Mrs. Gregoire gave an interview to the P-I last week, pouring cold water on recent proposals in the legislature and by the State Auditor to privatize the state liquor stores.
It's hardly surprising that Gregoire would fight to protect the jobs of several hundred unionized public employees and their unfunded defined benefit pensions. But her stated reasons for opposing properly licensed but private sector liquor business is a mush of hysterical exaggeration and easily refuted fabrications.
Her answer to the State Auditor's proposed option of auctioning off a limited number of liquor franchises, as they did in West Virginia 20 years ago, was:
"This idea that we go the way of auctioning off, like West Virginia, let's be clear, you'll get rid of all your mom and pops," she said. "You'll have what they have, which is Rite Aid sells all liquor,Hardly. An easy perusal of West Virginia's Retail Liquor licensees shows that while Rite-Aid is the entity with the single largest number of franchises (43 / 166), it hardly "sells all liquor" in that state. It's clear from the licensee list that there are many entities, including small LLCs and individuals who own a single liquor franchise. A spokesman for the WV Alcohol Beverage Control Administration couldn't give me sales volume by franchise, but he did say that there were "many independent operators in the state who are doing quite well."
I think that many consumers would agree that it would be preferable to allow the market to determine the number and location of liquor licensees (as we do with licensed restaurants and wine shops) than to have the state auction off a small number of franchises per county as they do in West Virginia. But Gregoire argues against any form of privatization, and by making factually untruthful assertions and raising unfounded fears:
You look at our minor consumption sales - we're well below any state that has it privatized, by like 10 percent.What are "consumption sales"? Is she talking about consumption by minors or sales to minors? I called the Governor's Office for clarification and documentation of that claim. I was referred to Brian Smith, communications director of the Washington State Liquor Board. He wasn't the source of the Governor's statement, and acknowledged that he didn't have any specific figures comparing underage purchases or consumption between Washington and any other state. But he tried to explain the Governor's statement by citing two loosely related facts: (1) the liquor board's own enforcement checks show that Washington state liquor stores have a 94% compliance rate at deterring underage attempts to purchase liquor, while its retail alcohol licensees have only a 74%- 84% compliance rate. So that's where Gregoire's "10%" supposedly comes from. (2) Smith attributed the comparison between Washington and privatized states to the claim that "adult alcohol consumption in states with state-controlled alcohol sales is lower, on average, than in states without state control".
Whether or not that difference exists, or is statistically significant, let alone evidence of a causal link between a state monopoly and lower alcohol consumption is another question. But it has nothing to do with what Gregoire said about "minor consumption sales" being 10% "below any state that has it privatized". She just made that up. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite of what she implied.
According to the U.S. government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the rate of underage drinking in Washington state is 31.3%, higher than most states with non-state liquor sales and 9% higher than the national average of 28.8%. Underage binge drinking in Washington is 13% higher than the national average. Too bad Sarah Palin didn't say what Gregoire claimed, because then the P-I and Andrew Sullivan might have done the fact-checking before I had to.
More importantly, maybe the difference between state liquor stores and ordinary licensed retail liquor stores has no bearing on underage drinking after all.
Gregoire concluded by asking:
what are the social policy issues that are implicated here and is that the right direction?Well, according to the National Institutes of Health, West Virginia has the lowest per capita liquor consumption in the nation, just as they did before they allowed the Bartrug family of Hundred, WV (pop. 344) to sell vodka at the Old Hundred Liquor store.
And Washington's per capita liquor consumption slightly exceeds the national average, even though we're one of only 8 states where the government retains a monopoly on retail liquor sales -- in the guise of controlling consumption. We even drink more liquor per capita than they do in California, even though they can buy their booze in Safeway. Maybe the difference between a state liquor monopoly and ordinary licensed retail sales has no bearing on alcohol consumption and its negative side affects after all.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Email ThisSocialism is bad, even when it's applied to something I personally never plan on imbibing.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 15, 2010 01:32 PMOTOH, I completely disagree that the only reason to keep state control of liquor sales is to protect state workers, as Ms. Gregoire apparently sees it. That's all wrong. It should simply be what serves the citizens best. She should stop lying.
Posted by: Michele on January 15, 2010 03:04 PMAnyone see a disconnect here?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 15, 2010 03:58 PMOh wait, there aren't any. And it was so convenient to buy some vodka when I picked up the crab and other ingredients for dinner tonight...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 15, 2010 04:42 PMI've never lived in a state with state-run liquor stores before, and the concept still amazes me. Trust me though: it works just fine when regular people sell it.
Posted by: jvon on January 15, 2010 07:20 PMSo that's where Gregoire's "10%" supposedly comes from.
Yes, amazingly enough, 94% - 84% = 10%. (Note that Governor Gregoire was erring on the side of caution; she could have claimed 15%, or even 20%, without exaggerating.)
According to the U.S. government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the rate of underage drinking in Washington state is 31.3%,...
Here's where the author of the post confuses two completely different sets of statistics. Gov. Gregoire, despite the author's (feigned?) confusion, was clearly talking about sales of alcohol to minors, over the counters of liquor stores. The National Survey is about consumption, without any reference to how the minor obtained the alcohol. (When I was a minor, my parents bought beer for me. Thus, there was no illegal sale of alcohol to me, but I did illegally consume it -- just as the disparity between 10% and 31.3% here suggests.)
Now, had the author read Sound Politics' recent post about heathcare, he would know the huge role economic incentives play in human behavior -- the very act of paying an insurance premium helps to determine intimate personal choices, according to that post. Now, who has more incentive to sell alcohol illegally: a union employee at a state-run store, who could lose his well-paying job with benefits, or a minimum-wage employee with no benefits at a private store? That's the driver behind the 10-20 per cent difference the Governor accurately stated.
So, is the confusion here feigned, or the result of chronic heavy alcohol use?
Posted by: tensor on January 16, 2010 03:21 AMIn my experience with the the private sector, if an employee sells tobacco or alcohol products to a minor it is grounds for immediate termination. That was pretty strong motivation not to sell alcohol and tobacco to minors.
I was an 18 year government employee and though it may be hard for reds to comprehend, there actually are union member dirtbags employed by the state who actually do bad things while on the job. I can think of a union turd who was shooting up in stairwells while on the job.
Instead of subsidizing union jobs and incoveniencing the public, we should end the state liqor monopoly in Washington State.
Bottom line: Gregoire and Tensor only want public welfare for liberal union goons. They don't give a rat's behind for kids or substance abuse. It's all about, and always has been about, AFSCME and SEIU jobs.
Posted by: Attila on January 16, 2010 08:53 AMThe only reason for criminalizing online gambling is that the state can't get any tax revenue from the offshore sites. It was and is never about protecting the public, only about increasing the governmental revenue streams.
Posted by: FurryOldGuyJeans on January 16, 2010 09:51 AMAs far as legalization is concerned, I'm totally in favor of it. It's about time we realize pot is not going way, and people will choose to enjoy whether or not the government approves. The rational thing to do, at this point, is to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. It's not a substance for kids, for sure, but it's not the end of the world as we know it. Marijuana has been around for millions of years, and people have a right to enjoy this substance should they choose to do do. If you don't like it, then, by all means, don't use marijuana.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 16, 2010 11:06 AMI have no objection to legalizing marijuana, even though I have zero interest in using it myself.
But if it's legal, restricting its sale through government liquor stores makes no more sense than restricting the sale of beer, Kahlua or cigars through government liquor stores. If the citizens want marijuana to be legal, but the sales controlled more than beer or cigars, then why not sell it through pharmacies, who are already licensed and trusted to sell highly regulated prescription drugs -- including ones that have a potential for abuse, such as opium.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 16, 2010 12:46 PMYour idea would work with me. I support full legalization of marijuana. The distribution channel can be any number of methods. Whatever works is fine with me.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 16, 2010 03:22 PM"I grow and sell pot illegally now and have for years- the government doesn't know and will never know. Neither I nor my consumers pay tax on it, why in the hell would I start cutting the government in 'taxing the hell out of it' after it is legalized?"
Do yourself and the world a favor- move out of your mom's basement, find a job and a passion besides smoking pot.
Posted by: Andy on January 17, 2010 09:24 AMMarijuana ain't goin' away, sports fans. It's time we come to the rational and sane conclusion that people want to use and enjoy this substance. If you don't want to use marijuana, then don't. The libertarian in me says that you're entitled to not do something if you choose to. Let those who enjoy marijuana do it legally and without an oppressive government campaing against personal liberty and freedom.
If Tim Eyman ran an initiative campaign for legalization and sanity when it comes to marijuana, I'd be the first signer on his lists and I'd work for the initiative itself.
Mr. Eyman - I know you read this stuff - what do you say?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 17, 2010 04:45 PMIt's a matter of convenience - you can brew beer at home, but few people actually do. It's messy and easier to just buy a six-pack.
Sure, some people will "grow their own" when pot is legalized, but the vast majority of those who choose to enjoy this substance will buy it. Wheter it comes from the private sector or a state-owned liquor store is not the issue. The issue is legalizing something that should never have been made illegal in the first place! It's about personal freedom to do what you choose to do.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 18, 2010 12:23 PMI think if pot were legal, home growers would also share in the same way, but why risk doing some illegal when people can just buy it themselves legally? Sure, they could probably undercut the government, but the vast majority who want it will just buy it, just like booze.
Let people drink if they want it. Let them smoke pot if they want it. Get rid of liberal nanny staters.
Posted by: Palouse on January 18, 2010 03:46 PM