Nearly eleven years ago, Michelle Malkin had a column entitled " Washington Liquor Board out of date, out of control."
And judging by this story today from Brier Dudley at the Times today, little has changed.
According to the story, an entrepeneur named Karim Varela started i-booze.com, a web-based delivery service for wine, beer, and tobacco products, promising delivery in an hour. It seems like an excellent idea. Instead of walking, or worse yet driving, to the nearest 7/11 for a second six-pack, boozers could now have it delivered to their door.
It's safer for the boozer, and safer for anyone who happens to be between his house and the store. It perhaps would be even better if the boozer plans ahead & buys enough to last the night. But let's face it, if boozers were good at planning ahead, they wouldn't be boozers. Who knows, i-booze might even have saved an elected official from one of the DUI's that they so frequently collect.
Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr and the WSLCB did not see it that way, however. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated. That might make sense at a store or bar (I would argue it is the drinkers responsibility to know when to say 'when'). In any case, it makes no sense when applied to a home delivery service. Even so, Carr and the WSCLB mounted a sting operation. They were busted, the business was shut down, and three people lost their jobs.
In one fell swoop, the liquor board killed a business, increased public drunkenness, slapped a criminal charge on a guy for doing nothing other than trying to make an honest buck, and wasted scarce law enforcement resources. The WSLCB agents are sworn, armed officers. Instead of stinging and raiding an honest businessman, they could have been, I don't know, maybe working on a way to keep a child rapist behind bars?
And invoking the recent police shootoing is just plain sleazy.
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 10:00 PMAs for 'sleazy,' how so? LE resources are scarce resources. When the state puts manpower into a raid like this, why would it be sleazy to point out that there are much bigger problems that go unattended?
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on December 3, 2009 11:03 PMWith respect to home deliveries of alcohol, there's no compelling evidence that you've provided that DUIs would be reduced. Likewise, there are distinct regulations and public safety concerns that should be addressed. I have no problem with the idea per se, and I have no love for the WSLCB, but if this business can't follow the same rules as everyone else, why exactly should they be allowed to break the law?
Posted by: demo kid on December 5, 2009 08:08 AMThat is a) a poor argument; b) a strange definition of 'sleazy.'
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on December 5, 2009 03:03 PMAnd my argument is hardly poor. You've pretty much shown that you have an overly simplistic view of law enforcement, and you can't even grasp that in some situations, the law needs to be -- gasp! -- enforced.
Posted by: demo kid on December 6, 2009 09:54 AMWhy did Gov. Gregoire state shortly after the shooting "I have directed all of the criminal justice resources of this office, including our Homicide Investigation Tracking System and HITS Unit criminal investigators, be made available to those conducting the investigation into these assassinations." After all, those are state resources, same as the WSLCB, and according to your lights could not possibly be directed to a Pierce County case.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on December 7, 2009 12:01 AMI severely doubt it will go anywhere. Opossition from the union is predictable, and we have the Governor of the government (as Dino Rossi called her) calling the shots.
In theory there should be great economic upside and it should be possible to craft a deal where everyone comes away a winner. But for various reasons I doubt it will happen.
Posted by: travis t on December 8, 2009 02:56 PM