// have removed this stuff


The Cons:

“I-1105 would keep the middle-men in liquor sales – the distributors – in place, along with the costs they add to the price.”

The Bellevue Reporter

“I-1105 has the further flaw of repealing existing liquor taxes while banking on the Liquor Control Board and Legislature’s ability to put new taxes in place. That would be another senseless distraction for legislators who will be dealing with not only a budget crisis, but also the possibility of a reinstituted two-thirds requirement for tax increases.”

The News Tribune

“To us, putting a middleman — the distributor — into state statute ensures someone else will always take a financial swig of the booze, just as the state does now.”

The Yakima Herald Republic

“PubliCola strongly urges readers to vote against both liquor-privatization initiatives, which would wreak havoc on the state budget, hurt small businesses, increase underage drinking, and threaten public safety statewide [...] Both of these privatization measures are written to favor big businesses at the expense of consumers, public safety, and basic state services.”
“I-1105 is a shitty proposal. It gets rid of both the state’s liquor markup and taxes, meaning that if Eyman’s I-1053 passes—that’s the one that effectively prevents the legislature from raising taxes—the state would lose all liquor-tax revenues for at least two years at a time when money is tight. That would devastate some good programs. It would also require a distributor middleman for all booze sales forever—essentially shifting the monopoly from the state to the hands of private distributors.”

The Stranger

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>