Alkies Remorse. Initiative 1100 (Costco Initiative) goes down in Washington State

[Pure]

Initiative 1100 was defeated in the state of Washington, 52% against. also called the Costco Initiative, it would have privatized liquor sales; it would have taken the state out of liquor sales (through its outlets) and control of liquor sales. Costco and other giant retailers want into the lucrative market. (see below).


a number of other states, e.g. NH, OH, PA, VT, OR control sales of 'spirits' (not beer or wine). the Province of Ontario does as well. persons must purchase liquor at state controlled outlets. it's a lucrative source of funds, possibly helping to lower other state/provincial taxes.

the churches and other conservative groups, after the repeal of Prohibition, pushed for and succeeded in enacting regulation of liquor sales, which exists still in at least 10 states.

the forces of capitalism or 'classic liberalism' [and modern 'libertarians'] break down religion- and morals- based laws and rules, preferring instead the benefits (and profits) generated by the 'free market.' examples range from Sunday closings to regulation of gambling.

a number of these measures--e.g Sunday closings--- seem to have had benefits outside of the intended promotion of religion and morals.


=================

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703650604575312762720688780.html


Costco Would Scotch Old Washington State Liquor Laws

[[Before the election. June 18, 2010]].

By DAVID KESMODEL

Costco Wholesale Corp., eager to sell alcohol as freely as it does toilet paper, is backing an effort to shake up liquor distribution laws in its home state of Washington.

The giant warehouse club has thrown its weight behind a proposed ballot initiative that would eliminate numerous post-Prohibition-era rules and privatize retail liquor sales in the state.

The effort is being closely watched by producers, distributors and retailers of beer, wine and liquor across the U.S. because it would mark the most sweeping overhaul of any state's alcohol trade regulations in years and could presage similar proposals in other states. Distributors, for their part, object to the proposed changes, because it would threaten their protected position as middlemen.

Washington is one of about 20 states that maintain some form of a liquor monopoly. Costco wants that to change, and wants businesses to have more freedom in the way they buy and sell wine and beer. The discount-retail giant, based in Issaquah, Wash., went so far as to have its own employees collect signatures from customers in its warehouse stores to get an initiative put on the November ballot. Consumers would benefit by paying lower prices, Costco says.

Costco essentially wants to be able to do with alcoholic beverages what it and other big-box retailers do with other consumer products. It wants, for instance, to be able to buy alcohol in large volumes at a discount and take delivery of these orders at a central warehouse. For now, it must make separate purchases of wine and beer for each of its stores, and pay distributors the same price that a corner grocery store pays.


The part of the initiative that most concerns distributors is that it would allow Costco and other retailers to buy directly from manufacturers and remove "tied house" rules that generally restrict cross-ownership among alcohol producers, retailers and distributors. These kinds of complex three-tiered systems have governed sales in most states since the 1933 repeal of Prohibition.

In Prohibition's wake, states created rules requiring the separation of the production, distribution and retail tiers to limit the potential for anticompetitive practices and to discourage the overconsumption of alcohol.

Costco has contributed about $535,000 to an effort by Modernize Washington, a group of private citizens, to have Initiative 1100 placed on the November ballot. The group also says it has received a commitment of financial support from Kroger Co.'s Fred Meyer grocery chain. Proponents need about 242,000 signatures by July 2. Costco and other backers express confidence they'll have enough.

Costco backs the proposal because the regulatory system is "very antiquated" and results in higher prices for consumers, says John McKay, an executive vice president for Costco.


.The company previously sought to eliminate many of the restrictions in its home state through lobbying in the legislature, and through an antitrust lawsuit it brought against the state in 2004. But those efforts largely failed.

A poll sponsored by the University of Washington last month showed that about 50% of voters support permitting liquor to be sold at grocery and other stores where beer and wine already are sold, compared with 36% who are against it. (Many were undecided.) Many residents don't like having to make a separate trip to a state-run store to buy a bottle of vodka or rum.

The Initiative also has its critics. The Costco-backed campaign "would basically deregulate the industry," says Craig Wolf, president of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, a national lobbying group. Mr. Wolf said his group would fight the initiative. "What they're trying to do is take it back to pre-Prohibition days, when there's no regulation between the tiers and there really are no tiers," Mr. Wolf says.

 

[trysail]

Retail purchases of alcoholic beverages in Pennsylvania is a Kafka-esque proposition.


If you want a sixpack of beer, you can buy it in a bar or tavern. If, however, you want more than a sixpack ( say, a case ), you are required to drive to a specialized state liquor warehouse. On the other hand, however, if you want to buy hard liquor or wine, a consumer has to traipse over to the State Liquor Store. Hosting a party thus requires that one make at least two separate trips in order to stock appropriate quantities of beer, wine and liquor. I this any way to run an airline?


The wine selection in the State Liquor Store is horrible. If your tastes happen to run to Bordeaux "first growths"— good luck with that. The folk running the State Liquor Stores have fairly pedestrian tastes and you are very likely to receive a puzzled or resentful look if you inquire about a Chateau Lafitte, for example.


To say the Byzantine system is a horrific inconvenience to consumers is an understatement. Every time I've ever come out of one those places, I'm always shaking my head at the obvious corruption. It's a farce.


The whole operation is, of course, a colossal racket operated for the benefit of the state employees. It is, of course, completely and absolutely corrupt; the featherbedders ( oops, I meant employees ) go berserk every time somebody breathes a word about the Commonwealth either allowing competition or rationalizing the operation.

 

[Pure]

thanks

thanks for the info, try.

we in ontario grouse about the LCBO, where spirits must be bought, and which used to have a shitty selection except in one or two outlets. and you used to have to sign your name on the sales requisition. it was indeed kafkaesque. only ONE example bottle of each type/brand was on display, giving the place a rather austere air!

now it's modernized. good selection. there are multiple bottle displays! o tempore, o mores. no name signing.

i was suprised that so many states, not necessarily poor and run by xian zealots, still have this approach, and that Washingtonians affirmed it, despite Costco's campaign.

as to [try]//The whole operation is, of course, a colossal racket operated for the benefit of the state employees.//

I would say, "for the benefit of the state, " and of course state employees at state liquor outlet do benefit. chances are, they're above minimum wage??

I would further say, as with lotteries and gambline, WHY NOT let the state run these 'rackets'. they are highly profitable and lower taxes. why should the Mafia et. al get the profits of gambling.

as i said, some 'blue laws'--thank our puritan ancestors--have an up side. sunday closings benefit families, for example, even though church attenedence is no longer required, as in Mass. colony.

 

[bronzeage]

There are two things a moonshiner likes about Alcoholic Beverage Control laws. The first is high liquor taxes and the second is restrictive sales outlets.

I would not have thought Oregon had a strong moonshiner/bootlegger ethic, but liquor initiatives are the one time religious leaders and illegal whiskey distillers vote together.

 

[Pure]

good points, bronze. certainly the illegality of booze during Prohibition led to crime syndicates getting into moonshine.

regulation of booze may still spur people seeking 'alternatives,' and some are quite legal. there is lots of homemade wine here, and sometimes beer as well.

since there are dozens of LCBO's (liquor control) outlets in this area, i don't think there is a huge demand for bootleg spirits, but i have no data.

as to your argument, about the agreement of moonshiners and moral crusaders, surely this applies to prostitution as well: no small number of prostitutes and pimps prefer "illegal" as an arrangement, since it means better pay. so in this area, as well, 'outlaws' and moralists agree.

 

[trysail]

A fair use excerpt from

America's Most Wanted: The Hunt For Al Capone
Jonathan Eig
New York, New York 2010.

...By making booze illegal, the government unwittingly glamorized it. The bubbles in a glass of champagne seemed more scintillating, the foam on a mug of beer more refreshing. Homemade alcohol had a tendency to taste like battery acid, which led to the invention of cocktails; the addition of sweet flavors and herbs made the drinks even more alluring, especially to women. Irving Berlin summed up the state of affairs and put it to a snappy tune when he wrote, "You Can Not Make Your Shimmy Shake on Tea."

Congress passed the Volstead Act to provide for enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment, and at least in the early years under the new set of laws, alcohol consumption in America dropped dramatically. But the Volstead Act failed to anticipate the massive criminal operations that would go to work creating an underground network for the manufacture and sale of alcohol.

A man didn't have to be a genius to recognize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Overnight, general miscreants such as Capone became bootleggers (the phrase has roots in America's colonial days, probably deriving from "boot-leg," the upper part of a tall boot where bottles could be hidden). Their experience running bars, brothels, and gambling joints suddenly came in handy. They already knew how to move money, how to sell booze, how to subdue competition, and how to service multiple businesses across the city. The trick now was learning to think big. A massive legitimate business had just been declared illicit. If they moved quickly, they could take over operations. Just for starters, bootleggers needed trucks and confederates in other cities to help them with supplies. In New York, there was Meyer Lansky; in Boston— Joe Kennedy; in Philadelphia, Boo Boo Hoff; in Detroit, the Purple Gang; in Cleveland, Moe Dalitz; in Montreal— Samuel Bronfman. They patched together a network that would eventually become a loosely organized national crime syndicate.

As bootleggers, their position in society actually improved. Small-time reprobates no longer had time for safecracking, pickpocketing, and mugging. Those lines of work were too dangerous, too risky, and didn't pay well enough.

Bootlegging also offered a certain kind of dignity. As bootleggers, they provided a useful service and catered to a respectable class of customer. Flush with cash, they dressed with panache and consorted with a higher class of friends. They became romantic figures, celebrated by journalists who liked their style, their slang, and their nicknames—not to mention their booze

*****​

 

[Pure]

nice post, try. certainly there are ways of dealing with moral and other evils (for alcoholism is a health evil), that only make things worse. the US war on drugs INCREASES the supply and accessibility of drugs, etc.

outright bans, criminal penalties where there is no direct damage to others, etc., are often foolish and ineffective ways to go, clearly.

whether *regulation* of sales of certain items, heavily taxing them, etc. is another matter, i'd argue. i see no reason, for instance, NOT to regulate the advertising of booze and ciggies.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK the coalition government is being asked to consider controls on the sale of cheap alcohol. It isn't cheap in Public Houses but it is in supermarkets.

I looked for cheap lager in my local supermarket. Their own brand sells at 78 pence (say 1 dollar) for 4 x 500ml cans. The strength is 4.6% alcohol. They have various offers on standard brands such as Stella Artois, Budweiser, Heineken etc and compete with other supermarkets on price.

Cheap cider? The price is very low. Three pounds would buy enough alcohol to get dead drunk.

Wine isn't as cheap as other forms of alcohol because of our taxation system. Three pounds is about the lowest price for a normal sized wine bottle. It can be bought cheaper in wine boxes.

But - I can easily travel to France and buy wine there. The cheapest wine can be as low as one euro a litre but is best left for cooking. The more expensive wines are real bargains by comparision with the UK if you have a discerning palate. Three euros a bottle will buy a good regional wine or a basic quality wine.

Public house sales are tightly regulated by the breweries and cannot compete with supermarkets on like for like price. I paid nearly three pounds for a pint of lager this week in a club that advertised 'cheap' lager. I could have bought the same quantity of the same brand for one pound 67 pence in the small shop next door, or could have paid less than one pound 40 pence in a supermarket.

We have regulation that distorts the market and serious problems every Friday and Saturday night with abuse of alcohol.

Og

 

[amicus]

There seems to be a contradiction in Liberal/Progressive dogma insofar as most support open use of Marijuana, but few will support a free market for meth, coke, heroin or peyote or even shrooms.

In my philosophy of absolute human freedom of choice, it is an easy defense that all substances should be available for consumption by everyone.

Would someone care to make the case for government controlling, prohibiting banning, regulating and taxing recreational substances?

Amicus *and yes, Pure, I noted your reference to 'remorse', tks*

 

[Pure]

note to ami,

these propositions are self evident:


1. for the flourishing, so far as possible, of each individual and protection of his rights, it is required that there be well functioning social groupings including family and community and larger society.

2. that a society has a right to control, and as it seems appropriate, to punish behavior of a party that it decides is harmful to the other parties, and the larger groupings, is obvious. such task falls under the label of promoting the general welfare.

3. that such rights of society are exercized democraticaly, and through a governing body of representatives passing laws, is the best known way to carry this out.

the only corollary needed for the booze, pot, etc cases are:

4. where the substance, as abused by significant numbers, leads to their behaviors as above, the society may take measures it considers appropriate to regulate production and distribution of the substance.

===

ami //
Would someone care to make the case for government controlling, prohibiting banning, regulating and taxing recreational substances?

 

[amicus]

these propositions are self evident:


1. for the flourishing, so far as possible, of each individual and protection of his rights, it is required that there be well functioning social groupings including family and community and larger society.

2. that a society has a right to control, and as it seems appropriate, to punish behavior of a party that it decides is harmful to the other parties, and the larger groupings, is obvious. such task falls under the label of promoting the general welfare.

3. that such rights of society are exercized democraticaly, and through a governing body of representatives passing laws, is the best known way to carry this out.

the only corollary needed for the booze, pot, etc cases are:

4. where the substance, as abused by significant numbers, leads to their behaviors as above, the society may take measures it considers appropriate to regulate production and distribution of the substance.

===

ami //
Would someone care to make the case for government controlling, prohibiting banning, regulating and taxing recreational substances?

~~~

Note to Pure

1. It is the nature of man to mutually cooperate and flourish, as a family, or any larger group; it is the freedom of the individual that makes this possible.

2. The primary right of government, not society, is to protect, not control, the unalienable rights of each individual. The 'General Welfare' as achieved by the effect of police and court actions that act to control violence and fraud and to use existing laws to maintain order. The General Welfare clause is directed at criminal actions that violate the individual rights of others, not some pre-conceived behavior that may or may not be conducive to a well ordered social environment.

3. Redundant. If you have any experience in a law library, for either the City, Country or State level, you will find many, many volumes of Statutes that have accumulated over the years as well intentioned legislators attempted to 'manage' the general welfare' of the people. I acquiesce that a certain number of practical rules/laws, are necessitated by large populations. The practice of law is therefore one of the central functions of society to control the over enthusiastic efforts of government to create a well ordered social environment. It is to the Laws, the basic ones, codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, from which all other laws are to be derived. Lawyers and the Courts exist to protect the rights of the individual, not to uphold government transgressions of basic rights.

"...the only corollary needed for the booze, pot, etc cases are:

4. where the substance, as abused by significant numbers, leads to their behaviors as above, the society may take measures it considers appropriate to regulate production and distribution of the substance.

Therein lies the Shakespearian 'Rub', my distant Canadian opponent. Government or Religion, or both, have held Inquisitions, burned women as witches, used the 'final solution' for perceived social problems, limited child bearing to one, and done a thousand more evil and inhumane acts when society undertakes to 'regulate' the behavior of the individual.

I had hoped, as I have expressed before, a higher level contemplation of just how free an 'individuals' really can be in a free society.

I will not make the pragmatic argument that the 'war on drugs', has essentially failed and if anything, has increased drug use as it has become dangerous and exciting, not to mention very lucrative.

I understand the use of tobacco and alcohol, I enjoy both. Whether the wide range of mind altering narcotics would so disrupt society if readily available, is not a given to me.

You chose Pure, as a pseudonym; I am a 'Purist' by nature. An unknown percentage would no doubt become 'addicts' of any and all controlled substances. Intense attempts to condemn and prohibit such substances has, in my perception, failed to achieve the desired results but has created a criminal element, just as Prohibition did, that may equal the damage done in a free society.

There is a psychological collateral that I have mentioned before: as children, our every choice is governed by parental or educational control. The passage to adulthood should be total independence from the control of our parents and society if we are to achieve psychological maturity.

This should be clear and self evident among those aware of the Bohemian element in every society that rejects all forms of control, theso called, 'liberals' that challenge the status quo, the traditional and the conventional.

I do not know and can not predict just what kind of society would evolve in which no substances were banned or prohibited and each individual free to choose among all choices how to pursue their life, liberty and pursuit.

I have, however, read hundreds of fictional predictions of totally controlled societies that reflect every aspect of how a 'managed' existence might function.

None of them have shown promise.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

I had some thoughts after writing the above....perhaps someone will find them interesting.

Life has value because it can be lost; it is fragile and transitory, contains both pleasure and pain. We protect the lives of our totally dependent newborn and even our elders because we subconsciously understand the value of living.

Another aspect of living, of life, is that it constantly involves choice. We each, from a very young age, choose each and every action we take, if we are free to do so.

We are free to choose a life of dependency on others, define our lives based on the associations we choose to make, or take a 'default' position of 'going with the flow' and accepting the rules of 'belonging' to any group, large or small, that appears at the opportune place and time.

Perhaps it is a small minority of all, who take stock of their lives at some given point and realize the totality of choices available and act accordingly...what does that mean, 'act accordingly?'

We are perhaps molded by our upbringing and our education, but is it an inextricable incarceration to our parents or our education?

Can one utilize the positive factors of our early years and build from there or are we trapped by accepting that which we were taught?

This is tenuously connected to Pure's assertions that society has the right to manage the behavior of the individual to suit the desires of the larger social group.

I maintain that it is the 'exceptions' to the drone like controlled societal conformists that lifted mankind above the animal kingdom. By 'exceptions, I of course mean, 'individuals'.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

You need to spend some time in a court observing what really goes on.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

You need to spend some time in a court observing what really goes on.[/QUOTE]

~~~


Ouch! Point taken.

Let me then postulate that the intent of having an equitable court procedurem to determine justice is a positive human action.

Any human action or institution remains only as good as as those who choose it and support it with integrity.

Thanks for the cold water in the face.

amicus

 

[Pure]

note to ami

pure said,

"...the only corollary needed for the booze, pot, etc cases are:

4. where the substance, as abused by significant numbers, leads to their behaviors as above [harm to other members of society], the society may take measures it considers appropriate to regulate production and distribution of the substance.


Amicus replied Therein lies the Shakespearian 'Rub', my distant Canadian opponent. Government or Religion, or both, have held Inquisitions, burned women as witches, used the 'final solution' for perceived social problems, limited child bearing to one, and done a thousand more evil and inhumane acts when society undertakes to 'regulate' the behavior of the individual.


Does *anyone* see a relation between amicus 'reply' and my statement. As usual, amicus comments on commonsense with a flight to a fantasy world. Someone says, to him, "red traffic lights stop one stream of traffic from crashing into another" and he says, "Dictators through the ages have tried to stop humans from being free. Look at Stalin's collective farms."

i'm reminded of a story in this weeks news: Fountain Hills AZ city council decided to contract with a single trash collection company, and institute recycling. The local Tea Partiers' reaction: Socialism!!

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...7/20101107tea-party-trash-fountain-hills.html

Peter Bardow, an opponent [of the new proposal], said the issue isn't about politics, but about taking away his and other residents' right to choose their own trash hauler. "I feel like you're forcing homeowners-association regulation and homeowners-association enforcement on me," he said.

Fountain Hills is home to two tea-party groups - Fountain Hills Tea Party and Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots.

Many opponents were energized by this week's election in which Republicans made significant gains in congressional and state races. They related the local proposal to what they see as increasing government control under President Barack Obama's administration.

The Fountain Hills Tea Party posted this announcement on its website in advance of Thursday's meeting: "7 people will decide who will provide your trash collection services and take away your ability to choose that on your own. If you don't like government telling you what to do, show up at the meeting and voice your opposition. If it's not broken, don't let government try to fix it."

 

[amicus]

I suspect you must labor mightily to pretend not to comprehend my support of the least possible government possible under the aegis of constitutional law.

With your 'waste management' problem, add San Francisco, the City by the Bay, that just today, by a vote of 8-3 by City officials, banned the 'Happy Meal' of McDonalds restaurants in the city.

I asked a rather well defined question concerning the 'right' of a free society to ban certain substances and you reply with gibberish.

When you advocate managing private affairs for the 'general welfare' of the people, you open the door wide for the kind of foolishness San Francisco is engaging in, and if you allow or permit or advocate that level of control, for the 'higher good' of society, what is to prevent you or our government from instituting a 'one child' policy?

On another front, 28 States, a majority of all States, have now filed constitutional lawsuits intended to repeal Obama's attempts to Socialize American Healthcare. This subject too, broaches the constitutional limits placed on government, not withstanding your personal approval of government run health care for all.

I continually advocate low taxes and minimum government, while you argue against me, but never define just how much control you consider adviseable under whatever form of government you prefer.

Care to enlighten us"?

Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

pure said,

"...the only corollary needed for the booze, pot, etc cases are:

4. where the substance, as abused by significant numbers, leads to their behaviors as above [harm to other members of society], the society may take measures it considers appropriate to regulate production and distribution of the substance.


Amicus replied Therein lies the Shakespearian 'Rub', my distant Canadian opponent. Government or Religion, or both, have held Inquisitions, burned women as witches, used the 'final solution' for perceived social problems, limited child bearing to one, and done a thousand more evil and inhumane acts when society undertakes to 'regulate' the behavior of the individual.


Does *anyone* see a relation between amicus 'reply' and my statement. As usual, amicus comments on commonsense with a flight to a fantasy world. Someone says, to him, "red traffic lights stop one stream of traffic from crashing into another" and he says, "Dictators through the ages have tried to stop humans from being free. Look at Stalin's collective farms."

i'm reminded of a story in this weeks news: Fountain Hills AZ city council decided to contract with a single trash collection company, and institute recycling. The local Tea Partiers' reaction: Socialism!!

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...7/20101107tea-party-trash-fountain-hills.html

Peter Bardow, an opponent [of the new proposal], said the issue isn't about politics, but about taking away his and other residents' right to choose their own trash hauler. "I feel like you're forcing homeowners-association regulation and homeowners-association enforcement on me," he said.

Fountain Hills is home to two tea-party groups - Fountain Hills Tea Party and Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots.

Many opponents were energized by this week's election in which Republicans made significant gains in congressional and state races. They related the local proposal to what they see as increasing government control under President Barack Obama's administration.

The Fountain Hills Tea Party posted this announcement on its website in advance of Thursday's meeting: "7 people will decide who will provide your trash collection services and take away your ability to choose that on your own. If you don't like government telling you what to do, show up at the meeting and voice your opposition. If it's not broken, don't let government try to fix it."

"7 people will decide who will provide your trash collection services and take away your ability to choose that on your own." is sort of like saying "my automatic clothes washing machine took away my ability to scrub clothes by hand in a pot of boiling water."

Seven elected people sit down one day and do the work of several thousand when they choose a trash collection contractor. Sensible people would say thank you and ask what day to take the trash can to the curb.

Why should stop at freedom of choice of who dumps my trash can? What about asphalt? Why should the government tell me who is going to pave the road in front of my house? I pay the taxes that buys the asphalt and then they leave me out of the process. These elected officials put roads where ever it pleases them. What if I don't even want a road in front of my house? How much longer must we endure the tyranny of civil engineering?

 

[amicus]

What with the tongue-in-cheek satire and irony, if I can wade through it or maneuver around it...

How much longer must we endure the tyranny of civil engineering?

Over the years, as a 'hard news' reporter, I spent more hours than I care to disclose, sitting in a variety of city and county meetings of all sorts, from school boards to road commissioners and even garbage disposal hearings.

If you had any idea of the waste and corruption of these politically appointed positions, you would immediately discern that there must be a better way.

It is always a hard fight against politicians and Union workers, but more and more cities across the nation are, 'privatizing' their public utilities in order to save money and actually get the services they paid for.

Pure is one of those who thinks government should run everything; I am one of those who thinks government is the source of most of our problems.

Just as there should be a 'social security trust fund', for all the monies you and I and almost every citizen has paid into, by force, I add; we pay a tax on every gallon of gasoline to maintain the infrastructure of towns, cities, counties and States. The billions upon billions of hard earned money paid into those funds has been spent and wasted on saving butterflies in the Amazon, or spotted owls in the old forests of the northwest.

It is not 'we the people' who have failed to do our social duties, it is the corruption of government that has bankrupted a nation and left us with pot holes and bridges that fall.

Amicus