Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Link? News stories I have seen regarding the debate over this initiative put the number at 8, not 21.
The 21 control or monopoly states as of 2010 are:
Alabama (Liquor stores are state-run or on-premise establishments with a special off-premise license.)[2]
Idaho (Maintains a monopoly over sales of beverages with greater than 16% ABV.)
Iowa (Does not operate retail outlets. Passed a bill in March 2010, allowing high-proof beer to be privately distributed.)[3]
Maine (State-contracted to private businesses for commission)
Maryland (Under state law the counties of Montgomery, Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester are county alcohol controlled which mandates that off-premise liquor sales are to be conducted only at county owned and operated dispensaries/stores. One exception exists in Montgomery County, four grocery stores had their licenses grandfathered prior to the change of the law.[4] Until recently Dorchester County was an alcohol control county until the County Council voted to permanently shutter the county owned liquor dispensaries.)
Michigan (Does not operate retail outlets; maintains a monopoly over wholesaling of distilled spirits only.)
Minnesota Some cities (notably Edina) have control sales.
New Hampshire (Beer and wine can be sold at supermarkets & convenience stores; spirits and liqueurs are sold only in state-run liquor stores.)
North Carolina (Beer and wine can be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores; other spirits must be sold in liquor stores owned by local ABC boards. The State ABC Commission controls wholesale distribution and oversees local ABC boards.)
Ohio (Licenses businesses to run liquor stores for a commission; these stores have a monopoly on sales of beverages with greater than 21% ABV.)
Oregon (Beer and wine can be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores; other spirits must be sold in liquor stores operated and managed by state-appointed liquor agents who act as independent contractors under the supervision of the OLCC.)
Pennsylvania (All liquor stores [wine and spirits] are run by the state. Recently, there have been state-run retail outlets in the form of automated kiosks, opened inside some supermarkets; currently, 19 supermarkets have this.[6] Malt beverages are sold in case lots by distributors and in smaller quantities by on-premise establishments.)
South Carolina (Beer and wine can be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores; other spirits must be sold in liquor stores owned by local ABC boards.)
Utah (all beverages over 3.2% ABW [4.0% ABV] are sold in state-run stores, Utah code 5(a)(i))[7]
Vermont (Liquor stores are state-contracted and licensed)
Virginia (Beer and wine ≤14% ABV sold at supermarkets and convenience stores; all liquor stores are run by the state)
Washington (Beer and wine sold at supermarkets, gas stations, department stores, etc.; spirits and liqueurs are sold only in state-run or state-contracted liquor stores.)
West Virginia (Does not operate retail outlets; maintains a monopoly over wholesaling of distilled spirits only.)
Strictly speaking, you're right. The $22 million is not going to a government entity, but is being shelled out because of of government entity.
WTF!?! I don't even know where to begin responding to such nonsense. Are you honestly arguing that because the government allows citizens to directly introduce ballot initiatives and that because that citizen CHOOSES to spent x dollars to win the hearts and minds of voters that this is some unnecessary and evil intrusion of government?
What kind of insane logic is that?
Quote:
So the basic underlying point made by Cletus, that this is 'not in the nature of the free market' is exactly right.
The quote "free market" is not some unbridled right! If the people CHOOSE to have some government entity supply goods and services that is a right reserved to the people. Is a state run liquor business the most efficient way of setting prices or providing goods, well that is another debate entirely. But to imply that the government, is unfairly forcing Costco to spend $22 million is an absurd argument.
Quote:
You win the battle but lose the war.
Yes, it is quite easy to sit back and declare victory especially when there is none.
This is a state issue here in Washington state, but it is highly instructive about how our system of government works.
In WA we still have the antiquated state liquor store system, a relic from the post-prohibition era of 80 years ago. WA-based Costco would like to be able to sell liquor, and has had to spend over $22 million trying to get a law passed just for the opportunity to do business. Local News | Costco's $22M for liquor initiative sets record | Seattle Times Newspaper
In WA we have the initiative process, whereby anyone can propose a law and get it on the ballot. If voters approve, it becomes law just as if the state legislature had passed it. This is what Costco has done in their quest to sell liqour.
So why do they have to spend $22 million to bring WA into modernity like the rest of the states, with privatized liquor sales? An unholy alliance of interests that benefits from the status quo mounted a 'No' campaign. Opponents are mostly beer & wine sellers that do not want to have to compete with whiskey and vodka, along with the state liquor store employees. So naturally they've enlisted their fellow public unionists, police and firefighters, to portray privatized liquor sales as the potential calamity of the century. Here's an example:
Local newspaper columnist Danny Westneat did a column on just how absurd the ad war over this initative has become. You've got big beer distributors funding ads that sound like something out of the Anti-Saloon League. And people making 180 degree reversals from what they argued only a year ago, when a previous liquor initiative ran. The previous initiiative failed in part because it would have meant a loss in revenue to the state, so it was rewritten to ensure more revenue for the state. But some of the 'no' ads now say that sending more revenue to the state translates to more waste:
This is a microcosm of what happens when we give government so much power to intrude into our lives. Truth and sound policy go out the window. Arguments are made on the basis of where interests lie, not on the basis of logic. We enter an Alice-in-Wonderland-like world. The decision goes to whomever can write the biggest check, not who has the best ideas.
And who pays for this absurd charade? Why Joe Sixpack gets to pay for both sides. Much of the 'No' money is ultimately tax dollars, by way of the public sector unions. And on the yes side is Costco money, which comes by way of struggling folk trying to save a few bucks by buying in bulk. It's enough to drive a teetotaler like me to drink.
Well, at least Costco took it to the people, the people voted, and the law changed. Considering the way things are going everywhere else, I think it's beautiful. The people have spoken!
This is a state issue here in Washington state, but it is highly instructive about how our system of government works.
In WA we still have the antiquated state liquor store system, a relic from the post-prohibition era of 80 years ago. WA-based Costco would like to be able to sell liquor, and has had to spend over $22 million trying to get a law passed just for the opportunity to do business. Local News | Costco's $22M for liquor initiative sets record | Seattle Times Newspaper
In WA we have the initiative process, whereby anyone can propose a law and get it on the ballot. If voters approve, it becomes law just as if the state legislature had passed it. This is what Costco has done in their quest to sell liqour.
So why do they have to spend $22 million to bring WA into modernity like the rest of the states, with privatized liquor sales? An unholy alliance of interests that benefits from the status quo mounted a 'No' campaign. Opponents are mostly beer & wine sellers that do not want to have to compete with whiskey and vodka, along with the state liquor store employees. So naturally they've enlisted their fellow public unionists, police and firefighters, to portray privatized liquor sales as the potential calamity of the century. Here's an example:
Local newspaper columnist Danny Westneat did a column on just how absurd the ad war over this initative has become. You've got big beer distributors funding ads that sound like something out of the Anti-Saloon League. And people making 180 degree reversals from what they argued only a year ago, when a previous liquor initiative ran. The previous initiiative failed in part because it would have meant a loss in revenue to the state, so it was rewritten to ensure more revenue for the state. But some of the 'no' ads now say that sending more revenue to the state translates to more waste:
This is a microcosm of what happens when we give government so much power to intrude into our lives. Truth and sound policy go out the window. Arguments are made on the basis of where interests lie, not on the basis of logic. We enter an Alice-in-Wonderland-like world. The decision goes to whomever can write the biggest check, not who has the best ideas.
And who pays for this absurd charade? Why Joe Sixpack gets to pay for both sides. Much of the 'No' money is ultimately tax dollars, by way of the public sector unions. And on the yes side is Costco money, which comes by way of struggling folk trying to save a few bucks by buying in bulk. It's enough to drive a teetotaler like me to drink.
I live in Washington State. I say probation ended in the 1920's. It's time to end the 'Blue Laws' now. The state has more important business to handle then monopolizing the booze market. If other states are adult enough to handle their booze, then I'm sure Washington State can too.
I live in Washington State. I say probation ended in the 1920's. It's time to end the 'Blue Laws' now. The state has more important business to handle then monopolizing the booze market. If other states are adult enough to handle their booze, then I'm sure Washington State can too.
Congratulations. PA still has'em.
Somehow, the logic of "if they have to drive longer to get it, they'll drink and drive less" prevailed.
The stupid............... it burns.
When I first got here I went to 7-11 for a 6 and thought they lost their beer license. So I went to another store. Finally I asked. Walked out shaking my head.
WTF!?! I don't even know where to begin responding to such nonsense. Are you honestly arguing that because the government allows citizens to directly introduce ballot initiatives and that because that citizen CHOOSES to spent x dollars to win the hearts and minds of voters that this is some unnecessary and evil intrusion of government?
What kind of insane logic is that?
.
Calm down, amigo, I'm arguing that because the state has carved out this monopoly for itself, Costco has to spend $22 million to do what it should be able to do in the first place.
Maybe it's helpful to look at it without the booze connection. What if the state decided to summarily give itself a monoploy on cheeseburger sales. Then suppose McDonald's had to spend $22 million to regain the right to sell cheeseburgers in WA. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the government entity just cost McDonald's $22 million?
Yes our booze stores are all gov't-run and gov't-staffed. And it's funny because the state has been having big problems with budget deficits recently, which has led to efforts to pump up booze sales for more revenue. On one had the state dept of health spends money to try to decrease alcohol use, and on the other hand strategizes on how to get more people boozing it up. Does the state try to maximize liquor sales? | Washington Policy Center
Again for those that have issues with reading comprehension...the issue is that the government maintains a monopoly on hard liquour stores,
Ah, let't read to gether:
Thread title: Costco has to shell out $22 million for the right to sell booze in Wa.
Still with me?
"This is a state issue here in Washington state, but it is highly instructive about how our system of government works."
The nefarious government allows citizens (in this case another company as person) to change laws by ballot initiative! How dare government let actual citizens, in this case a company passing as a citizen, to change laws! Shocking!
Haven't lost you yet have I?
"In WA we still have the antiquated state liquor store system, a relic from the post-prohibition era of 80 years ago. WA-based Costco would like to be able to sell liquor, and has had to spend over $22 million trying to get a law passed just for the opportunity to do business."
And why does Costco have to spend $22 million?
[Because]..."You've got big beer distributors funding ads that sound like something out of the Anti-Saloon League. And people making 180 degree reversals from what they argued only a year ago, when a previous liquor initiative ran. The previous initiiative failed in part because it would have meant a loss in revenue to the state, so it was rewritten to ensure more revenue for the state. But some of the 'no' ads now say that sending more revenue to the state translates to more waste:"
Ah, because other citizen corporations and state employees (state employees are citizens or does that only apply to corporations) oppose changes in the law! Frankly, I'm stunned! To think that when you propose a ballot initiative other citizens might oppose, how down right fracking un-American is that!
So where what is the nefarious overreaching governments role in all of this? There is none! The GOVERNMENT is totally neutral!
Now let's further example my reading skills:
From your post.
Quote:
"What does who funds opposition ads have to do with the fact that the government has a monopoly on those sales? I would say good try at deflection...but it's really a pretty lame attempt."
You are absolutely right, I can't read and I sure as hell can make head nor tails out of "What does who funds opposition ads." Now on the chance that the "what does who" that funds the opposition ads... well from the story it appears to be a combination of beer distributors, wine merchants and employees of the state operated liquor stores. So again, what is your problem, public employees lose their citizenship by virtue of the fact that they are public employees but corporations are afforded greater rights to voice their positions?
And you claim that I am lamely deflecting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
