In all honesty, I find it very difficult these days to get specialty liquor. The state stores carry few options in that department. Try finding a nice selection of Grappa or Armagnac. Besides, having to wait on a special order instead of purchasing that day is not a good thing. There will be MORE selection in my opinion. It will be very similar to how wine/beer is now. You can go to QFC, Safeway, or Costco but mostly their selection is limited to major brands. You will need to find a wine/beer/liquor shop to get the cool stuff. You will still be able to place special orders at your QFC's, especially the wine steward stores. Even those might have a nice selection of what you are looking for. The main point is that cost of these products will go down as stores compete for customers. So to answer your question...it will be better then it is now.

Secondly, the reason I am pushing for 1105 is that restaurants and bars will really save a ton of money and labor. Currently, they have to go to the store and get it themselves or hire a authorized delivery service. This pushes the already inflated prices up higher. With 1105 they will get it delivered, with more selection and better prices, which will save them a ton of headaches and money.

Both would hurt our state. If we want to privatize the liquor business, then we should have spun off the existing stores and let them become stand alone businesses. As it is, both of these lose the state money, put people out of work, and increase the risk to our communities.

Enforcement is going to improve under I-1100 because our liquor board will be able to focus all its time on enforcing alcohol laws instead of selling booze. That's going to make our state safer and keep alcohol out of the hands of teenagers.

Right now we have a liquor board that has 800 employees dedicated to sales and only 80 dedicated to enforcement. And so it's no surprise that the board does a bad job of enforcement.

For instance, the 300 state liquor stores are each checked for compliance (underage drinking) twice a year. The thousands and thousands of restaurants, bars and private retailers that also sell alcohol in this state are checked once every six years. How is that possibly good for our state?

Under I-1100, the liquor board will no longer be distracted by trying to make as much money as possible and will be able to focus entirely on what it should have been focused on all along: enforcement.

Here are the two biggest differences between I-1100 and I-1105:

--I-1100 keeps all the liquor taxes in place, which is $224 million a year that goes straight to state and local government. I-1105 strips all taxes off liquor, which is why the state estimates its fiscal impact as seven times as much as I-1100.

What goes away under I-1100 is the 51.9 percent markup that the liquor board puts on its product, making liquor in Washington the most expensive in the country. The gap will be largely made up by increased liquor tax revenue with more places selling, B&0 tax paid by distributors and retailers and also more people buying liquor in state instead of going to CA or ID to flee the astronomical prices here.

--I-1105 is paid for entirely by two national liquor distributors, and if passed, it would transfer the liquor distribution monopoly the state has to a very small number of liquor distributors. I-1100 ends all the monopolies, which will be good for the state, our economy and consumers.

Audiovore is right. We have a liquor board right now that has 800 employees dedicated to sales and only 80 employees dedicated to enforcement. And because of this conflict of interest -- in both selling alcohol and being responsible for alcohol laws -- our liquor board does a bad job of enforcement.

For instance, the 300 state liquor stores are each checked for compliance (underage drinking) twice a year. The thousands and thousands of restaurants, bars and private retailers that also sell alcohol in this state are checked once every six years. How is that possibly good for our state?

Under I-1100, the liquor board will no longer be distracted by trying to make as much money as possible and will be able to focus entirely on what it should have been focused on all along: enforcement.

Choice is going to get much, much better under I-1100. Right now you've got only 300 liquor stores in the entire state, and their inventory is controlled by a 3-person liquor board in Olympia. Restaurants and bars and many other customers complain all the time about the poor service and selection. For instance, the liquor board doesn't even deliver! Every restaurant has to go pick up their liquor at the store.

As Audiovore said, there are going to be all types of retailers offering liquor to customers after I-1100 passes, in an open and competitive environment. That's great for consumers.

There will be boutique liquor stores, just as there are boutique beer stores now(Bottleworks, 99 Bottles, Malt & Vine, etc). Big box, groceries, and minimarts, will of course be a pure(and fair) supply and demand, although I would expect if you knew/got to know the alcohol purchaser at whatever store opens near you, you could have them order what you wanted. You can also order online already, as I have ordered Everclear(the real 95% that is 'illegal' in WA) online from California.

We already have a higher underage drinking per-capita, than California. 1100, will allow(weather they actually do is up to them and the legislature) to focus on enforcement instead of pushing and advertising alcohol sales.

It will take the LCB out of the pushing business, and allow/force them to focus on the reason they were created, which is enforcement.

Private sales would result in more underage drinking. Our current percentage in Washington state is 94% enforement rate; whereins, states w/ private liquor sales is 75%. That's one in four teenages would be able to get hard liquor. To ensure public saftey in preventing drunken driving accidents is a good enough reason for me. I'll pay more, and maybe even drink a little less.

A little history...after Prohibition our state systems were designed to foster moderation. One idea was to shift from high-alcohol content products (hard liquor) to lighter products. During Prohibition, hard liquor was the product of choice. After Prohibition, substantial regulations fostered drinking of beer and light wine. You will find such purposes in statutes. At that time, beer was usually 3.2% alcohol and there was a purposeful shift in how it was sold. Before Prohibition, it was sold in kegs and buckets; after Prohibition it was offered for sale primarily in single serving size cans and bottles so people could monitor how many drinks they consume. Hard liquor was sold in more tightly controlled sales environments: liquor or "package stores" with controlled access (must be 21 to enter), curtailed hours (most close by 10 pm and aren't open on Sunday or holidays), and limited numbers of stores. ("License" states have these systems also and sometimes are more tightly controlled than Washington's state stores.) Beer was much more widely available. This strategy was very successful as Americans drink of choice since Prohibition is beer. While you can get as drunk on beer, you can get drunker, faster on hard liquor. And, the drunker you get...you tend to "over-pour" and pay little attention to the number of standard-size drinks consumed. Alcohol poisoning almost always occurs with hard liquor...its just a more dangerous product. The widespread availability of hard liquor at low prices is of great concern for youth as 90% of their drinking is binge drinking. Obviously, beer companies want to preserve this system...but there also is a public interest in doing so.

Annie's answer was quite correct. The Costco measure includes a tax on hard liquor, but its not enough to capture revenue from the current tax plus the profit the state makes from the business. It is very far off the mark. Increasing sales could make up some lost revenue, but you would have to increase it by a very large amount to make a big difference...and getting a lot more people to buy and drink a lot more booze is not a good idea. The social consequences would be significant...for example, DUI fatalities went up in Washington last year...why make that worse?

Measure 1100 will not likely "improve alcohol enforcement" because you can't "focus on enforcement and education" without the funds to do so. There is nothing in the bill that would require the state to hire more enforcement agents or spend more on education. In fact, these functions will likely get less money. The reason is that both 1100 and 1105 result in millions less in revenue for state and local governments, according to the state Office of Financial Management. Measure 1100 does establish a tax on hard liquor but it is not high enough to capture the amount the state now receives from the current tax and from the profits it now makes. This means that there will be less money for liquor law enforcement, general law enforcement, and education...all things that current revenue supports. The legislature and local governments will have to figure out how to deal with the loss. Some may raise other taxes and fees...but that is not a popular option these days; most will cut current services. These measures are big loosers for the public.

According to the non-partisan Office of Financial Management, I-1100 will cost the state up to $85 million over 5 years and it will cost cities and counties an additional $192 million over the same time period. That revenue goes to fund K-12 education, healthcare for seniors and people with disabilities, and public safety services like cops and firefighters.

http://ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/default.asp

The obvious answer to your question is, "By passing either of the two initiatives about which you've been invited to ask questions." Did you mean to ask something different, Rice?

That's not a question, it's a redundant heading ("i-1100 and i-1105") followed by a statement of your desire to know the answers to two questions.

I can't answer your question, but I suggest that you reword it as a question, and that you use the correct initiative number when doing so. "State legislators opposing I-100?" isn't a question; it's just a sentence fragment with a question mark tacked on. I suggest, "Which state legislators have publicly voiced their opposition to I-1100?"

why should we? alcohol is a controlled substance and like all controlled substances , the state controls them. Alcohol is still a drug and should NOT be easy to buy or sell. Privatizing liquor takes the selling of the drug out of the hands of entities that care about public health and public safety and puts it in the hands of entities that only care about making money.

Costco is not elected to protect or to serve our communities and should not be able to profit off selling drugs without any responsibility to consumers and community members.

The measures to privatize will increase the amount of regulatory and law enforcement needed to ensure that the other REAL impacts on public health and public safety are reduced (i.e. more stings, more raids, more DUI roadblock, more detox centers, possible more (not less, as is currently proposed in Seattle) restrictive sales hours, etc.), while simultaneously slashing and burning the current $330 million revenue that the state liquor board earns from being the seller.

the only way mom and pop liquor stores won't ruin communities is to increase public service, public helath, and public safety resources. oh wait, the currently self-sustaining budget for state liquor board will be eliminated. oh, yeah, i know we'll use all that money from the new state income tax instead!!