tool name

close
tool goes here

Should state get out of the liquor business? YES: I-1100 provides jobs, convenience

Washington voters have a chance to start reforming state government responsibly through Initiative 1100, which takes state government out of the liquor business. Approving I-1100 will also create private-sector jobs, help struggling businesses such as restaurants and provide convenience, choice and value to consumers.

Published: Oct. 24, 2010 at 1:12 p.m. PDTUpdated: Oct. 24, 2010 at 1:12 p.m. PDT
0 comments

Washington voters have a chance to start reforming state government responsibly through Initiative 1100, which takes state government out of the liquor business. Approving I-1100 will also create private-sector jobs, help struggling businesses such as restaurants and provide convenience, choice and value to consumers.

Liquor sales and marketing do not constitute an essential government service, and the Liquor Control Board has a clear conflict of interest in selling alcohol while also being responsible for enforcing alcohol laws.

Today the liquor board’s priorities are completely backward. More than 800 employees are dedicated to sales and supply, and only about 80 to retail enforcement. Any notion that the board wants to “control” sales was erased when it decided to open some liquor stores on Sundays and put temporary liquor stores in malls over the winter holiday season.

Instead of enforcement the priority is increasing revenue, which is why the liquor board imposes a markup on liquor of 51.9 percent in addition to state taxes. This makes the state government take from each bottle of liquor in Washington the most expensive in the country by far, a full 20 percent higher than the No. 2 state, Oregon.

I-1100 will stop this hidden 51.9 percent tax, take the Liquor Control Board out of the sales business and focus it on what it should have focused on all along: enforcement. Money for all the key functions of the board, including enforcement, education and licensing, will be retained under I-1100, and the board put more effort into making sure alcohol stays out of the hands of underage drinkers.

Thousands of businesses across the state support I-1100. It will give a vital boost to our economy and end Prohibition-era restrictions that favor distributors and hurt other businesses and consumers.

Supporters include the Association of Washington Business with 7,000 members representing 650,000 employees; the Washington Restaurant Association representing 5,000 restaurants across the state; Family Wineries of Washington State, which represents 100 small, family-owned wineries; Costco, Safeway and other grocers; and many other large and small businesses.

Voters need to view the scare tactics by the “No” campaign in light of who is funding that effort. As of Sept. 24, 88 percent of its contributions – $5.3 million out of $6.1 million – came from big out-of-state beer companies like Budweiser and MillerCoors and the national beer distributors. These are the same “public safety” advocates who have opposed a national drinking age of 21 and a lowering of the national blood-alcohol limit.

Comparative data show that the 32 states with privatized liquor sales are doing the same, and in some cases better, than the 18 states with state-run liquor stores in key alcohol-related statistics, including alcohol consumption, underage drinking, binge drinking and DUI arrests.

Having state employees sell liquor does not make a state any safer, and allowing private retailers to sell liquor alongside beer and wine does not make a state any less safe.

If there is revenue lost to the state – and that is not a given – it will be less than it costs to run state government for 12 hours, based on the Office of Financial Management estimates. Any local impact will also be very small, especially when you consider that OFM’s estimates did not account for additional sources of revenue such as local B&O taxes that will be paid by retailers under I-1100 in those cities that levy that tax.

The ability to negotiate with wholesalers and distributors, as allowed in virtually every other line of business, will benefit restaurants, grocers and other establishments, and the private sector competition will benefit consumers.

If we are ever going to start reforming government, approving I-1100 to get the state out of the liquor business is the perfect place to start.

Dennis Krumwiede Jr. is the owner of The Loose Wheel Bar and Grill in Tacoma.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.

CONTESTS

Similar stories

  • The liquor store hangover

    Early this year when the state put its network of liquor stores on the auction block, many small-business people saw it as their path to prosperity. Now, six months after liquor sales were privatized, many of those once-eager bidders, who collectively paid the state more than $31 million for the rights to the state’s former stores, have discovered their adventures in retailing are a road to ruination.

  • Independent Tri-Cities liquor store faces closure because of state fees

    Independent liquor stores that opened after the state handed the reins of liquor sales to private companies seven months ago already are facing the threat of closure.

    New state fees on spirits have cut into the bottom line of small-business owners and increased prices. Many potential Tri-Cities customers are driving to Oregon for cheaper booze.

    At the same time, big box stores such as Costco are eligible for quantity discounts under Initiative 1183 that smaller stores don't qualify for, making it harder to compete with chain grocery stores and pharmacies.

  • Bars, restaurants get more options to buy booze

    Until last year, restaurants and bars had one choice for where to buy liquor: state government.

  • Smaller liquor store owners call for new rules in order to compete

    A group representing the owners of Washington’s former state liquor stores says unfair competition is smothering their business and they want the Legislature and the Washington State Liquor Control Board to enact new rules to put them on an equal stance with larger competitors.

  • Cracking down on liquor theft

    Now that liquor in Washington has left the relatively secure environment of small network of state stores to become part of the standard merchandise in virtually every grocery, drug and discount store in the state, it does not seem surprising that stories of liquor theft have become commonplace.