Yes On Initiative 1183

The core question in the debate over Initiative 1183 in Washington is simple: Does the government have any business selling liquor? And that answer is “no.”

Considering the simplicity of the question and the obviousness of the answer, it’s hardly surprising that the opponents of Initiative 1183 should try to steer the debate into distracting and even imaginary side issues.

As the old lawyer’s proverb states: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, jump up and down and scream like hell!”

 Opponents of Initiative 1183 have argued that passage would result in a thousand convenience stores and gas stations selling hard liquor to minors. How they arrived at that number is unclear to say the least. An investigation by the Seattle Times found that outcome highly unlikely.

For one thing, private sales of liquor would be limited to stores with at least 10,000 square feet of retail space. That’s a lot bigger than any gas station or convenience store that I typically do business with.

While it is true that smaller stores in areas lacking a 10,000 square foot store could apply for a liquor license exemption, there is no reason to believe that every convenience store would do so. In addition, 1183 significantly stiffens penalties for selling liquor to underaged purchasers.

Opponents point to data accumulated during a sting operation that found that one in five bars and restaurants tested sold alcohol to underaged customers, while 90 percent of state liquor stores passed the exam. From this data, they extrapolate that similar results should be expected from all private sellers were the initiative to pass.

As a resident of a college town, I can reliably report that underaged drinkers are having no difficulty gaining access to alcohol under the current system. And to claim that only state employees are sufficiently uncorruptible to sell liquor is, on its face, absurd. Using that reasoning, we should permit tobacco sales only by the state. Only state employed physicians should be permitted to write prescriptions.

And the last time I checked, nearly every drunk driver was issued a driver’s license by the state.

And, as a scientist, I’m skeptical of any study that is so obviously self-serving. The compliance officers are employees of the Washington Liquor Control Board, the same agency that now sells liquor and has a vested interest in preserving the status quo. We should no more believe their data than we should believe a cigarette maker’s assurances on the safety of tobacco, or a failed presidential candidate/carbon credit snake oil salesman pushing global warmism.

Initiative 1183 opponents also argue that the initiative has no money specifically designated for funding fire departments. My guess is no funds are designated for widows and orphans or interstellar travel either. Such arguments are rhetorical tricks meant to leave the impression that fire departments will somehow lose funding, which is pure, undiluted nonsense. Privatizing liquor sales will not deprive fire departments of a single penny. It may in the long run improve funding if local jurisdictions are permitted to tax liquor sales.

If those expensively produced television spots you’ve probably seen suggest to you that the opposition to I-1183 is well funded, that’s because it is.

The money behind the No on I-1183 comes, not from firemen or widows and orphans, or the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but from the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc, who stand to see their profits shrink if they lose their monopoly on whiskey sales in Washington. According to the Tacoma News-Tribune, the liquor wholesalers are spending $10 million to defeat I-1183.

Does anybody really believe that the very people who now market alcohol to Washingtonians are suddenly concerned that Washingtonians will drink too much?

To them, this is about profit margins. Privatized liquor sales will drive prices down as competitive markets always do. That’s why they’re willing to spend so much money in an attempt to preserve their monopoly. To them, it’s an investment or perhaps a gamble, because they expect to lose far more than $10 million should I-1183 pass.

The Washington Liquor Control Board has a history of wasting the taxpayers’ money through shoddy management. It’s well past time for Washington to stop doing something that it does poorly anyway.

I ask again: Does the state have any business selling liquor?