Read it and weep:



(Story Link)

BFD. Truth still remains that we are going to have less choice and higher prices for most products.

Regardless of where the price points fall, I'm happy to have the state out of the retail liquor business. Just as private business provides for my beer and wine needs, I will patronize one or more of the new private vendors of liquor, tho admittedly I don't really consume that much. I'm still working on a $50 bottle of Scotch from last fall and a $60+ bottle of tequila I got at the duty free store leaving Cancun a year ago March. On the other hand, a large trash can barely contains all my beer and wine bottles for recycling every 4 weeks.

Sg

looks like no more 150 dollar bottles of Cognac for me...

for the moment, i see all high end companies sales in this state tanking..

Remy, Hennesey, Patron, Corvassier ect...

people wont be willing to pay 30 bucks a pint for Regular Hennesey... let alone the XO and other higher up versions... which will be even higher...

bought a bottle of Prince Napolean a while back for 120 for the 5th, 35% increase is almost 170...

gonna be interesting to see what happens, but i agree, the state needs to be out of it....

betcha when the dust settles over this liquor business the price of
a bottle of Hennesy VS wiil be less than it is now. Washington's
booze prices have always been a bad joke.

I am just excited to have the opportunity to talk about this...

I never thought I would see the day when I could walk into a store to purchase alcohol and not feel like a suspect from the FBI's most wanted list; let alone paying state prices.


I don't feel sorry for state employees OR some union sniveling.


This has all been covered before and Hannster's "I told you so" was nothing more than confirmation June 1st is a day to celebrate!




Hallelujah

We made Lemon Drops tonight, which could explain my callousness, but I have another drink just for Redhook however it could be considered celebratory for Hankster's crying also...






The Bengal Tiger


http://m.drinksmixer.com/drink12u7t72.html

Yah but you can now use your Fred Meyer rebates towards booze.

So less choice and higher prices is somehow doing it better? Only in bizzaro Republicanland. You state-hating conservatives are so blinded by your ideology that you can no longer see the obvious. In that you are no different from the Marxists years ago who continued to preach the superiority of central planning even as the Soviet economy was crumbling around them.

One less gov't teat to suck on can't be a bad thing. Less gov't expense equals less taxes.......get it?

Keerist! Do you have one of those party cards that states you are
a fellow traveler. You prate the communist party line like a pro.

The state should be out of the liquor business and should never
have been in it in the first place. Carrie Nation created the
drunks guilt over alcohol and the inanities of WA. liquor laws.
Spokane is 25 miles from the Idaho border and in times past
the local water holes had to close at the Pumpkin Coach hour
on Saturday night..
So everyone that was still partying drove to Idaho to carry on.
Lost a lot of them driving home, but what the hell, you play,
you pay.

I be some of your fellow thinkers outlawed Absinthe in another
land and millenia.

Seems I was drinking last night...


If anyone bothers to go back; please substitue the name "Rooselk" for any version of "Hank"

iPhones and alcohol don't mix apparently in my world


Sorry Hank

Rooselk,

Some of us are neither state haters, anti-union, Republicans, or even conservatives. If liquor now costs more from private vendors, it isn't because of some inherent flaw in that business model. It will be because of the additional taxes on liquor imposed by - guess who? - the state. Further, if marijuana is legalized beyond medical use, I don't think the state should sell it either, just as the state does not sell ibuprofen, percocet, or other drugs.

As a matter of personal political philosophy I believe that the state should be in the role of regulating services, if needed to benefit the public good, and only be the provider of services and rarely goods when the private enterprise model fails, (not intending to hijack) for example health care.

Sg

There goes Salmo thinking rationally again. . .. . . .

The state would screw up auto insurance too, if they made maintenance and repairs, claim worthy. The only thing missing is the million dollar lawsuits after leaving the local quick lube with a dry oil pan.
If the state prevented you from purchasing auto insurance out of state, there would be less competition. If only certain auto repair shops were allowed to do certain types of work, there would be less competition, just like hospitals. The state has been doing a lot more than regulating insurance, its been guiding it to run into a brick wall. That is why so many local health insurance providers left the state. Auto insurance execs dont work for free either. These are not the only drivers of high medical expenses, but they were the result of changes by government.

Taxes ahh taxes. The taxaholics that run this state will hammer any-
thing that we allow them to. And then when we the people say no
they find a way. Auto tabs for instance. Last I heard our fuel taxes
are a national high. Why would they treat Alcohol any different?

The real problem is the budget. The taxes only pay for the budget. In order to reduce taxes, the budget has to be reduced. Over 50% of taxes collected go to schools.......true.
And all this doesn't count the taxes that people vote on themselves.....that isn't a factor of the State, but of each County. You can't say, "Oh yes, I would like that."....and check the "yes, tax me" box and then cry when the bill comes due.
Allowing people who don't have to pay the bill, vote on issues is beyond insane, and that is exactly what is done. Even the equalizer to that scenario (super majority requirement) has been extinquished by the people.
Comical.......no, just dumb.

I really don't care. I buy most of my booze at the duty free. Like so many things time will answer the question. If in a year or so we pay more for our booze . . .

Whether this means the prices will stay higher in the long run or not, this is bad news for the restaurant industry for sure. Anybody who has spent much time in and around the restaurant business knows that liquor sales account for a large percentage of a restaurant's profit margin. They make very little on food after wholesale and labor costs. Obviously, this doesn't apply to in-and-out joints that don't sell alcohol, but for the specialty restaurant that counts on many folks having a beer, glass of wine, or cocktail (or three) with their meal, this will force them to increase their drink prices. I suspect that will dissuade a significant number among the already shrinking customer base from opting to purchase those beverages when dining out, and restaurants will close, putting more people in the unemployment lines.

I don't know what the rest of you are seeing around town, but my town has lost all but a few of its restaurants to bankruptcy over the past year or so, and I am hearing rumors that others are on the brink. Main Street is starting to look like a ghost town.

It bears mention that the local liquor store will re-open in June... With an estimated price increase of 17% on the bottle. The proprietor of that store was less than pleased with that prospect when I spoke with her last Thursday.

I suppose I'm glad to see the State getting out of the business of selling at least one sin to the public, but only in principle. I don't think it represents an economic win for anyone except the distributors and large buyers like Costco.