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.

Why should the price be higher here than in taxaholic California?

whats funny is that people think that the state is actually out of it...

they arent...

10 percent Distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee...

that goes to the state...

all this does, is make it easier for lazy people to get their drink on... instead of going to another store, they can grab their burger and a bottle of Monarch at the same place...

state still makes a killing, and you get just as drunk, but broke faster...

One of the reasons I voted hell YES!!

had a craving for Gin and Tonic on sunny saturday - Drove 10 miles round trip to liquor store for gin and hit the grocery store accross the street from my house for tonic...

At 4.25/gal gas + all the drinking time wasted... I'll gladly pay the 27% just walk to the one store! -

but seriously, its only the media and the state that would want you to believe the sky is falling...

27% on a 20 dollar bottle is an extra 5.40... even with gas at 4.25 you could save a buck...

plus, what is the selection going to be like? its hard enough to get actual help in grocery stores, who is going to help you? are they going to leave the 150 dollar bottles of Remy and Henny out? (the liquor stores werent even stupid enough to do that)...

thefts and attempts will increase because it will be easier to do it at a grocery store...

i personally dont care, i dont drink hard A at all really, but when i do, i enjoyed the people at the liquor store... they helped, they were nice, and they valued their job, that they will no longer have...

So why is it that the only people that are so up in arms about the price increase are the ones that dont even drink?

oh and by the way, "drinking time" is worth way more than a buck

i drink beer... i dont care for hard A... when i buy it, i dont buy cheap crap, so it actually hurt me more than most...

100 dollar bottles are going to be 130 bucks now roughly... and its still the same sh!t, so its actually rather agrivating... i had no problems with it the way it was, i dont need to be able to get my stuff in a grocery store, because if you look at locations, there are TONS of liquor stores directly next to grocery stores...

it is what it is tho... but like i said, watch the theft rate climb... also, in the liquor stores, if you walked in drunk, they made you leave... grocery stores have drunk retards in them all the time at night... so now you will have to deal with even more of them...

hey chicken little - maybe you should wait for the sky to actally fall

...before you say it just fell

Unless you have a Costco card and don't mind buying your booze only during Costco's open hours, you're going to have to get used to having a smaller selection and higher prices.

If smaller selection and higher prices are worth it to be able to buy your booze at Safeway at 11pm on a Sunday night, then you will be happier.

Fish on...

Todd

If and when the dust settle's, I end up paying more then $24.95 for a 1/2 gallon of R&R then there will be a road trip to stock up and possibly a fishin trip involved also..............just sayin.I know where I can get it for $14.95 a 1/2 gallon of R&R.Good luck,
SZ

This made me laugh.




thank a lot. God.

That was funny


I say it remains to be seen

Redhook,
Since you know so much about the liquor business, grocery store crime and drunks that frequent grocery stores at night, you should open your own liquor store.
You can solve all of the issues that we might encounter while buying a bottle.

dont hate...

dont post

no..

get off your a$$ and get out once and a while and you might see some things... or dont, i really dont care...

Better yet, why dont you just tell us what we "might" see if we got off our asses...

or you could just STFU!

you can do the same god damn thing...

what is your deal?

Says the guy sitting on his [Bleeeeep!] all day searching Google so he can post more dumb [Bleeeeep!].

am i at home right now? am i in my car? am i at the river?

you just assume you know, yet really, dont know dick... mind your business...

In before the lock... again.

Is that a multiple choice question, because I don't recall saying anything about where you were posting from?

For the record, I did get off my [Bleeeeep!] today. I went to work.
You should try it sometime. Didn't see any drunks either.

Let me hit this tee ball before Abu shows up...


















I think it is safe to say you aren't in your car.

is this post swirling the bowl yet?


Fishy

i dont need to do what you tell me to Stone, matter of fact, i wont even consider it...

i made 100 bucks today for 3 hours worth of work, that equates to 500 dollars a week, for 15 hours of work...

like i said, dont hate, you dont know dick about me...

back to your regularly scheduled retardedness...

i still have sh!t to do the rest of the week, so yes it does equate to it, especially when you get paid BY THE JOB, aka SALARY...

and i have the opportunity to join a business with another guy, but im not a sales person, as its not really my gig, so im not sure on that...

fvck wall street... some of the peoples houses i have, and work on, make wall street dudes look like schmucks...

Fixed it for you.

lol

Well here is a read on part of the problem as to what is driving the beast.


http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/no-h...ion-is-bungled/

What? The "tables are tilted towards the big money distributors"?

They're just going to replace the State with their own overpriced stock list, and then milk the consumers?

You mean to tell me that there are "free" markets out there that really serve only to redistribute money from us to the private sector, not to create competition and lower prices?

Who could have seen that coming?

Who indeed...everyone who was telling you this would happen from the get go...including those lobbyists who are now "surprised" that this will happen...as usual, the only surprise is that they can somehow be surprised after everyone told them that the big distributors were the only ones who were going to win in this, and that the consumers would continue to take it in the a$$.

The other big surprise is that some folks are still surprised to find out just how not free the so called "free market" is...

Fish on...

Todd

Looking outside right now










nope, sky hasn't fallen yet...

Golly Gee Wilkers, just gotthe Safeway/Albertsons Grocery ads in the mail today. Was looking over Safeway's first Booze ad and it sure looks a lot cheaper, and the sky has not fallen

Do you think they will sell Woodford Reserve at Wal-Mart?

This has been on my mind.

Wow Strike Zone, if THIS is the high price all the Tin Foil Hat Club Members are worried about, I can hardly wait until the prices drop

$10.19 a half gallon? Cheaper than milk

Good coupon research NOFISH.

Cant afford Not to Drink now

I noticed in that sale flyer the Jameson was $6 less than the state had it for regular price.

But when you get to the register they add the tax and it is not the local sales tax. It will be the liquor tax and it will be a bunch! So what you see in the add is not the out the door price, or so I have been told.

Waterboy, I just got a flyer with my Tacoma paper that was for a Fred Meyer ad, the prices were listed in bold, in small print it said "plus applicable taxes". As I understand it those taxes will add between 30 and 40%.

Since WA has higher liqour taxes that CA it stands to reason that all other things being equal liquor would be more expensive here.

If you want lower prices here, it will be necessary to reduce those taxes, and eliminate the servives they support.

But can't we just eliminate those taxes, and be 16 billion in the red
like Patsy Brown's State?

Court speaks.




OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a voter-approved initiative to privatize liquor sales.

The justices upheld the initiative in a 6-3 ruling. The opinion was written by Justice Steven Gonzalez, the court's newest member.

Michael J. Reitz, general counsel of The Freedom Foundation, said he received word of the ruling Thursday morning, only one day before the initiative takes effect on Friday.

Initiative 1183 allows stores larger than 10,000 square feet and some smaller stores to begin selling liquor on Friday. Voters approved the measure last fall, and the state already auctioned off the rights to sell liquor at state stores.

However, initiative opponents filed suit, arguing that the measure violates state rules requiring initiatives to address only one subject. The measure included a provision for public safety funding.

A Superior Court judge rejected that claim, and the state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court ruling.

Reitz, who has watched the case closely, said he was not surprised by the outcome - but he was amazed at the speed with which the justices issued the ruling.

"Typically (a ruling) takes a couple of years, but they expedited review in this case," he said, issuing an opinion just two weeks after listening to arguments.

"It's extremely rare," Reitz said.

More




Liquor Control Board Approves New Rules for Hard-Liquor Sales – Court Challenges Appear Inevitable

Interests That Promoted I-1183 Say Board Squelches Competition, Drives Up Prices

By Erik Smith
Washington State Wire


The state Liquor Control Board, from left, Ruthann Kurose, Chairwoman Sharon Foster, and former state Sen. Chris Marr.

OLYMPIA, May 30.—The state Liquor Control Board, the agency that will shutter the state’s 78-year-old liquor store chain at the end of the business day Thursday, approved a set of regulations Wednesday that will govern the new free market in Washington booze. Critics say the rules will drive up consumer prices and undermine what they hoped to accomplish with last year’s Initiative 1183 – and the state will see them in court.

Among those huddling with lawyers is Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association. His group was part of the coalition that put the state out of the liquor business. But as supermarkets and big-box stores get set to sell hard liquor Friday, they say the dream of a competitive market for booze is being scuttled by state regulators. Retailers and restaurateurs say the new rules give distributors control over the marketplace that their initiative never envisioned. “They are so far outside the scope of 1183 that litigation is extremely likely,” Gilliam said.

Barring intervention by the state Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on a challenge from the Washington Coalition Against Substance Abuse and Violence, private merchants will take the wraps off store shelves at 6 a.m. Friday and begin selling hard liquor for the first time in this state since 1915. Since the end of federal Prohibition in 1934, Washington has sold hard liquor through a chain of 328 state-owned and contract stores. Washington voters last fall voted overwhelmingly to end the old system, 59-41.

Competition Was Dream




The state liquor store, a familiar sight on Main Street across Washington state for the last 78 years, fades from history Thursday night.

The new rules, adopted Wednesday without comment by the board on a 3-0 vote, have left retailers and restaurateurs aghast. As far as consumers are concerned, the most visible element of the new system is the shutdown of the state liquor stores. But the initiative also enacted sweeping changes to the back end of the business that were aimed at breaking the power of distributors and changing the way alcohol is marketed. In every state of the union where private sales of alcoholic beverages are permitted, state laws impose a “three-tier” system, requiring manufacturers to sell to distributors, who in turn sell to retailers, bars and restaurants. It was an arrangement born in the wake of Prohibition, when unbridled competition in the alcohol trade was seen as a social evil. By routing sales through distributors, manufacturers were barred from marketing to the public.

Eighty years later, retailers and restaurateurs in this state are eager to see a more competitive marketplace. In an age when big buyers negotiate volume discounts with manufacturers for everything from canned chili to detergent, they say the same sort of practices should be allowed in the liquor trade. And that is what made I-1183 a groundbreaking measure that drew national attention from distributors and retailers alike. An unprecedented $35 million was spent on the campaign, some $22 million of it from one source alone, Costco Wholesale, the Issaquah-based warehouse chain.

Among other things, I-1183 makes Washington the first state to allow retailers to deal directly with manufacturers – though at least for now, most name brands of hard liquor are locked up in long-term distribution contracts with national distributors. The measure also envisioned other points of competition, including deals with distillers to produce “house brands” for chains operating in Washington. But it left room for interpretation by the state Liquor Control Board – and the permanent rules adopted by the agency tend to shunt sales to the distributor channel, by restricting sales by retailers and imposing big license fees at points where I-1183’s sponsors say they were never intended.

Board Says Fairness is Issue

In comments last week, board members said the initiative clearly meant to carve out a special status for distributors, who are required to pay the state $150 million on March 1 – essentially buying the business from the state. And Liquor Control Board staff has a decidedly different reading of the initiative’s language. The license fees and sales restrictions are mandated by the initiative, existing state law, or reasonable interpretations of 1183’s provisions. “The rules that we are implementing are simply those needed to implement the new law,” said executive director Rick Garza. “The Liquor Board doesn’t gain anything by the changes we have been talking about.” If the law doesn’t work as advocates had hoped, it is because most distillers have chosen to sell through distributors, he maintains.

Hogwash, says Gilliam, “We wrote the initiative and we understand the intent. Their comments are all about what is fair. But that is extremely subjective. They have imposed taxes and built in costs that were not part of the initiative. And they are intentionally impairing a competitive market with the rules.”

Now members of last year’s coalition are contemplating their next legal move. And they may not be the only ones. It’s possible that another group of stakeholders will enter the fray – the owners of the small contract stores, who remain in business for themselves, and those who purchased the state’s old liquor stores at auction last month. One of the board’s new interpretations essentially takes them out of the business of selling to restaurants, because they will be hit with a 17 percent fee on gross sales to the restaurant trade, and distributors will not. The board also has adopted a daily volume restriction on sales by most retailers which tends to take them out of that line and gives the business to distributors. The initiative restricted most retail sales to 24 liters, but said nothing about a daily limit.

Critics say the question isn’t whether they’ll sue, but when. The permanent rules take effect July 1, but because they were imposed on a temporary basis in February, litigation could begin sooner. And so whatever the Supreme Court does with the current challenge, it appears that the court battles have only begun.