Should the state get out of the business of selling liquor?

rights1918255526 said on August 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Absolutely, they should be out of this business, and should have gotten out with prohibition. First, the prime real estate they a pay for is ridiculous. Second, what business do you know that is successfull selling one product? Third, having this unskilled labor on the state retirment system is a burden to the tax payers. They earn more than any store clerk, they get better retirement than any store clerk, yet, they have a limited inventory that requires less knowledge than a typical store clerk. Go figure! Tax revenue would be the same, as the taxes would not change, but the cost of goods would be lower, lowering the cost to the consumer, and probably increasing revenue to the state. My medical bill would go down as my luggage would be lighter from not having to buy all of my liquor in other lower cost states. I haven't paid for liquor in Washington State for over 12 years. And won't as long as the State is selling it.

skok_cush said on July 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Private section always does it cheaper and better. . . . . .& of course what the state has is a Monopoly. . . .youd never expect the state to play fair would ya? at least with taxPayers.

bricsa09 said on July 16, 2010 at 11:35 PM

I'm glad that Robert Mak is back as the host of the show, nothing against the others, who were competent, but RM is just a bit better, has an analytical mind that's obvious on the show. This issue was an excellent comparison of the various ideas. I'd never support the distillers' idea, as that's supporting bureaucracy. As for the status quo vs. the Costco-backed idea, I'm more inclined to support the latter, although there is concern about more troubles with drinking due to the new convenience it would offer. The existing system, however, is not convenient, but probably causes people to "stock up," which they probably won't be doing if the Costco-backed measure passes.

katzzmeow said on July 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM

My husband was a manager of a liq store in both Seattle and Tacoma and the last time there was a serious threat for privatizing there were quite a few unanswered question that I had, like lump sum payouts of retirement, vacation, retraining per union contracts. Whether you think Wa should be in the business, I think we can ill afford them being out, especially now. Love them or hate them, the WSLCB is the 2nd highest revenue making department in the State after all the expenses the WSLCB sends over $332 million dollars to the General Fund. Right now they don't make much money off of me & I don't love them, but if they get out of the business - the money to plug up that hole will have to come from somewhere - as in higher taxes and not just on liquor.

katzzmeow said on July 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM

My husband was a manager of a liq store in both Seattle and Tacoma and the last time there was a serious threat for privitizing there were quite a few unanswered question that I had, like lump sum payouts of retirement, vacation, retraining per union contracts. Whether you think Wa should be in the business, I think we can ill afford them being out, especially now. Love them or hate them, the WSLCB is the 2nd highest revenue making department in the State after all the expenses the WSLCB sends over $332 million dollars to the General Fund. Right now they don't make much money off of me & I don't love them, but if they get out of the business - the money to plug up that hole will have to come from somewhere - as in higher taxes and not just on liquor.

marcuswestwardf said on July 12, 2010 at 12:14 AM

In your news report you asked the question whether or not liquor sales will increase as the result of privitization. The simple answer is yes it will. It won't matter whether it is initiative 1100 or 1105 and the reason is that there is a large "shadow" consumption that occurs here due to the exorbinant cost of liquor in Washington. This "shadow" consumption occurs when residents cross state or international bounderies and purchase liquor to bring back into the state for consumption in their homes. Presently the State looses this tax revenue due to the over taxation of liquor sales in the first place. The government (state , federal or otherwise) is seldom more efficent than private industry. Liquor sales is no different. As prices go down, liquor sales will increase and tax revenues will increase as consumers purchase liquor at home rather than out of state/country. Actual tax revenues will effectivly increase as the state will no longer be maintaining storehouses and retail outlets.

foureasts said on July 12, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Quite simply - yes. Private enterprise can do it cheaper and better than the State. It's not a core business of the State, and there are better things for the government to focus on.

oldguy said on July 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

I'm leery of the claims for privatization. It's like car salesmen who make promises that last until the car is driven off the lot. It becomes a word game and since Ronald Reagan made "government" a bad word (and he did it by making government bad), the cries for privatization try to blame the world's woes on government. Don't forget that government is public and we are the public. When problems are exposed, at least we can claim our democratic rights to make things right. But when corporations take over (and they're always anxious to) we have little opportunity to correct the wrongs they do. Look at what has happened the last few years on the national scene. Even when efforts were made to bail the bums out, they just took the money and ran. California tried privatization and the newspapers told of misappropriations, malfeasance, abuses, and all kinds of crookedness that was darn hard to correct. Privatization schemes are crimes against the public's control and our treasury,

maggie60 said on July 11, 2010 at 12:04 PM

In regards to state controlled liquor stores: Over the years every monopoly has been broken up. The tax payers are not only paying the highest prices in the country we are also paying for 1000 plus people working for the state and their benefits. There is also the cost of renting a facility and warehouse storage and distribution of liquor. These are funds best spent elsewhere. Whenever the state get involved in any project it usually means more people and more money and more waste.

oldwinemerchant said on July 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Liquor sales are not a core function of government and should be privatized, however the state's liquor business is a valuable asset and should not be given away to big retailers for free! This year's state liquor business will be almost $1 billion in sales. Initiatvie 1105 requires both retailers and wholesalers to pay the taxpayers for that business over the first 5 years of privatization. Costco, Safeway and other retailers can do a better job of retailing liquor in Washington, but it's a business they should pay for just like any other. Initiative 1105 makes that happen.

joanc said on July 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I was extremely pleased this morning to see Robert Mak returning to "Up Front". Now let me see, who did Robert Mak go to work for? Oh yes, GREG NICKLES. And, this is a non-partisan show, RIGHT! Still, I'd rather have Robert Mak than Alan Schauffler, sorry Alan. Welcome back Robert. Joan C. GOP and proud of it.

barbieanna28 said on July 11, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Im voting...NO!!! I dont believe that liquor need to be anymore avaliable to kids then it already is. Its also good way for the state to make money!! People will always drink liquor no matter how expensive it is. I think people will drink a lot more if it cheaper and more accesable. NO...NO...NO

princess010 said on July 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM

I believe the State of Washington should get out of the liquor business. I have lived here for over 40 years and have never bought anything in our liquor stores. I know many people who do the same. Many residents stock up on trips to California or other states that sell in drug stores or Costco. To make the assumption we would drink more is absurd. We just like having a well stocked liquor cabinet without breaking the bank to do it. I believe the initiative (1100) has a really good chance to pass if voters keep it to the one initiative. Forget about 1105.

kknopp said on July 11, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Thank you for doing this story! Our state runs a monopoly on the alcohol business and for some reason it is completely over looked. To be fair, I run a business and I will benefit from privatization of alcohol sales however, many of you may not know that as a business selling alcohol in the state of Washington we are required to only purchase liquor from a specific state appointed liquor store, we can not go to a different liquor store in our town if we choose, it is actually illegal. Therefore there is no need for them to provide customer service or to keep the items that we need in stock. It would be nice to have competition of liquor sales, just as we have competition of other restaurants. This is what makes a company stay on its toes, keep competitive and insure a fair market value of its goods sold. I believe that the state will find a way to tax us more to get their money but it would be nice if some of the money could go to businesses that earn our business and not to the state.