I can't believe we're doing it. But we are.

Yes this is dog: Wangiss:
That doesn't counter what anyone said. They were using it as a revenue source. The bill for the transition had to be rev-neutral to pass in WA, so they padded it with new taxes and fees. That doesn't mean liquor had zero markup before the bill.

TFA:"They (the taxes) haven't changed since state control. They are still a 20.5 percent sales tax plus a (flat) $3.7708 per liter," Smith wrote in an email Friday

Thank you for the correction. I downgrade my claim of "new taxes and fees" to "fees".

NobleHam: The $18.99 roughly $25. Still cheaper, I guess, but not by as much as the shelf price makes one think.

Yeah, the article doesn't make it clear on whether the comparison was tax-neutral or not, and I don't know off the top of my head what the pre-tax price of that bottle was in state stores.

It doesn't really matter though -- even assuming the least amount of state gouging, a savings of up to $6 per bottle is not insignificant, and none of the prices exceeded the state price.

Why in the name of FSM do you guys want to give so much of your liquor money to the state?

Wangiss: Why in the name of FSM do you guys want to give so much of your liquor money to the state?

20+% doesn't irk you?

Wangiss: Why in the name of FSM do you guys want to give so much of your liquor money to the state?

Because we don't want to pay taxes on our incomes.

jtown: A Non Amos: We interrupt this mature deliberation on the proper management of alcohol sales to bring you:
[columbian.media.clients.ellingtoncms .com image 640x425]

/Honestly, is this fella leaking or FAPPING? It should be a photshop contest.

He appears to be a lefty, with a little cupping action from the right hand. Can ya blame him?

Not at all. Gotta do it before you get too drunk.


UCFRoadWarrior: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Correct

Though try explaining that to a economically-challenged GOPer....who cannot understand that it will cost the government MORE to privatize, because, unlike the government, a private company must make a profit to survive...something the government does not have to do

This coming from someone I had marked as a right-wing troll? Did you get drunk and forget to switch alts or something?

moof: So, the government has already established the maximum price the market will bear,

That's not what they did at all, hth

NobleHam: In WA we already had all of that in the state stores. Now the grocery stores only carry the mostly popular spirits, leading to less variety. In the state-run stores there was a wide, if standardized, selection, now there's what they think they can sell the most of. Again, maybe it'll get better as time passes, I heard from several stores today that they're still expanding their stock, but just the space set aside in most stores for liquor is far smaller than the state-run stores was.

It will get better as time passes. No serious competitors have arrived yet (i.e. BevMo, Liquor Barn) for example, and they're on the way. Wholesalers are currently overcharging because the law imposes a 10% tax at their level, and if it doesn't collect $150 million by March of next year the wholesalers must make up the difference. There are a few other factors (I think there's only two distributors as well atm) that will also improve with time. Give it a year and things will be much better.

UCFRoadWarrior: it will cost the government MORE to privatize, because, unlike the government, a private company must make a profit to survive...something the government does not have to do

And as a result there's zero incentive to control costs, especially when you're the sole distributor of said product. In fact, there's a rather strong incentive to be INefficient in such a situation, both as a monopolist and as a government agency. More employees = more political clout.

BigJake:
NobleHam: In WA we already had all of that in the state stores. Now the grocery stores only carry the mostly popular spirits, leading to less variety. In the state-run stores there was a wide, if standardized, selection, now there's what they think they can sell the most of. Again, maybe it'll get better as time passes, I heard from several stores today that they're still expanding their stock, but just the space set aside in most stores for liquor is far smaller than the state-run stores was.

It will get better as time passes. No serious competitors have arrived yet (i.e. BevMo, Liquor Barn) for example, and they're on the way. Wholesalers are currently overcharging because the law imposes a 10% tax at their level, and if it doesn't collect $150 million by March of next year the wholesalers must make up the difference. There are a few other factors (I think there's only two distributors as well atm) that will also improve with time. Give it a year and things will be much better.

The problem is that the law requires a certain square-footage to sell liquor, outside of those formerly state-run stores which were auctioned off. Liquor Warehouse (I've never heard of Liquor Barn of BevMo, but they're probably the same) wouldn't meet the standard. This law was written for Fred Meyer and Costco, and neither of them has interest in variety, only in volume of sales. As for beer and wine, though, we already have plenty of stores with that sort of variety. Beer and wine were available at private stores from the start.

profplump:
It doesn't really matter though -- even assuming the least amount of state gouging, a savings of up to $6 per bottle is not insignificant, and none of the prices exceeded the state price.

That's true for that specific bottle, a half gallon of Black Velvet (yuck). As I said in an earlier post, though, I paid a couple of bucks more for Jack Daniel's at a grocery store than I ever did at a state run store. Maybe Fred Meyer could have done better than the store I went to, but it still shows that privatization doesn't necessarily lower prices.

NobleHam: The problem is that the law requires a certain square-footage to sell liquor, outside of those formerly state-run stores which were auctioned off. Liquor Warehouse (I've never heard of Liquor Barn of BevMo, but they're probably the same) wouldn't meet the standard.

I guess they've applied for licenses just for fun then.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/busine ss/2012/03/22/liquor-giant-wine- s pecialist-heading-to-washington/

NobleHam: BigJake:
NobleHam: In WA we already had all of that in the state stores. Now the grocery stores only carry the mostly popular spirits, leading to less variety. In the state-run stores there was a wide, if standardized, selection, now there's what they think they can sell the most of. Again, maybe it'll get better as time passes, I heard from several stores today that they're still expanding their stock, but just the space set aside in most stores for liquor is far smaller than the state-run stores was.

It will get better as time passes. No serious competitors have arrived yet (i.e. BevMo, Liquor Barn) for example, and they're on the way. Wholesalers are currently overcharging because the law imposes a 10% tax at their level, and if it doesn't collect $150 million by March of next year the wholesalers must make up the difference. There are a few other factors (I think there's only two distributors as well atm) that will also improve with time. Give it a year and things will be much better.

The problem is that the law requires a certain square-footage to sell liquor, outside of those formerly state-run stores which were auctioned off. Liquor Warehouse (I've never heard of Liquor Barn of BevMo, but they're probably the same) wouldn't meet the standard. This law was written for Fred Meyer and Costco, and neither of them has interest in variety, only in volume of sales. As for beer and wine, though, we already have plenty of stores with that sort of variety. Beer and wine were available at private stores from the start.

profplump:
It doesn't really matter though -- even assuming the least amount of state gouging, a savings of up to $6 per bottle is not insignificant, and none of the prices exceeded the state price.

That's true for that specific bottle, a half gallon of Black Velvet (yuck). As I said in an earlier post, though, I paid a couple of bucks more for Jack Daniel's at a grocery store than I ever did at a state run store. Maybe Fred Meyer could have done be ...

Welcome to the wonderful world of booze. I can buy a bottle of Jack at the liquor store less than a block away for a bit more than the grocery store that is a few blocks away (but the liquor store stays open later). I can go to BevMo and pay less than what they charge at the grocery store (but the grocery store stays open later). I don't mind paying a bit more for the convenience of the liquor store. Also here in San Diego the booze i can get is amazing. Specialty wine/beer stores. Massive liquor stores that stay open till 2am. Anything and everything. Just be patient and in a few years you will wonder why it didn't happen before.

California is awesome. The only real restriction on alcohol is the time of sale, 6am-2am.

Also, it's a myth that the state law requires vendors to put booze in bags.

PDF proof

Wangiss: Wangiss: Why in the name of FSM do you guys want to give so much of your liquor money to the state?

20+% doesn't irk you?

That is pretty steep. As far as I can tell, it is a $2 per gallon tax in NH, but then again, NH is a state liquor store state. Interestingly enough, the NH state store prices are considerably cheaper than the grocery stores in Maine.

Wangiss: "What gives you the idea prices in privately owned shops will be lower?"

Probably the fact that prices in privately owned shops are lower.

Except for the fact after the register sticks in the taxes "shoppers" from the news have found that prices are almost equal to or higher then before not to mention a smaller selection.

Yay!

Welcome to the 21st century.

/Californian.

cheap wodka, 1.75L

Colorado: @ $8.50 plus 5 - 7% sales tax, depending on location
Oregon: @ $18.80 no tax

Colorado private sales vs. Oregon state control.

Both prices from May, 2011 (last time I went to CO to see my Mommy).

YMMV

randompersons87: Wangiss: "What gives you the idea prices in privately owned shops will be lower?"

Probably the fact that prices in privately owned shops are lower.

Except for the fact after the register sticks in the taxes "shoppers" from the news have found that prices are almost equal to or higher then before not to mention a smaller selection.

Yay!

Yeah, that sucks for you guys. If only there were some way to change the amount of money we're forced to pay just for the privilege of paying for things.

I live in Olympia.

Booze now costs 20% more than it did a week ago.

To everyone who voted for 1183: Thanks a bunch, you farking asshats. Please never vote or breed again. And if you could sort this stack of shotguns by barrel flavor, I'd really appreciate it.

Whoops. OR price should be $13.80.

/No, I'm drinking coffee.

Oh, and did I mention that the selection sucks ass? The stores that can sell liquor have no incentive to purchase the good stuff that I like, because they can make more selling cheap shiat. Not hard to figure out that me spending $75 a month on a bottle of really nice scotch is less profit than the local bums buying $15 worth of some cheap shiat every couple of days.

Not to mention that what I would pay $75 for now used to cost $50. But hey, more profit for the profit god, right?

It always amuses me when I see examples of America's extraordinary restrictions on freedom compared with Europe given the number of posts in Fark threads talking about the UK being a Nanny State, or how citizens across Europe are being denied rights because they can't own guns.

I really have no idea why it would be appropriate to restrict liquor sales to state-run shops. It makes no sense for the consumer and I can't see what benefit can be derived from it.

/am aware that the same thing happens in Canada and in Oz liquor is only available via specialist (albeit non-government) retailers where there is a separate detached section of the supermarket for booze.

Pert: It always amuses me when I see examples of America's extraordinary restrictions on freedom compared with Europe given the number of posts in Fark threads talking about the UK being a Nanny State, or how citizens across Europe are being denied rights because they can't own guns.

I really have no idea why it would be appropriate to restrict liquor sales to state-run shops. It makes no sense for the consumer and I can't see what benefit can be derived from it.

/am aware that the same thing happens in Canada and in Oz liquor is only available via specialist (albeit non-government) retailers where there is a separate detached section of the supermarket for booze.

Can't you read the thread? Folks like living in states where the government sells liquor because the selection is broader and the prices are much lower!

Wangiss: Pert: It always amuses me when I see examples of America's extraordinary restrictions on freedom compared with Europe given the number of posts in Fark threads talking about the UK being a Nanny State, or how citizens across Europe are being denied rights because they can't own guns.

I really have no idea why it would be appropriate to restrict liquor sales to state-run shops. It makes no sense for the consumer and I can't see what benefit can be derived from it.

/am aware that the same thing happens in Canada and in Oz liquor is only available via specialist (albeit non-government) retailers where there is a separate detached section of the supermarket for booze.

Can't you read the thread? Folks like living in states where the government sells liquor because the selection is broader and the prices are much lower!

It's funny, because NH has a store on the north end of I95 to lure in the people from Maine, and the south end to grab the people from Mass. They must be doing something right if people would rather leave their state, and their privately owned booze retailers and go to NH instead.

Ramen

crabsno termites: Oregon: @ $18.80 no tax

$24 in Washington. At least until Thursday. I haven't gone shopping since the new law took effect.

I signed the petitition and voted for the referendum. While I don't know how the prices will be affected, it definitely makes buying booze more convenient. More locations and longer hours.

Wierd. This seems utterly bizarre to me. I have lived in Ca my entire life and liquor is availble in any street corner liquor store or supermarket whenever the owners chose to have the store open. I have heard that other states have days you cant sell alcohol and state run stores but the whole idea just doesnt make any sense to me. Why on Earth would you need the state to sell liquor? Is there some shortage of folks willing to sell it at regular stores?

Yeah, there's a new private retailer in town that I am planning on checking out today, supposed to have lots of things previously unavailable around here.

Actually, the old distribution system was pretty farked up, especially for restaurants/bars... very limited selection, and availability was hit or miss. I talked to a few of the old liquor store employees, who really had some nasty things to say about the ordering system; they would frequently place orders and the state would just lose them or ship a couple of weeks/months after the expected date. Hopefully, this is a thing of the past now.

I am willing to give them some time to settle down, but I do feel it is a plus for our state. The state government here makes an art form of inefficiency, so getting Washington State out of the booze business should be helpful. I hope.

FormlessOne: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Actually, quite a few folks here, including myself, feel the same way. I voted against it. But, Costco spent more than enough money to ensure that it happened, and so we're stuck with the situation.

Costco liquor is very reasonably priced.

crabsno termites: Whoops. OR price should be $13.80.

/No, I'm drinking coffee.

The only problem with the Oregon to Colorado comparison is that it doesn't take into account Oregon's ridiculous effective tax rate on liquor (which is calculated prior to the register). It's in the neighborhood of the mid-$20's per gallon somewhere thanks to the OLCC (compare that to Colorado's $2.28 per gallon). If Oregon privatized its liquor sales, I can't imagine it'd drop what amounts to the tax rate, so the price would probably still be stupidly high if it went private.

JonBuck: Having lived in California for most of my life the idea of a state liquor store as the sole source of alcoholic drinks always struck me as odd and a silly holdover from Prohibition. Monopolies are generally a bad thing, right?

What JonBuck said. Now I live in Colorado and have to deal with the inane "no alcohol sales in the same stores that sell food" laws here. Instead there's a liquor store adjacent to every grocery store everywhere. Come on, Colorado, grow a pair and put this stupidity to bed already.

This needs to happen in Pennsylvania so bad. A couple of grocery stores are selling beer, but to purchase beverages for a party I have to make a few trips.

Beer? There's a distributor two blocks away, but it's cases only and the selection is limited to high alcohol rice water and headache inducing Mexican. Fine, one mile away is the distributor with the great selection, but again only in cases.

Fine, I need some stuff at Wegmans anyway so I'll buy some 12 packs of decent beer there. Problem is, the beer is in the "cafe" section so I have to do my regular shopping, pay and then thread the maze of coffee, salad bar, sub sammich and pizza customers with a full cart to get to and pay for said beer.

Okay, liquor and wine. Luckily the State puts these two in the same store a few blocks away. (the State experimented with a wine kiosk in grocery stores, but consumers had a problem with blowing into a BAC gizmo and showing ID to a camera monitored from somewhere else to get a bottle of Turning Leaf to roll out of a vending machine.) Sadly, the State Store closest to Wegmans is small and the selection is ummmmm, downmarket. Heavy on the jug wines and booze. So it's off to the other State Store three miles away that is larger and better stocked.

So we're here and there's a great selection. Problem is, the employees are the same pay grade as the DMV and know nothing about wine. I do, but half the fun of shopping for wine is conversing with a knowledgable clerk or store owner. Poke through halfway decent selection of vineyards and can't help but notice that most of the bottles of reputable Cabs are on either side of the 2007 vintage. sigh.

And don't get me started on Liquor Licences. I've had them in California, Florida and Georgia. Pay a reasonable fee, get ingerprinted and in 30 days I'm selling. In Pennsylvania, I have to find someone willing to sell their license, hope that it's clean and transferable and that the Township or City is willing to let me bring that license in. Did I mention the going price for a license is $45k -$75k? My only source of wine and liquor is the State? I can only sell what they feel like carrying? Oh sorry, no Piña D'Adamo 2007 to go with your meal, would you like to try the 2006 or 2008? Same price!

/rant

Amishrabbit: JonBuck: Having lived in California for most of my life the idea of a state liquor store as the sole source of alcoholic drinks always struck me as odd and a silly holdover from Prohibition. Monopolies are generally a bad thing, right?

What JonBuck said. Now I live in Colorado and have to deal with the inane "no alcohol sales in the same stores that sell food" laws here. Instead there's a liquor store adjacent to every grocery store everywhere. Come on, Colorado, grow a pair and put this stupidity to bed already.

But think of the microbrews...

Costco's adjoined liquor stores have crap for selection, and there are several small liquor stores right by my normal Safeway that don't have any selection either that I won't shop at. Looking at Safeway's 3.2 selection I can't think they'd be any better selling full strength stuff.

I know the guys at my usual store, they will even order me in whatever I want if they don't carry it (as long as I buy a full case). Sure it's an extra stop on the way home from work, but it's enjoyable too.

/why the hell does anyone in Colorado buy 3.2 beer anyway?

I live in WA, voted for this, and don't regret it for a second. There are certain things which government excels at and should do; selling liquor is *not* one of those. The high taxes on liquor, making it more expensive than it was during the state-run liquor store era, that's not a failing of privatization. Rather, it was mandated by the state government to make up the loss of revenue.

I live across the street from the Metropolitan Market (think Whole Foods, but local and foofier) and they'll specialize in the harder-to-find, more high-end stuff...the same idea that they apply to their groceries. If I want cheap, mass market stuff, I can walk one block and get something at a Safeway or a Bartell's Drug Store.

Funny how the so-called "Costco Initiative" has allowed so many places not named "Costco" to sell liquor.

Here in Arkansas, alcohol sales are prohibited on Sundays. I've always thought that was a bit weird. The Bible doesn't specifically rally against alcohol, and Jesus drank wine. Still, some church denominations treat alcohol use like a mortal sin.

A Non Amos: Here in Arkansas, alcohol sales are prohibited on Sundays. I've always thought that was a bit weird. The Bible doesn't specifically rally against alcohol, and Jesus drank wine. Still, some church denominations treat alcohol use like a mortal sin.

Welcome to the temperance movement and the 1900's.
Let us know when you catch up.

Now WA will get a Bev mo

JohnBigBootay: Wangiss: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Well, that's one way to run it, but WA was using it as a profit center for the state. I lived there during the vote, and one of the main arguments for keeping it was the revenue.

Check that again fellows. Even the anti campaign eventually admitted there would no no net revenue shortfall.

http://reason.org/news/show/washington -liquor-privatization

This initiative is revenue positive for the state. They end up with more net income after new liquor license fees and taxes are accounted for. Don't get mad at me, its all spelled out in the link. The state ends up with more money after this initiative, not less.

They must be getting some revenue from all the green dispensaries.

Virtue, is that a bad thing or a good thing? I've never heard of them.

AbbeySomeone:

They must be getting some revenue from all the green dispensaries.

No, because they keep getting raided by the police over and over for some reason.

Mominator: AbbeySomeone:

They must be getting some revenue from all the green dispensaries.

No, because they keep getting raided by the police over and over for some reason.

Well if they're getting raided then somebody is getting the money, right? I thought weed was decriminalized in Seattle? They should leave them alone and just tax it like everything else.

Nice to see this happen.

State liquor stores were a stupid holdover from Prohibition and needed to go.

IntertubeUser: I live in WA, voted for this, and don't regret it for a second.

Then you're an idiot.

Tell you what: go to your local bar and ask the owner how much his stock costs went up. Then ask him if he's going to increase his prices. Then, go to one of your beloved private liquor stores and compare the price of a bottle of ANYTHING to what it was before privatization. Oh, yeah. That "state inefficiency" was saving you 8-10%.

Enjoy your higher prices, weaker state revenue and increased likelihood of additional state taxes and fees, you imbecile.

IntertubeUser: the so-called "Costco Initiative"

Whether you agreed with the law or not, they were the major force pushing the thing. It's an appropriate label.

(I don't drink hard liquor, so I have no idea if selection and prices will actually get better or worse.}

CitizenTed: IntertubeUser: I live in WA, voted for this, and don't regret it for a second.

Then you're an idiot.

Tell you what: go to your local bar and ask the owner how much his stock costs went up. Then ask him if he's going to increase his prices. Then, go to one of your beloved private liquor stores and compare the price of a bottle of ANYTHING to what it was before privatization. Oh, yeah. That "state inefficiency" was saving you 8-10%.

Enjoy your higher prices, weaker state revenue and increased likelihood of additional state taxes and fees, you imbecile.

Why not have all good sold by the state, then? Groceries, gas, clothing? I'm not really being incredulous here--if the state is much more efficient at selling alcohol, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should sell everything? Plus, that would mean that everyone who works for a grocery store and whatnot would be a state employee, and that's a pretty decent gig benefits-wise.

CitizenTed: IntertubeUser: I live in WA, voted for this, and don't regret it for a second.

Then you're an idiot.

Tell you what: go to your local bar and ask the owner how much his stock costs went up. Then ask him if he's going to increase his prices. Then, go to one of your beloved private liquor stores and compare the price of a bottle of ANYTHING to what it was before privatization. Oh, yeah. That "state inefficiency" was saving you 8-10%.

Enjoy your higher prices, weaker state revenue and increased likelihood of additional state taxes and fees, you imbecile.

Fark bars. I drink in my home. If I want to go to a bar, it's to hear live music and drinking is not the reason I'm there.

And your numbers are wrong. The tax (20%?!?) is what is making liquor more expensive; the marked prices on the shelves are actually cheaper.

I'll refrain from returning the name-calling.

Yay. Higher prices and less selection. Assuming you can find them, bottles of top shelf quality booze have gone up at least $8-10. But, hey, enjoy the dollar you might save on your bottle of Bacardi or Seagrams.

Cyclometh: I live in Olympia.

Booze now costs 20% more than it did a week ago.

To everyone who voted for 1183: Thanks a bunch, you farking asshats. Please never vote or breed again. And if you could sort this stack of shotguns by barrel flavor, I'd really appreciate it.

LOL
I voted for it and am very happy. Have a great weekend sorting your shotguns!

I love it. Some of you piss and moan about the higher prices that were imposed by the government. And then you blame the "free market". Classic Fark.

A Non Amos: Here in Arkansas, alcohol sales are prohibited on Sundays. I've always thought that was a bit weird. The Bible doesn't specifically rally against alcohol, and Jesus drank wine. Still, some church denominations treat alcohol use like a mortal sin.

Jesus shacked up with a whore, drank wine, vandalized temples, assaulted public officials, spread heresy, ran around with smelly old fishermen and a guy that was naked except for a furry bit of rags, partied so hard that we're still talking about it 2,000 years later and was executed for disturbing the peace.

Tell that to a fundie and watch them have a meltdown. Then offer them some wine.