I-1183: The Truth behind the Ads

KHQ News in Spokane took a look at many of the claims regarding Initiative 1183, which would end the state monopoly on liquor sales. They interviewed Chris Cargill, director of Washington Policy Center's Eastern Washington office, on 10-10-2011.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• I-1183
• liquor privatization
• washington state
• spokane
• ballot measures
• news
• public policy

[WAPolicyCenter]

2bRealist, you're mistaken. The state budget office (Office of Financial Management) estimates that if I-1183 passes, state revenues will increase by more than $200 million and local government revenues will increase by approximately $200 over the next six years. See OFM's fiscal impact statement for I-1183.

[onehairyfatass]

How about the money the state would save? Did you guys know that that WE are paying $100,000 for a one year lease on a state run liquor store? How about us? Comes from us, not from no-where...

[joereece86]

I will not vote for, nor supprt anyone who indoraces no on i-1183

[me5333]

The real issue here is underage access to alcohol. The fact is: teens STEAL alcohol, not purchase it. If there is a place where minors cant even enter the building, like liquor stores and bars, it's VERY difficult for them to get alcohol. Alternatively, if you allow alcohol to be sold in business that have no age limit, minors will steal as much alcohol as they can get out of the store. most stores have a "dont-chase-them-once-they-lea­ve-the-store" policy with shoplifting letting them get away

[memama2]

Please WA voters = kick the pension & public union scam of WA State being in the liquor business? Out the door. WA State is broke. Bankrupt. From union thugs voting in demorats & then demorats rewarding them with a bigger bloated pension & loads of goodies paid by WA State tax paying citizens: (the ones who have to work till age 89 to pay for WA liquor union pensions) They get to work only "20" years; then retire with a nice check in the mail each month? 4 pushing a bottle of booze into a sack.

[m8x425]

If Costco had any real brains they would have sent lobbyist to Olympia and made a few campaign donations along the way. Dumping money on these initiatives is a waste or time and money.

If you want a reference as to what campaign contributions will do then look around. One example is the lack of regulation on these check cashing and loan marts like Money Tree.

[ghsty9]

I really hope this passes. the NO campaign is full of propaganda and are playing on the fears of parents and their kids having more access to alcohol. truth is, kids will get alcohol, most of the time, through an older person. The parents need to do a better job on their end. mainly be available at chain stores, but some exceptions will be made under strict rules. Prices would not be higher, they would most likely be lower because it would make the hard alcohol market very competitive.

[Mintish]

1183 kills of an unconstitutional monopoly on product. Instead of having one entity in control of every aspect of a product, we would have multiple entities that would have to compete for business, lowering prices, offering sales, and moreover, since there would no longer be one sole buyer, manufacturers could give discounts for bulk, and loyalty thus allowing for some play in profit margins between distributors.

Every state that doesn't govern liquor has cheaper booze for a reason: it's fair.

[ghsty9]

Kids will get alcohol regardless, because most of the time its a 21 year old getting it for them. the parents need to do a better job on their end.

no building under 10,000 square feet will be able to sell hard alcohol, FACT. squashed the argument of mini marts having it, but the NO campaign will try and make you believe that the exceptions that will allow smaller stores in somewhat rural areas to get a license easily is false. it will be available at big chain stores that card EVERYONE.

[rrchapman]

The 27% tax may replace the current markup, but what about the markup needed by the stores selling the liquor? That will be on top of the 27%. So, yes, it is a new tax. There will still be a markup by the stores selling the liquor and a new 27% tax.

The 10,000 sq. ft. requirement does not apply when auctioning off current liquor stores for continued use as liquor stores.

"Trade area" is not defined in the initiative. As written, it does not limit smaller stores to towns like Entiat.

[hydroponikroniksmoke]

@2bRealist You don't seem very educated on this matter. Twice the cost? OBVIOUSLY that wouldn't happen. Try actually "being real" and use common sense.

The 52% tax will be gone, then they will add the 27% tax for the state. That means they can add up to 25% for profit and the price will stay the same! It's simple elementary math! With as many people buying booze then as they do know, they would get plenty of profit and we wouldn't pay a dime more. If anything I can see the prices drop.