're not open where I am (Seattle). The Northgate one is now closed, the one by my work Downtown is closed and it pisses me off. The same dude that's been selling me bottles for the last 14 years now is out of a job. Also, the selection at QFC Farken sucks. Ouzo? Linie Aquavit? Not in my store.
 
2012-07-19 10:59:14 AM  

Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).


No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-07-19 10:59:22 AM  

Deathfrogg: The original reason for the State Liquor Control Board was the Conservatives. They wanted to keep prohibition in place. The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through, and they would not agree to the 21st without some measure of control of Liquor sales by the Government. The WSLCB was a direct compromise by the Liberals to Conservatives to ratification of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution by the Washington State legislature.

Bear in mind, that before the 18th Amendment, alcoholism was so prevalent that people regularly drank themselves to death by their mid 40's in the US, and there were almost no restrictions on who could buy it. That was the original reason for the religious nuts to shove the 18th Amendment through in the first place. Alcohol related diseases were the number one cause of premature death in the country. There are hundreds of photographs of old saloons and taverns that show kids as young as 12 drinking.

I voted against the bill, as I see the value of a revenue stream to the State. The State does in fact have the right to impose taxes, it is both in the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The States paramount duty to its citizens is education, that is also spelled out quite specifically in the State Constitution. This system was supported in large part by the States profits on liquor. The loss of those profits had to be compensated for by taxation of retail sales. Now, those profits are going to private companies, and the State has lost that revenue stream.

Washington State has had several major tax reductions over the last 15 years. The "privatize everything" crowd are really just people who cannot stand the fact that the State has the right to enforce the law. The law is supported by taxation. so they claim to want to reduce the number of laws. But those laws did not appear in a vacuum, they were imposed for a reason. Food safety, workplace safety, labor laws, child and family protections, traffic laws ...

Seriously? You're really going to blame prohibition on the conservatives? No sir, it took an unholy alliance of feminist progressives and religious conservatives to push through something so vile as the 18th amendment. This is why I'm mostly FOR a do nothing Congress with lots of gridlock, whenever both sides agree on something it's inevitably among the worst things for the citizenry.
 
2012-07-19 11:03:41 AM  

hurdboy: The logical result of both parties' derp on taxation.

Republicans: don't raise income or property taxes, ever, but taxes on goods are fine.
Democrats: lost revenue must be replaced, and vice taxes aren't regressive taxation.

This debate happened here in Virginia last session. Since we don't have much in the way of direct referendum, the state stores stay open, but they'll all be open Sundays. Yes, a bottle of gin is still ten bucks more than it is across the river at a liquor store in DC. Yes, you still can't get things pretty common other states, but no revenue lost.


That may all be true, but you have this:

Malvaxia Reserve Passito 2007

I can't get it shipped to me and I live too far away to run down and get some. Next time I head down to VA to visit friends, I'll have it shipped to their place and bring it back with me.
 
2012-07-19 11:04:50 AM  

rohar: Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).

No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.


Other than imposing fees and taxes after the fact?
 
2012-07-19 11:11:53 AM  
People just drive the few miles across the border to Idaho in these parts. Of course the store still clears nearly $5,ooo some days in liquor sales.
 
2012-07-19 11:14:10 AM  

Chameleon: The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway,



No it wasn't. It was a concession because Costco supported the first privitization initiative, but that wasn't good enough for the soccer moms who were soooo concerned about liquor sales at gas stations.
 
2012-07-19 11:16:26 AM  

Baloo Uriza: legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?

Washingtonians. It's a red state whose claim to fame is they're Not Oregon. Until you get to Clark County. Then they're Not Portland (even though it's a Portland suburb, and the only one of size with a sales tax), and Not British Columbia (even though they are a Vancouver, they're not the good Vancouver, and they're somehow proud of this).

/Vantucky


I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe, given that:

* No US Senator from Washington has been a Republican since 2001
* There hasn't been a Republican governor since 1985
* Democrats currently outnumber Republicans 56-42 in the state House of Representatives
* Democrats have held a majority in the state House since 2002
* Democrats currently outnumber Republicans 27-22 in the state Senate
* Democrats have held a majority in the state Senate since 2005

Yes, there are pockets of the state (mainly east of the Cascades) that will primarily vote Republican. With 60 percent or more of the state's population, though, living in or around Seattle, and overwhelmingly voting Democrat, blaming the passage of this referendum on the Republicans is laughable, especially because it passed by a 16-point margin.

Blame the stupidity of voters who can't read or who didn't understand what the law would do. They're out there, in all political parties.
 
2012-07-19 11:16:29 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?



The state liquor stores used to carry a small selection of wines, but it didn't really matter because wine was already sold at grocery stores and wine shops.
 
2012-07-19 11:17:38 AM  

happyleper: I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe, given that:



I'm just glad we're red when it comes to firearms.
 
2012-07-19 11:18:54 AM  

MoeSzyslak: The government is driving paying customers away by taxing the holy hell out of booze now because they no longer have a monopoly on it's profits and your solution is more government involvement? There was never a subsidy. The government used to get all of the profits and now they only get their tax cut so they raised taxes in a short sighted attempt to make up the entire difference by fleecing the public.

These government geniuses can never seem to understand that raising taxes isn't just a license to print money and when prices go through the roof people aren't just going to continue buying as much and as often as they used to. It's nothing more than a great way to create black markets or just drive business out of their state such as this case.


SHUT UP! The headline was outing the window lickers. It's fun to read!
 
2012-07-19 11:19:14 AM  

Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,



Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.
 
2012-07-19 11:19:50 AM  

Noah_Tall: Ummmmm.... Last week I picked up a bottle of Grey Goose for about $5 less than I'm used to paying in liquor stores. And the "HUGE" extra taxes and fees came to $3.

The old liquor stores are still in business only their prices are lower. AND (this is an important one) they are (a really important one) open on Sundays.


You sound al key hall icky
 
2012-07-19 11:23:00 AM  

happyleper: I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe


It's like Oregon, highly conservative, but don't have the balls to vote Republican. So with rare exceptions like Oregon's Blumenauer and Wyden, both states vote in the most conservative Democrats they can find.

/Not that it makes a huge lick of difference when the Democrats are very conservative and the Republicans are dangerously conservative
 
2012-07-19 11:24:09 AM  

The_Sponge: Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,


Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.


You are an idiot for supporting a sales tax instead of an income tax, though.
 
2012-07-19 11:29:11 AM  

robodog: Seriously? You're really going to blame prohibition on the conservatives? No sir, it took an unholy alliance of feminist progressives and religious conservatives to push through something so vile as the 18th amendment. This is why I'm mostly FOR a do nothing Congress with lots of gridlock, whenever both sides agree on something it's inevitably among the worst things for the citizenry.


Look it up nitwit. ALL the hard core prohibitionists were right wing religious conservatives. The Ku Klux Klan supported the Amendment and was a major influence on it being passed by Legislatures across the country. The Baptists and evangelical christians who supported the Volstead Act were supported by their close association with the Klan and other religious organizations. Carrie Nation was a evangelical christian. The "Womens Christian Temperance Union" was a direct offshoot of the Klan.

Here, educate yourself.

Heres another.

The whole idea of Prohibition was a right-wing religious conservative movement that got started in 1874. At that time, several States had already gone totally dry and had eliminated liquor sales altogether. Washington State created the Liquor Control Board as a direct compromise to the religious conservatives in the Klan and other similar organizations as a compromise to allow the State to ratify the 21st Amendment that revoked the Volstead Act. Calvin Coolidge, a Klan-elected President ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 1918 on a prohibitionist platform. When he ran as Vice-President to Warren Harding, he ran on strengthening the Volstead Act and with Hardings hard-core stance against alcohol sales. Harding ran on his record as a strict prohibitionist with the support of the Ku Klux Klan and the religious conservatives.

Look it up. Prohibition was a CONSERVATIVE idea.
 
2012-07-19 11:30:26 AM  

robodog: trotsky: The Ohio model is pretty decent: hard stuff in state stores, watered down stuff in groceries.

I actually don't have a problem with the privatization of the Ohio Liquor monopoly. What I DO have a problem with is how Kasich wanted to sell it off to his cronies and donors. That's my problem. I would rather see it left intact than sold off to the same group of supporters he put in JobsOhio.

Ohio hasn't had state stores for well over a decade! What we do have is state warehouse that is the sole wholesaler to the distribution companies and it means good luck getting anything not in the big book (and even then I've had an open order for a few listed items for the last two years, ended up getting them while on vacation in less stupid states).


Whoops, thanks for the clarification.
 
2012-07-19 11:34:52 AM  

Baloo Uriza: The_Sponge: Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,


Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.

You are an idiot for supporting a sales tax instead of an income tax, though.



Oh no....I would gladly make that trade and have a system similar to Oregon. What I don't want is to be like California.....having a state income tax and a sales tax.

/Although I would love to have a liquor system like California.
 
2012-07-19 11:39:17 AM  

KierzanDax: I can't get it shipped to me and I live too far away to run down and get some. Next time I head down to VA to visit friends, I'll have it shipped to their place and bring it back with me.


*scribbles down*

Not much of a wine drinker, honestly. Wife won't drink it at all, and I'm normally good with only one glass.

But they could sell that in a grocery store. The same can't be said for bitters or vermouth.
 
2012-07-19 11:39:27 AM  

Brew78: rohar: Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

Pay attention, Red Blue States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

FTFY.
And FTFA: it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).

No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.

Other than imposing fees and taxes after the fact?


Correct, other than imposing fees and taxes to cover the government's cost of doing nothing, the state had nothing to do with the price increase...

Let this be a warning to anyone else who gets some wise idea about trying to do something cheaper or better than any level of government.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report