I was thankful to go to sleep Nov. 8 knowing that Initiative 1183 had passed, successfully privatizing the sales of liquor in the state of Washington. We all watched the obnoxious commercials for the last few months until we could practically recite them by heart, but those of us who did our research found that there was a lot more to the matter than just the sale of alcohol.
I was appalled by the amount of deceptive commercials in this year’s ad campaign against 1183; claims that public safety would be jeopardized, teens would have greater access to alcohol and mini-marts around the state would be able to sell liquor. When I took the time to look into the facts, I liked what I saw. All those misconceptions that were broadcast by anti-1183 national liquor companies were cleared up in just a few minutes of browsing “factson1183.com.”
Starting June 1, 2012, private retailers, such as Costco and Safeway, will be able to begin selling “spirits” in their stores. However, the $50-$60 million increase in revenue and getting the state out of the liquor business were good enough reasons for me to vote “yes.”
That extra money will go toward funding important programs in our communities such as education, health care and public safety. And as for privatizing the actual sale of hard liquor, I didn’t think that should have been the state’s duty in the first place.
Why should our government be a provider of one of the products that is the cause of alcohol-related accidents and fatalities? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Apparently state-owned liquor stores were supposed to reduce the number of accidents compared to privatizing sales, at least, that’s what the ads claimed.
Liquor is already sold by private stores in 42 other states, none of which have reported an increased number of alcohol-related accidents or fatalities. According to a study by the Commonwealth Foundation, “Privatization is associated neither with increased alcohol consumption nor increased traffic fatalities involving impaired drivers.”
The amount of state control over alcohol sales has no proven connection to underage drinking or DUI fatalities, and any ad that claimed it did, was bluffing.
As a teenager myself, I can guarantee you that teens are not getting their hard liquor from stores. They’re finding it in their homes, getting it from older siblings, friends, everywhere except the actual liquor stores.
I am a non-drinker and am not as interested in the accessibility or price of liquor or wine. However, I still saw a lot of common sense and appeal in voting yes for 1183. It is a step forward in generating new revenue and updating the liquor laws in our state. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial back in September, “The state’s job should be to regulate liquor, not sell it,” and that’s exactly what 1183 will solve.
Hillary Sanders is an Inglemoor High graduate.
